House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business Before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The Government are committed to providing high-quality public services. Over recent years, the civil service has delivered in the face of unprecedented challenges, but the civil service workforce has increased by 25% since June 2016. Given the wider economic pressures we face, it is therefore right that we look again at improving efficiency and reducing the cost of delivering high-quality public services. We will look at options for achieving that.
Geraint Davies
As a result of the Minister’s botched Brexit deal, more and more civil servants have been doing border checks for goods, doing trade deals that the EU would have done better and more profitably for the UK, and making up new environmental farming laws for the sake of it when we cannot even pick our own fruit and butcher our own meat, only for thousands of civil servants to be sacked so that it takes 12 weeks to get a passport or a driving licence. Does this not mean that the massive further cut in civil servants will lead to more service delays and more pain from less public services? The Minister should be taking a lead from his Prime Minister: resign and leave, so that a better Administration can be put in place to run this country.
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is a general rule in public life that whatever the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) says, it is likely to be wrong. Unfortunately, he started his question by saying that we had taken on too many civil servants and ended by saying that we did not have enough, so even within his own question, he was in a deep state of confusion.
The result of Brexit is that we are free to make our own way, to make our own rules, and to diverge from the European Union. That is fundamental and, fascinatingly, it is a freedom that people voted for, including the people of Wales whom the hon. Gentleman tries to represent in this House. What we need to do is to be efficient and spend taxpayers’ money wisely, but the socialist confusion always wants to get it wrong.
Chi Onwurah
Passport delays, driving licence delays, benefit delays, visa delays—which bit of backlog Britain is the Minister going to break further in order to slash the civil service? Does he agree that the civil service did not cause the financial crisis, and that it is not causing inflation? The civil service responded magnificently to covid, and it is now covering for a Conservative party that is too intent on squabbling internally to deliver competent government.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am happy to give the credit for the financial crisis to Gordon Brown, formerly of this place —[Interruption.] Indeed, he is the famous seller of the gold at a bargain basement price.
The hon. Lady is confusing two different things. There have not been reductions in the Passport Office; these are proposed reductions. What is going on is that too many people are still working from home. We need to get people back in the office doing their jobs, but we can also do more with fewer people. We see that already with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: when one applies for things with the DVLA online, those things are mainly being returned extremely quickly. There are great efficiency savings to be made by using better technology and turning things around effectively and speedily.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
While Tory leadership hopefuls fight over who can be the most economically incompetent to win their members’ favour, the UK’s public services are at breaking point. The Passport Office, the DLVA, the courts, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are all struggling with huge delays. The public are crying out for the Government to act, and what do we get? A proposal to slash vital civil servants’ jobs that will only exacerbate problems, not fix backlogs. The Government could not be more out of touch with the priorities of communities across the country, so I ask the Minister how the public can trust a Tory Government mired in disarray and division, and governed by self-interest rather than public duty, to deliver much-needed, high-quality public services.
Mr Rees-Mogg
What we are trying to do is get back from the covid backlog. It is undoubtedly the fact that people have not been going into their offices. If we take the DVLA as an example, the mail was not being opened. It was piled up in room after room because people were not going in. Some 4 million envelopes were unopened because people were not going into the office, because of a combination of the requirements of covid and the excessive rules of the socialist Welsh Government that made it very difficult for people to go in. That backlog has to be dealt with, but technology is unquestionably the answer. Try renewing your tax disc with the DLVA, Mr Speaker: you can do it in seconds. You no longer have to go into a post office to do it. That is the type of efficiency we need.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Minister for that very thorough answer, but we have to move on otherwise nobody else will get in, and we all want to hear Lee Anderson.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
A quarter of the more than 60 cross-Government commitments have been delivered to date, with recent achievements including rolling out the Great Place to Work for Veterans scheme, the completion of the scoping study into digital verification, and the appointment of the first Veterans Commissioner for Wales. I will publish a formal update on progress in the autumn.
Lee Anderson
We have thousands of veterans in this country who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, which can affect their ability to hold down a relationship or hold down a job. There is a lot of help out there, but veterans are a proud bunch and many are hard to reach because they are too proud to reach out for help. What more can the Government do to make sure these hard-to-reach veterans are reached and supported?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for his relentless advocacy for the small but very important cohort who struggle with life after service. We have now established Op Courage, the UK’s first single care pathway through NHS mental health services for those who need them. It had 19,000 referrals in its first year last year. I encourage people to engage with the service to talk about their mental health and not suffer in silence. Help is there, and I say to them, “You can get better, and the system is there to look after you.”
Scott Benton
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. To achieve that, we must prioritise supporting veterans with their mental health. Will my hon. Friend set out how the new digital identification service will contribute towards that?
Johnny Mercer
The digital verification service is an extremely important part of being able to identify the veterans cohort, of which no Government have ever really had a true understanding. We are making significant progress. I recognise that individuals want a veterans ID card, which will be a result of it. Alpha testing is going on now and we are looking to do beta testing next year. I am hopeful we will have something online by April next year.
James Sunderland
I have heard lots of accusations over the past few weeks that Veterans UK is both judge and jury; in other words, it operates as the assessor and the awarder of assistance to veterans. Are there any plans to review Veterans UK or to conduct an inquiry?
Johnny Mercer
First, I pay tribute to the staff of Veterans UK, who work incredibly hard in a very under- invested system that is still working off paper records. The Government have committed to a £44 million spend to turn it into a digital service, which will undoubtedly increase and improve its output. I share my hon. Friend’s concern, certainly about the data on how many appeals have been overturned. I understand the processes for it, but my very clear view is that the service is not good enough for our veterans at the moment. I will bring forward plans for how we can improve it in due course.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Just how long have this Government been in power, and how many more suicides of veterans will take place before we see firm action to follow through on mental health and get these men the real support that they want? I am the son of a veteran. I know what it is like for someone to finish service, having had traumatic experiences fighting for their country.
Johnny Mercer
The topic of veteran suicides is incredibly serious. The data shows that someone is statistically less likely to take their life if they have served, but every suicide is a tragedy for the individual, the family and the nation that they serve. There is more help available now than there ever has been. Yes, we did start from a pretty low base, but the system is working, with 19,000 referrals through Op Courage last year. The help is available, and I urge all those who suffer in silence to understand that the situation has changed. We will continue to make progress until we have the world-class veteran care that veterans deserve.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
What progress have Ministers made on giving further statutory standing to the veterans covenant?
Johnny Mercer
This is the first Government to have brought in—through the Armed Forces Act 2021—a statutory requirement on health, housing and education. I am clear that that is a floor, not a ceiling. We are looking to expand what that legislation can do at some point. This is all about making sure that veterans are not disadvantaged, which was the whole point of the armed forces covenant. We will see how the legislation goes—it is the first time that this has been done anywhere in the world—and how it plays out in communities, and we will make sure that it delivers for those who need it. We are always prepared to look at doing more to ensure that veterans are not disadvantaged by their service.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place and look forward to his contribution as a Minister on veterans issues. On funding for privately operated rehabilitation facilities, will he confirm his intention to make sustained grant funding available to charities such as SSAFA and Beyond the Battlefield—one of the charities in my Strangford constituency—which provide services that the Government seem unable to provide for veterans they seem unable to reach?
Johnny Mercer
The beauty of Op Courage is that it does precisely that: it brings order to the various charities and enables them to bid in to run contracts, so that they can run the complex treatment service, the high intensity service and the transition liaison service. It gets them on a sustainable footing and away from year-to-year funding, providing certainty not only for those who do the brilliant work in the charities sector, but for those who need it, so that there is some permanence to the system and veterans can rely on that help.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Kit Malthouse)
My Department has been working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to assess the impact on food prices as a result of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and other pressures.
Selaine Saxby
Given the huge increase in costs that farmers are enduring, what is being done to balance the need to mitigate food price increases with ensuring that farmers are paid fairly for their products?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right to identify an extremely challenging part of the global cost of living crisis that we are trying to confront. Critical in that is the role of farming and the production of food domestically. One key area where we are able to assist and where lots of work is going on is the provision of fertiliser. She is a rural MP, as am I, so she will know that fertiliser is a key driver of overall food prices. I am pleased to say that for some weeks, DEFRA has been running a fertiliser taskforce, which is doing valuable work to stabilise the market and help farmers to optimise their use of artificial fertiliser.
John Lamont
I visited a farm in my constituency in the Scottish Borders last week, alongside the National Farmers Union of Scotland. The cost of feed, fertiliser and many other essential products has skyrocketed, and that is clearly pushing up food prices. What more can the Government do to help our farmers and support this important industry?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, although sadly the provision of food is devolved north of the border. We are working very closely with the Scottish Government to make sure that they put in place adequate provision to assist farmers. Here in England, for example, we have introduced the basic payment to help with cash flow. That has been welcomed by the industry, but the key driver of the fertiliser price will dog us for some time. If prices are too high, farmers will use less fertiliser. If they use less fertiliser, there will be lower yields and smaller animals, which means higher prices. Getting that combination right is critical, as is encouraging and supporting farmers through direct subsidy to return to the old-fashioned fertiliser use of animal slurry. We are helping them with their storage capacity and capability, so that they can optimise their yields from the crops that they sow.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
One of the most worrying increases in food prices is for infant formula, some of which is now so expensive that it is security-tagged or kept behind the till, because families have resorted to stealing it. What are the Government doing to make sure that infant formula is available to families who need it? At this price, many cannot afford it at all?
Kit Malthouse
We are monitoring all prices very closely, particularly for vital products such as formula. I know that the hon. Lady will welcome the support that is going to 8 million households on means-tested benefits, starting from today and with another instalment coming in the autumn, on top of the assistance that has already been given. We have now put something like £37 billion into the system to assist families, but we constantly keep these things under review and will act if needed.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Fresh fruit and vegetables are very important to everybody’s diet. We would like more people, especially people from poorer households, to be able to afford more. One of the problems is that we do not have enough people in the UK now to pick the British crop of fresh fruit and vegetables. How will we ensure that that happens?
Can we also ensure that fresh fruit and vegetables from overseas can get to supermarkets faster? I do not know what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s experience is when he buys peppers, courgettes, onions or potatoes, but my experience these days is that they have all gone off by the time I get home.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about access to ambient and fresh food for all of us. I know that the Home Secretary is in constant discussion with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the industry about the provision and balance of labour that we encourage to come to the country to help us with summer harvesting, for example. We also need to work hard to ensure that the bulk of our imported fresh food gets here quickly and can enter the supply chain extremely quickly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I will work closely over the summer to ensure that our short, straight supply lines are maintained as efficiently as possible.
I have a small domestic tip for the hon. Gentleman that I learned from a friend who works in the industry. It is extremely important that the chill chain is maintained. If he can get chilled food as quickly as possible into his fridge, it will last a lot longer than if he leaves it hanging around and then chills it again. That is particularly true of dairy products.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Aberdeen Financial Fairness Trust and Bristol University have tracked the fortunes of UK households since the beginning of the pandemic. They report that one in six UK households is suffering serious financial difficulties, and the situation is getting worse. Many households have reduced the quality of the food they eat, sold possessions or cancelled insurance to help them to cope. Single parents, disabled people and larger families are among the worst affected. What steps does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster intend to take to tackle the price rises that are driving this inequality and poverty?
Kit Malthouse
I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that we are part of an international global food supply chain and are subject to a global fuel and energy market that is broadly driving up prices for pretty much every developed nation, and indeed across the whole of the globe. She is right, though, that we need to seek to assist those who are struggling most in this challenging time. I was very pleased to see it announced in the media that the first of the cost of living payments will go to 8 million households across the country this month, with a further payment of £320-odd later in the year, on top of the £300 extra to pensioners, the £150 extra to those who have disabilities and, of course, the £400 discount on energy bills later this year. We are putting an enormous amount of money—£37,000,000,000—into the system to assist with what is undoubtedly a very challenging period for families up and down the land.
Kirsten Oswald
I hear what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says, but I am afraid that in terms of people’s real experience in their day-to-day life, it is not enough. It is not good enough. Families across the UK know that the Tory Government here are not doing enough with the powers that they have. Scotland has the lowest child poverty in the UK, and that has been achieved by policies such as the Scottish child payment that help households where it is needed the most. Here, we have Tory leadership candidates promising major tax cuts, which clearly indicates that they believe that there is financial headroom.
Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that the priority should be the people who are being hit hardest by the cost of living crisis, rather than tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations? What assessment has he made of the benefits of policies such as the child payment, which could make a real difference to households in need?
Kit Malthouse
I have learned over my years in government, national and local, that one of the key factors that we should have in mind is balance. While the hon. Lady is right that we should always have in mind the ability to assist those who are struggling most in our society, we have to balance that against the health of the economy and our ongoing ability to provide exactly that assistance. North of the border, as far as I can see, the Scottish Government concentrate on one and neglect the other. I am sure that there are many people who drive the wealth creation effort in Scotland who rue the day that the SNP Government took office, because Scotland has undoubtedly performed worse economically than other parts of the United Kingdom over the past 10 years.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Before I reply, I want to make it clear that the figure is 1.4 million envelopes at the DVLA—I misheard a helpful heckle.
I gave part of the answer to this question on 12 July, in reply to written parliamentary questions 29939 and 30195. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority provides expert advice and independent assurance on the Government major projects portfolio. Working alongside HM Treasury, which is responsible for value for money, it develops robust project cost estimates and builds capacity and capability to deliver effectively. The 2022 IPA annual report will set out progress made on the GMPP.
Marco Longhi
As a civil engineer, I was never an enthusiastic supporter of HS2 as the cost-benefit analysis of the project was never completely clear to me. One thing I know as a civil engineer is that project creep, and its related costs, is a very real thing. The Transport Secretary announced—in March—£1.7 billion of potential future cost pressures, so what steps is the Minister’s Department taking to ensure that cost pressures are managed pre-emptively rather than reacted to?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is wise to raise these important points, because taxpayers’ money must always be dealt with carefully. The Department for Transport is closely monitoring the rate of increase of potential contingency spend on HS2, together with any opportunities to realise cost savings through the monthly ministerial taskforce meetings. The £1.7 billion of potential future cost pressures reported in March is manageable within the phase 1 target cost of £40.3 billion given the level of remaining contingency, noting that that represents less than 4% of the overall budget.
Felicity Buchan
We need to cut the cost of the state and ensure that Government Departments spend our money—taxpayers’ money—in a prudent and commercial way. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to conduct a review of all major Government projects to ensure that we are doing that?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend. It is so important that with the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the Treasury we ensure that Departments spend money well. You and I, Mr Speaker, managed together to lay the framework for stopping potentially £20 billion, or whatever the ridiculous figure ended up as, being spent on restoration and renewal here when it all got completely out of control. It is so important that all public expenditure is kept under control, and we all have a duty to share in that.
Mr Mohindra
I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his place. I know he is sorely missed in the Home Office.
When the Labour party was last in government, it wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, including an astonishing £26 billion on a botched IT project. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the Conservatives can be trusted to responsibly manage taxpayers’ money?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, I agree philosophically and practically, because you will notice, Mr Speaker, that my hon. Friend and I carefully refer to taxpayers’ money when the socialists normally refer to it as Government money. There is no such thing; there is only taxpayers’ money that we have a duty to protect. When they are in office we see botched IT projects such as the NHS one that my hon. Friend referred to, costing £26 billion, but what have we done? We have an IT project that is working like billy-o, looking after hundreds of thousands of extra universal credit applications through the pandemic. The Tories know how to spend money sensibly.
Mr Speaker
Can I just that that was far too easy a wicket for the Minister to bat on? Patricia Gibson.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Well, crikey! This Government have a track record of waste and siphoning off public money through contracts given to friends of and donors to the Tory party. The Procurement Bill is an opportunity for them to end that reckless approach by making a cast-iron commitment to maximise the value of every pound of taxpayers’ money spent. What is value for money under a Tory Government? Is it an excuse to slash services and leave an open goal for their dodgy mates to profit at the public’s expense, or will they take a page out of Labour’s plan to buy, make and sell in Britain, which would distribute economic, social and environmental value across the country by boosting British businesses?
Mr Speaker
Order. For the record, may I say that it is easier if I call Members? I was actually calling Patricia Gibson, but do not worry—it is fine: I will come back to her later.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Once again, we hear the socialists calling for two different things, contradictorily, within the same question. First we should be focusing on value for money—yes, I absolutely agree—and then we should be putting all the hobby horses of the left into the procurement process. We want value for money, and that is what is being legislated for in the other place, and the Bill will come to this House in due course.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was down for a topical question, but as I listened to the sound of an alternative universe being played out in the Chamber with this talk about taking care of taxpayers’ money, I felt compelled to get to my feet.
The Public Accounts Committee has described the UK Government’s procurement of £4 billion of unusable personal protective equipment during the pandemic—which has had to be burnt—as the result of a “haphazard purchasing strategy”. Governing is all about responsibility, and we know how much those on the Treasury Bench care about looking after taxpayers’ money, so will the Minister explain who he thinks should be accountable and responsible for the “haphazard purchasing strategy” which has seen £4 billion go up in smoke?
Mr Rees-Mogg
You are right, Mr Speaker: I have got the point, and it is a terribly bogus point. At the height of the pandemic, all Opposition Members were calling for PPE to be delivered “yesterday”, and the Government managed to increase the proportion of domestically produced PPE from less than 1% to nearly 80%, excluding gloves. The hon. Lady talks as if the Scottish National party, our separatist friends, were any good at this. May I say to her “ferries, ferries, ferries”? That was one of the biggest and most scandalous wastes of money, and it was done by the SNP.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Nigel Adams)
The GREAT campaign promotes the UK’s trade and investment to global audiences, creating and sustaining UK jobs by growing the economy. I am proud to have worked closely with the campaign over the past year on various overseas activities which have promoted UK businesses and attracted significant investment in all four corners of our country.
Mr Holden
It was great to see you at the all-party parliamentary beer group event last night, Mr Speaker.
I think it is clear from the Minister’s response that the GREAT campaign has been a major success since Britain left the European Union. Does he agree that it is vital that the voices of my constituents on Brexit are heard by whoever becomes our next Prime Minister, and that we drive the GREAT campaign forward to deliver further opportunities from Brexit as a result of our freedoms in global trade?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is spot on. I am in no doubt that Conservative Members, along with our membership in the country, will hold all the leadership hopefuls to account on Brexit delivery. However, it is clear that the voters of North West Durham, who are brilliantly served by my hon. Friend, voted decisively to leave the European Union, as did the good people of my own constituency of Selby and Ainsty. As sure as night follows day, if—God forbid—the Labour party somehow, through a grubby deal with the Scottish separatists and the Liberal Democrats, got their hands on the levers of power, Brexit and all the freedoms that it affords us would be put at risk and the people of our nation betrayed.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Kit Malthouse)
The Government’s central mission is to level up the UK by spreading opportunity more equally across the whole country. Representatives of the Equality Hub in the Cabinet Office and the Social Mobility Commission are having regular discussions with levelling up leads and sharing key data on socioeconomic geographic equality, and that includes information on the commission’s new social mobility index.
Jon Trickett
But the Government’s own social mobility mission drew the conclusion that there was no social mobility in Britain, and in the meantime, levelling up is being used as a way of dishing out funds to Tory marginals. The truth is that in politics, the law, sport, the arts and business, working-class people face systemic barriers to personal progress. Has the Minister noticed that the wealth of the few is rooted in the poverty of the many? Does he agree, on behalf of the Government, that we need a root- and-branch transformation of the way our country works so that every single individual can achieve their full potential?
Kit Malthouse
That was a long question and I am afraid I only agree with the last sentence: we do want opportunity to be spread to every single individual. I find the hon. Gentleman a little churlish, given that in his part of the world £20 million from the levelling-up funding is supporting the Tileyard North development in Wakefield, we have put £24.9 million into the Wakefield town deal and the Mayor of West Yorkshire will get £1.4 billion for transport improvements in the coming cycle. These are all areas of Government expenditure that will improve the area in which he lives. If he wants to see social mobility writ large, I suggest he looks at the current candidates for the Tory leadership.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The spending review 2021 placed renewed emphasis on ensuring that every pound of taxpayers’ money was spent well and focused on the areas that make the most difference to people’s daily lives. At the spring statement 2022, Her Majesty’s Government also set out plans to ensure that Departments were delivering the highest- quality services at the best value.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Value for money is on the face of the Bill; it is a crucial part of what will be going on. When the Bill has completed its passage, it will be issued alongside principles of procurement for Government bodies to follow. This will ensure that value for money is put front and centre, which, it must be said, was the essence of the hon. Lady’s question. She asks what we are doing to ensure value for money, then when we do something to ensure it, she does not like it.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
The Government are committed to answering calls from the public in a timely manner. Where Departments are experiencing surges in demand, performance is being monitored and staffing is being increased. For example, for the weekend of 1 July, the Home Office answered 77% of calls to its helplines within 30 seconds, with an average wait time of one minute and nine seconds.
Kate Green
By definition, women eligible for Healthy Start vouchers are on low incomes, but the cost of making calls to the helpline at local rates is prohibitive for many, contributing to the cost of poverty. Will the Minister undertake to speak to Health colleagues to see what can be done to minimise the cost of that helpline and, more generally, look at the cost of calls to helplines across Government that are specifically designed to enable people on low incomes to reach the services and benefits intended to help them?
Michael Ellis
We are always looking at these matters. The Department for Work and Pensions reviews the forecasted telephony demand and plans its resourcing accordingly to keep wait times down. All DWP customer telephone lines are freephone numbers. Separately, I should say that the DWP is digitising key parts of its service to increase efficiency.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I am quite surprised by the answer that I will give to the hon. Gentleman, because listening to citizens and understanding their views from focus groups is more useful than I had thought. Focus group insights helped to drive the extraordinarily high levels of public engagement throughout the covid-19 pandemic. More than 80% of people were aware of key behaviours to keep safe and reduce transmission, and up to 82% said that they trusted the information in our advertising, so although I personally have always been suspicious of focus groups, they showed their value in helping to get the message across during the period of covid.
Mike Amesbury
This week we heard from a voter who had had the unfortunate pleasure of attending one of the focus groups organised by the former Chancellor. He was seething that he had been duped by the former Chancellor’s PR machine. Can the Minister explain how many more Government Departments are using taxpayers’ money for party political propaganda? Surely that is a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It would be quite wrong to use taxpayers’ money for party political processes. Focus groups do not do that; they are focused on how Government policy is presented to the voters. However, if the hon. Gentleman has evidence of malpractice, he should always bring it forward to the full attention of the House.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Kit Malthouse)
The Government were sorry to receive Lord Geidt’s resignation and are grateful for his work in the role. Any future appointment will need to be a matter for the new Administration, given that the adviser is a personal adviser to the Prime Minister and is appointed for a five-year fixed term.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
That could mean more delays, then. In two months’ time, we will have a new Prime Minister, who will need to appoint a new Cabinet, which in turn will need to appoint a new team of Ministers. There has been a lot of talk of a fresh start, but does the Minister agree that with no ethics adviser to advise the new Prime Minister on the nuances and importance of the ministerial code, all we will see is wallpapering over the cracks? When will the new ethics adviser be appointed?
Kit Malthouse
That is obviously a matter for the new Prime Minister, but the hon. Lady should not labour under the misapprehension that the maintenance of standards and ethical advising is wanting in Government. In the absence of the adviser, that obviously falls to the various permanent secretaries in each Department, who are in any event the first line of assessment for many of those questions. As I hope the hon. Lady will never find out, when one becomes a Minister, one of the key things to do is ensure that the permanent secretary in the Department is clear about one’s own personal interests, and maintain a dialogue with them about the standards with which one conducts the job.
Fleur Anderson
Talking of the highest possible standards, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm whether there have ever been Cabinet-level discussions about the conduct of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) before or since his appointment as Deputy Chief Whip, and about other MPs who may have conduct records that deserve investigation?
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Lady what we discuss in detail at Cabinet, but Cabinet is minuted and those minutes are available for public contemplation.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The Procurement Bill will enable simpler, more flexible procurement processes, increase transparency of planned procurements and ensure that 30-day prompt payment terms flow down the supply chain. This will provide small businesses, especially start-ups, with the time and assurance they need to bid for opportunities.
Mark Pawsey
My constituent is a driver who has suffered from cataracts and is required to take yearly eye tests. He would like those tests to be carried out by his local independent optician, but has been advised that a single provider holds an exclusive contract. I raised the matter with Ministers in the Department for Transport, who have told me that the situation arises because the Government are obliged to offer an exclusive contract because of EU procurement rules. Will the Procurement Bill enable smaller, independent businesses to conduct such tests and promote competition?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important point—that the Government, to achieve best value for money for taxpayers, will ensure that there are overarching contracts that are at the best price available. He then asks whether it will be possible for smaller companies to be part of that. It will be possible and easier for them to be part of the supply chain, but value for money must remain. In the specific case he raises, were Specsavers to carry on being much cheaper than using individual providers, I expect the Department for Transport would—and would be expected to—go down that route. If, on the other hand, competitive prices could be offered by smaller companies, it would be easier under the Procurement Bill for them to get into the process.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
The Government are committed to looking beyond London to all corners of the UK in the relocation of civil service and public sector roles. Through our Places for Growth programme, circa 6,000 roles have so far been relocated to our locations for growth. This includes more than 100 roles in the east midlands. As of December 2021, there were 980 roles in Derby from Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice.
Mrs Latham
The Minister will be aware that the east midlands has the lowest concentration of civil servants of any UK region, and Derby is right at the bottom. I have been campaigning to bring the headquarters of Great British Railways to Derby, which would help to solve this problem and would connect this country’s private and public sector rail industries. Does she agree that having the headquarters of Great British Railways in Derby would support the Government’s ambition to level up the country?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. As a Derbyshire MP, it is serendipitous that I have the joy of answering this question.
The national headquarters of Great British Railways will be outside London, demonstrating our commitment to levelling up. A shortlist of six exceptional applications, including the exceptional Derby, will now compete to be chosen. A six-week consultation and public vote— I urge everybody in Derbyshire to vote—will run until 15 August, allowing people across Great Britain to make their voice heard. I declare my interest as a Derbyshire MP, as I think I said at the beginning. During the public vote, the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), will visit each of the six shortlisted locations to hear and learn directly from representatives.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Kit Malthouse)
Before I answer this question, I will offer a small clarification of my previous answer. I think I said that Cabinet minutes are available for public contemplation, which, of course, they are—what I said is technically correct—but not until 30 years hence. Happily, I understand that limit is soon to fall to 20 years, so it will not be long for the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) to wait.
In answer to Question 19, the Government are, of course, committed to upholding standards in public life and reinforcing our system to do so. Tomorrow the Government will make a written ministerial statement detailing our work in response to the reviews conducted by Nigel Boardman and the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Rachael Maskell
Integrity matters. Integrity and ethics speak of character, character speaks of motivation, and motivation speaks of purpose. We are either on the side of our people in investing everything we have to serve, or we are on the side of ourselves in extracting everything we can get for ourselves. As self-serving Tories have exploited and extracted to the extent of putting this place into disrepute, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assure us that he will not only appoint an ethics adviser immediately but adopt Labour’s proposal of an independent integrity and ethics commission so that public trust can be restored?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of ethics and standards in this place and, indeed, in the whole of public life, right the way through from local government, but she is wrong to cast stones from one side of the House to the other. All parties in this House have had their share of issues in this area, and it is right that the system that polices all of us is independent. However, we agree with the Committee on Standards in Public Life that a single ethics commission
“seems disproportionate and does not sit well in our democratic system.”
When we have a new Prime Minister in the autumn, this will be among the chief priorities in their in-tray.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Kit Malthouse)
I am delighted to have been appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, taking over this key role from my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who is the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. He is now looking after the nation’s health and I am making sure that the Cabinet Office is match fit so that, in this time of flux in the body politic, the heart of Government is delivering and pumping strongly, primed to pursue our manifesto commitments and support the Prime Minister’s priorities, and ready for the incoming Administration.
I am extremely lucky to be supported in this task by some of the most doughty buttresses in our political system. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) sits alongside us once again, making his welcome return to the Front Bench as the United Kingdom’s first Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to attend Cabinet.
Lee Anderson
Not every civil servant and local government officer is back at work after the pandemic, which is creating backlogs and is a waste of taxpayers’ money, so what more can we do to ensure that every local government officer and civil servant is back in the office as soon as possible?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. He is right to say that we want to see as many people as possible back in the office, not just because it is more efficient and we think it is a better way for government to operate, but because we all, importantly, have a duty to the young. It is impossible for them to acquire the skills and abilities they need when they are working remotely. I own a young man in his 20s, my son, so I know how debilitating it would be for those who are starting their career to operate from their bedrooms, and those of us in senior positions have a moral duty to be present, in person, with them to give them the skills and abilities they need to advance their careers.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I welcome the new Ministers to their places on the Treasury Bench for what could be their first and last Cabinet Office orals. It is a pleasure to be here with them. Last week, the Prime Minister finally admitted to meeting former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev, a man who was sanctioned by the Canadian Government. This was directly after a top-level NATO meeting and just weeks after a chemical attack by Russian agents on British soil. No officials or security were present. I have written to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but am yet to receive a reply, so I hope he will answer my questions now. Did the Prime Minister take any papers from the NATO meeting? Was his phone compromised? Why do Foreign Office records show the presence of an unidentified guest? Given his responsibilities for national security and ministerial standards, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster believe this was inappropriate conduct by the Prime Minister?
Kit Malthouse
I am in receipt of the right hon. Lady’s letter. Obviously, a number of those questions have to be answered by No. 10. We will forward it to No. 10 and will be replying in due course.
Angela Rayner
I really hope that that “due course” is very quick, because this is an issue of national security, which is obviously of concern to many of our constituents. Let me move on to another very serious issue. Yesterday, our country reached the dark milestone of 200,000 covid deaths, which is a tragedy for our country and all those who have lost loved ones. The Prime Minister delayed the start of the public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic, with the hearings not expected until 2023, making a full inquiry unlikely before the next election. This week, reports suggest that the Government are trying to block evidence to the inquiry, with Ministers fearful that they could be sued for damages and officials apparently making evidence that could be withheld. There can be no hint of a cover-up or excuses for Ministers dodging scrutiny. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster deny those reports that have been put in the press? If not, how can he assure us and the public that the process will be independent?
Kit Malthouse
The right hon. Lady has her very own brand of toxic, which she attempts to pump into everything that the Government do. [Interruption.] No, no, we cannot conduct debate in this House on the, “When did you stop beating your wife?” questions. This inquiry will be independently chaired and thoroughly conducted. It will have statutory powers to summon evidence and witnesses, in the way that others have done. We are determined to learn the lessons of the covid pandemic, notwithstanding some of the enormous, difficult but nevertheless globally important decisions that the Prime Minister had to take, not least acquiring vaccines and researching vaccines before anybody else. Nobody thinks that everything that happened during the pandemic was perfect, but to start her contemplation of this issue by maligning the motives of those Ministers who put their shoulders to the wheel at a time of national emergency is, frankly, disgraceful.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Just to correct Opposition Members, let me say that we will have a new leader by 5 September—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are getting out of hand. These are topical questions and you should be short and to the point. Do you want to ask your question or not? If not, I will move on.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
This is a key part of the Procurement Bill. It is simplifying the system so that, instead of 350 pieces of EU law and four different regimes, there will be one UK law and one regime. There will be a pipeline that makes it known to small businesses when contracts are becoming available, giving them a better chance to get involved. Payment terms for small businesses will be improved. Many things in the Bill will be specifically designed to help small and medium-sized enterprises.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Mr Rees-Mogg
The reason that some DWP offices will not be needed is that unemployment did not rise in the way that was anticipated. We have the lowest level of unemployment in this country since 1974, and the highest number of people in payroll work, and it is only right that the estate of DWP meets the requirements of the DWP. We get huge efficiencies by implementing technology better. That has become clear in many Government activities. Labour party members always want to keep people on the payroll and then they do not want them to go into work: they either want to be on the picket lines helping them to strike, or they want to have them working at home.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Mr Rees-Mogg
Again, this is a very important point to raise. Central Government—the Cabinet Office’s Crown Commercial Service—is saving into the billions of pounds across Government, which is money that is then available for Departments. That saves those Department’s budgets and ensures more efficient procurement. We are also cracking down on fraud. I am looking forward to the launch of the public sector fraud authority, which hopes to be able to save £180 million in the first year of its operation.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
The Cabinet Office is conducting its own review of the matter, as the hon. Lady referred to. Any incident of racism is unacceptable anywhere, and every effort will be made to alleviate and extinguish the problem to which she refers. The Cabinet Office makes every concerted effort possible, and Ministers will continue to do that to eliminate the pernicious problem to which she refers. I do not accept the premise of her question that the Cabinet Office has an endemic problem in this area, but any example is serious.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Kit Malthouse
As new Ministers take their positions over the summer, their diaries will naturally be reviewed. If the hon. Gentleman experiences significant delays in achieving the promised meeting, he should write to me.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I mentioned, the public sector fraud authority will be announced shortly, but I think this attack on PPE is simply misplaced. The fact is that everybody in the country was calling for PPE—[Interruption.] In the world, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General helpfully points out. There was a dire and urgent need. Contracts were issued quickly to build up supplies, and there was not ministerial involvement in the award of contracts. Some 19.8 billion pieces of PPE were delivered; it was a successful effort to meet a dire need where the socialists opposite would have dithered and delayed.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Kit Malthouse
We all share the hon. Lady’s deep concern about the impact of energy prices on all citizens across the UK. As she knows and as I explained earlier, the Government are taking urgent and significant steps to help to alleviate that. In the autumn, there will be a £400 rebate on every electricity bill across the land to assist with those costs. However, as she knows, we are subject to a global energy market and we are working hard to see how we can be less vulnerable to those fluctuations and create more energy self-sufficiency.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
I am afraid the hon. Lady should have listened to the answers given at the urgent question the other day—[Interruption.] That is absolutely fine, thank you very much. She can read Hansard; we went into great detail. It is a matter of statute.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Michael Ellis
I heard what the review said and I thank the right hon. Lady for her continued diligence in this area. The infected blood scandal is an appalling tragedy that should simply never have happened. The Government are considering the recommendations and I can assure her that the matter is being given expeditious consideration. We will respond to the recommendations made by Sir Robert Francis QC in his study of a frame- work for compensation for victims just as soon as possible.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I listened with interest to the excellent question from the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and I welcome the Minister’s answer. Given that his predecessor for veterans, the Minister for Defence People, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), declined to uphold and totally disregarded the decision of this House to hold an inquiry, can I press this Minister further to expand a little more on what he suggested to the hon. Member for Bracknell earlier?
The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
My line on Veterans UK has always been the same: it has an incredibly difficult job after years of under-investment by Governments of all colours. It needs to improve its output, and I will be working closely with my colleagues and others—I did receive the hon. Gentleman’s letter this week—to ensure that veterans receive a better service from Veterans UK, conscious of the staff who work incredibly hard in that organisation.
British Special Forces in Afghanistan: New Allegations
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call John Healey to ask his urgent question, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that there are active judicial review proceedings in relation to the allegation of unlawful killings in Afghanistan. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters of sub judice to allow references to those legal challenges, as they concern matters of national importance. This applies to today’s urgent question and to relevant future business.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on new allegations concerning British special forces in Afghanistan.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your very careful consideration of this urgent question request.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (James Heappey)
On 12 July, the BBC broadcast an episode of “Panorama”, claiming evidence of criminality allegedly committed by the UK armed forces in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence is currently defending two judicial reviews relating to allegations of unlawful killings during operations in Afghanistan in 2011 and 2012. While I accept, Mr Speaker, that to allow today’s urgent question you have waived the convention that we do not discuss matters that are sub judice, advice from Ministry of Defence lawyers is that any discussion of specific detail of the cases would be prejudicial to the ongoing litigation, and thus I am afraid I simply cannot enter into detail about specific allegations made on specific operations relating to specific people.
Mr Speaker
I am slightly concerned. I did ask for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), to be fully briefed by officials within the MOD, so that I would not have to be put in this position. Unfortunately, that has not been forthcoming, so I am very disappointed. I would have thought that a senior Minister, and certainly officials, would have gone through why they will not be discussing this. That did not happen, and I have been put in this position, so I am disappointed that the MOD did not take it seriously.
James Heappey
Let me apologise on behalf of the Department for the fact that you, Mr Speaker, and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne were put in that position. I was not aware of the request that you had made, but I assure you that, when I return to the Department, I will investigate fully why that was not responded to in the way that it should have been.
We very much recognise the severity of these allegations, and where there is reason to believe that personnel may have fallen short of expectations, it is absolutely right that they be held to account. Nobody in our organisation, no matter how special, is above the law. The service police have already carried out extensive and independent investigations into allegations about the conduct of UK forces in Afghanistan, including allegations of ill-treatment and unlawful killing. No charges were brought under Operation Northmoor, which investigated historical allegations relating to incidents in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2013. The service police concluded there was insufficient evidence to refer any cases to the independent Service Prosecuting Authority. I stress that both these organisations have the full authority and independence to take investigative decisions outside of the MOD’s chain of command.
A separate allegation from October 2012 was investigated by the Royal Military Police under Operation Cestro. It resulted in the referral of three soldiers to the Service Prosecuting Authority. In 2014, after careful consideration, the director of service prosecutions took the decision not to prosecute any of the three soldiers referred. It is my understanding that all the alleged criminal offences referred to in the “Panorama” programme have been fully investigated by the service police, but we remain fully committed to any further reviews or investigations when new evidence or reason to do so is presented.
A decision to investigate allegations of criminality is for the service police. They provide an independent and impartial investigative capability, free from improper interference. Earlier this week, the Royal Military Police wrote to the production team of “Panorama” to request that any new evidence be provided to them. I am placing a copy of the RMP’s letter in the Library of the House. I understand that the BBC has responded to question the legal basis on which the RMP are requesting that new evidence, which makes little sense to me, but the RMP and the BBC are in discussions. As I have said, if any new evidence is presented to the Royal Military Police, it will be investigated.
I am aware that the programme alleges the involvement of a unit for which it is MOD policy to neither confirm nor deny its involvement in any operational event. As such, I must refer in generality to the armed forces in response to the questions that I know colleagues will want to ask, and I cannot refer to any specific service personnel who may or may not have served in those units.
We should continue to recognise that the overwhelming majority of our armed forces serve with courage and professionalism. We hold them to the highest standards. They are our nation’s bravest and best, and allegations such as these tarnish the reputation of our organisation. We all want to see allegations such as these investigated, so that the fine reputation of the British armed forces can be untarnished and remain as high as it should be.
John Healey
No one doubts the bravery of all those who served in Afghanistan, nor the extreme risks they faced. And the Minister is right: our British armed forces have a proud tradition of upholding the very highest standards of military ethics and professionalism, and the international laws of armed conflict and human rights. This is fundamental to Britain as one of the world’s leading democracies, so the allegations reported in Tuesday night’s “Panorama” programme could not be more serious—a pattern of suspicious deaths, with newly obtained military reports suggesting that one unit may have unlawfully killed 54 people in a single six-month tour; “drop weapons” planted to fabricate evidence, with the squadron’s reports “causing alarm at headquarters”; and those at the top warned, but not acting to stop the pattern of killings and withholding crucial details from the military police. Verifying the truth in any new evidence should matter most to military leaders and the MOD. This will not be buried.
What action are the Government taking to respond to the growing calls from military figures, including the former Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards, for a thorough investigation? I welcome the Minister’s statement today that, if there is any new evidence, it will be investigated, but how can he argue that the service police can credibly tackle this task when “Panorama” exposes the systemic failures in their investigations, just as the Government’s own Lyons review highlighted gaps in capabilities in the military police, and when the new defence serious crime unit, designed to fix the problems, will not be up and running until the end of the year?
There were similar claims from the same period against Australian special forces. However, these have been investigated thoroughly via a special inquiry commissioned by the head of the army, not Ministers. That inquiry had independence, justice and military experience, and welfare support. It had privacy, immunity and compulsory questioning powers to get to the truth. Justice Brereton’s report confirmed credible evidence that members of Australian special forces were responsible for the unlawful killing of 39 people. It made 143 recommendations, all accepted by the Australian defence force, and referred 36 matters to the federal police for criminal investigation. Will the Government now do the same and investigate these claims and any cover-up in the chain of command, to secure justice for any of those affected and above all to protect the reputation of our British special forces?
James Heappey
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: this will not be buried. Absolutely nobody in the Ministry of Defence wants to see these sorts of allegations buried. That does no service to our armed forces whatsoever. These allegations will be investigated fully, if the new evidence is handed over.
The investigation by the RMP itself has already been double-checked, as it were, by a recently retired chief constable and a senior QC, and they agreed that the investigation was sound. Further to that, there has been the Henriques review, published in October 2021, which recognised only too well that there were problems—failings, if you like—in the military justice system that needed to be resolved, so ahead of this there has already been a recognition that the military justice system could work better. The Henriques review identifies many of the ways that it could.
The Secretary of State was clear when I spoke to him earlier in the week on this matter that he is not ruling out any type of public inquiry or review if it is clear that there are failings that need to be looked at. The MOD wants this to be as transparent as possible, so that everybody can have confidence in the service justice system and the reputation of our armed forces can remain untarnished.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister is right to say that there is scope for a systems review, and we must always keep our processes under review. However, would he agree that it is very important not to make insinuations or suggestions that could tarnish the reputation of parts of our armed forces that are among our finest? Those of us who have experience of operations know how difficult circumstances can be. Would he agree with me that the overwhelming majority of the men and women of our armed forces serve this country and do our bidding with honour and courage, and we must not seek to disparage them in any way?
James Heappey
Obviously, I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend has said, and we do have to be careful. What was published on Tuesday was a television programme in which some new evidence, allegedly, was brought to light, but the service police have asked the BBC to share that evidence with them so that it can be investigated. Beyond that, a lot of the allegations, particularly those relating to individuals, were very carefully calibrated to reach a certain point without crossing a line that might have got the production team in trouble with libel lawyers. I think we have to be very careful, as my right hon. Friend says, to be clear that what is said in TV programmes is not said in a court of law and has not been investigated by the police. We have asked the production team to hand over the evidence they have, and we must very careful not to impugn individuals based on what a production company insinuated, rather than actually alleged, in the programme.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The overwhelming majority of those who serve in the armed forces do so with honour and courage, and we are rightly proud of their service, but by defending or failing to investigate properly the bad eggs that exist we tarnish everyone’s reputation. The “Panorama” programme should concern us all, especially since these accounts were given by those within the armed forces themselves. The documentary described “kill or capture” night raids, the systematic killing of detainees and unarmed civilians, planted weapons, competitions between squadrons on the numbers killed, and cover-ups by senior officers. If senior officers knew of such behaviour, why was no action taken? If they did not know, why not?
The Ministry of Defence has so far treated the allegations with some flippancy, saying the documentary “jumps to unjustified conclusions”. The House needs an assurance that the review of this material will be carried out by an independent investigator. Flaws in the investigatory process and potential cover-ups by senior officers should be included. There must be democratic oversight of our special forces, and I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that this is something he is considering. Finally, how is the MOD investigating failures in the chain of command?
Mr Speaker
Can I remind Members that there are set times for urgent questions? The SNP has one minute, but that was over one and a half minutes. If I am going to grant urgent questions, Members know the rules and they have to stick to the rules. Please can you all take that on board?
James Heappey
I could not disagree more with the suggestion that the MOD has been flippant over the investigation of these events. I think nobody would pretend that Operation Northmoor was not slow to get off the ground in the first place. That is already the subject of what the Secretary of State has asked to be reviewed. When the initial service police investigation was completed, a recently retired chief constable and a senior QC were asked to revisit the investigation to check that the processes were sound.
The MOD, at every turn, has wanted to see this done properly because we believe more than anybody else, especially those of us in the Department who have previously served, that nobody in our nation’s armed forces benefits from even the slightest suggestion that there is protection on the basis that they are too special, too brave or too courageous. Our armed forces get their licence to operate around the world from the fact that they are held to the very highest of standards, and everybody in the MOD believes that should be the case.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows, because of his service in the armed forces, how morale can be affected by any form of investigation into units, and it reduces the effectiveness of any fighting force. Although this happened some time ago, does my hon. Friend agree that we must make absolutely sure that soldiers who are serving now within the Special Air Service and the armed forces realise that any inquiry will be done quickly and efficiently, that recommendations will be carried out by the Government as soon as they can, and that the morale of the troops and the units in which they serve will be held at the highest level, to ensure that we are fighting efficient at all times?
James Heappey
Yes, Mr Speaker. We are obviously always concerned for the morale of our nation’s armed forces, and investigations such as this can have an impact on morale. At the risk of disagreeing with my constituency neighbour, I think that sometimes morale must come secondary to doing what is right. That is why the Chief of the General Staff rightly removed the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment from an operational deployment this summer, and why the Royal Air Force Red Arrows are flying with fewer planes this display season than they would normally do. People in the MOD have the courage to do the right thing, even if it might cause some concern within the ranks. What matters is the institutional representation of our nation’s armed forces.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Having met members of our special forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan as a member of the Defence Committee and as a Minister, I have nothing but the utmost respect for them and the difficult job that we ask them to do. These allegations will be appalling to them as individuals, but I say to the Minister that this will not go away. Let me suggest what should happen. We do not want a lengthy inquiry, but I suggest putting in charge of an inquiry a former judge advocate general who understands the military context of this issue, and who could look quickly at the allegations and ensure that those that need investigating get investigated, and that we get answers. This stain on the reputation of those good servicemen who we rely on to protect us cannot be allowed.
James Heappey
This will not go away, we do not want it to go away, and the Secretary of State has told me that he does not want anything to be ruled out at the Dispatch Box today. I am certain that the House will hear from him in the near future about what he thinks is the right way to do exactly as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The sad fact is that it seems that a large number of people died, and the allegations made against the special services are very serious indeed. Does the Minister think it appropriate that the Royal Military Police should be conducting these investigations at all? Should it not be done by an outside body? In response to the question from the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), does the Minister think it is time for special forces to be brought under the same democratic accountability as the rest of the armed services?
James Heappey
I have every confidence in the independence of the Royal Military Police as an independent police force, free of political influence or influence from the chain of command, just as I have confidence that all other police forces are proudly operational and independent. No, I do not think that the special forces should be moved into a position of more overt democratic oversight. The reason for that is that the work that they do is right at the extreme end of the threat envelope. The risk to life and limb is profound, and what they do in defence of our nation’s interest is extraordinary. If we were to compromise that even in the slightest, our nation would be at a disadvantage, and brave people would be in severe peril.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
We all understand the dangers, pressures and awfulness of armed conflict, and that is precisely why we have rules of engagement and the Geneva convention, in order to set boundaries. When those boundaries are breached, that has to be dealt with. May I urge the Department to listen to Lord Richards, who had some considerable experience in this, and also to learn from Australia? Will Ministers have discussions with their Australian counterparts, ministerial and military alike, to learn from their effective and successful way of dealing with a not dissimilar problem?
James Heappey
There is a lot that we discuss with our great friends in Canberra, and every day we find new things to talk about. The relationship between the ministerial teams is ever closer. The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right: there is lots to learn from the way that the Australians approach this. It is important to say, again, that this is not the House encouraging us to take a second pass at only one investigation. This was investigated and verified, and we have been clear that if new evidence comes to light, we will investigate that too. As I said to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the Secretary of State is clear that he rules nothing out, and he will be in touch with the House shortly to say how he thinks this might be further reviewed.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister is absolutely right that insinuendo is not the same as evidence or proof of guilt, and nobody wants to tarnish the reputation of the British armed forces without due reason, but the allegations are important and serious. Following on from what you said, Mr Speaker, will the Minister ensure that there is a proper briefing for the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), and perhaps for the Select Committee on Defence as well, so that people can look at this matter without having to worry about sub judice concerns?
James Heappey
Mr Speaker, I can absolutely promise that there will be a briefing for the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne and for you, Sir. There may be an issue over Privy Council terms for the Select Committee at large, but I will look into that suggestion as well.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches also pay tribute to the courage, bravery and ingenuity of UK special forces and all of our armed forces, but of course it is incumbent on them to follow the laws of armed conflict. Does the Minister agree that members of the armed forces will be first among those wanting to see those laws applied and abided by, so that we can continue to call out the war crimes that we see happening in places such as Kremenchuk, Irpin and Bucha?
James Heappey
First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House and to his place as his party’s defence spokesperson, and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who was an excellent defence spokesman before him.
Speaking as a veteran to a veteran, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: nobody who has served in the uniform of our nation’s armed forces wants to be treated as if they can get away with whatever they like. We want to be held to a standard, because that gives us our licence to operate when we train other nations’ armed forces around the world and when we have to do difficult things in dangerous places. That licence to operate is our most important weapon.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
So many members of our armed forces sacrificed so much in Helmand, yet our armed forces and all of us have to have confidence in our processes. What discussions have the Minister and the Secretary of State had with our international partners, including those within NATO, about the processes they adopt to ensure objectivity, accountability and independence?
James Heappey
A lot of these matters are governed by international treaties, conventions and laws that all our allies within NATO hold in common, and that we all work to enforce. So much of the outrage over the way the Russians have behaved in Ukraine—to reference the question raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord)—is due to the fact that that army has not followed those international laws, conventions and treaties. NATO prides itself on behaving in the way that international law requires, and the British armed forces more than anyone.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I also pay tribute to all of our forces and special forces for their bravery, courage, determination and perseverance. Some 1,281 allegations were made after the closure of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, and £20 million in settlements was paid out by the Ministry of Defence. Will the Minister confirm that the importance of discharging our duty of care has been taken on board, and that the further allegations made in the programme will be taken seriously, but according to the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty, not simply accused of being guilty?
James Heappey
The allegations in the programme will be taken very seriously if new evidence is handed across to the service police that they can investigate. What we will not do is react to a lot of insinuation and what appears to be a repetition of allegedly criminal events that have already been investigated—that is not in itself enough to say that the service police need to reopen that investigation. Hopefully, the BBC will hand across whatever new evidence it has.
Business of the House
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
It will be a pleasure.
Monday 18 July—Consideration of a motion of confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.
Tuesday 19 July—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 20 July—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (day 3).
Thursday 21 July—General debate on UK sanctions for human rights abuses and corruption, followed by the Sir David Amess summer adjournment debate. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 21 July and return on Monday 5 September.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I note the pleasure, on all sides of the House, at the forthcoming Sir David Amess debate. I wonder if it will be the opening dispatch from the deputy Leader of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), opposite my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden).
I am surprised to see the Leader of the House in his place, as all we can gather from his statement and everything else we have heard from his party this week is that his Government are done. They have given up on governing. Tories are running scared, blocking Labour’s vote of no confidence—another new low; morally and constitutionally bankrupt to the bitter end. It is a core convention that the Government must be able to command the confidence of the House and that Opposition motions of no confidence are given time. That has been the case for centuries. Indeed, the Tory party itself tabled a very similar motion on 2 August 1965, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, which states, and I quote because I have checked it:
“deplores the Prime Minister’s conduct of the nation’s affairs.”—[Official Report, 2 August 1965; Vol. 717, c. 1070.]
That is what we want to do.
So, I ask the Leader of the House, why was that Tory motion acceptable, but Labour’s motion is not? I think we know why, Mr Speaker. It is clearly a political decision: a Tory party clinging on to a law-breaking national embarrassment brass-neckery—I am not sure whether I have used that word correctly, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) used it yesterday—of a Prime Minister. Labour’s motion is entirely orderly and the Leader of the House knows it. I have checked. So, could he please point to the part of “Erskine May” where it says the Government can now choose to accept or reject or dictate the wording of an orderly motion of no confidence purely on a political whim?
The Leader of the House announced today that the Government have tabled a motion of confidence in themselves for Monday. What makes him think that it is right for the Government to dictate to Her Majesty’s Opposition which orderly motions we can table? If they do not want any sort of confidence motion, do you know what they could do, Mr Speaker? They could get rid of the Prime Minister now. He should not be in No. 10 Downing Street a single day further.
I am afraid it is the Government’s incompetence that means the Online Safety Bill has been delayed yet again. I see just now chaos online between Tory Ministers and leadership candidates in their opinions on that. I am sorry, but the Government have had years to bring in this Bill. I called for it for months from the Dispatch Box. They could have brought it in months and months ago. Delaying it means inaction on making children safer online and on tackling fraud and scams. It is on them, Mr Speaker. How long is the Leader of the House going to delay the Bill this time?
From flagrant breaches of long-standing constitutional conventions to not turning up. After spending all her time deciding whether or not to join the circus that is the Tory leadership contest, the Home Secretary just did not bother turning up to be scrutinised by the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. Can the Leader of the House please tell us what it is about passport delays, asylum delays, rising crime, falling prosecutions, record low rape charges and record high fraud that makes the Home Secretary run away from the Select Committee? Lots of preparation goes into these sessions, not just from Members on all sides but from staff. Will the Leader of the House please remind his Cabinet colleague about the importance of just turning up? We have a Prime Minister hinting that he will not turn up to his last Prime Minister’s questions; and with ambulance services in crisis, instead of coming to this House yesterday and telling us what he is going to do about it, why was the Health Secretary somewhere else, tweeting support for a leadership candidate? Will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to take some responsibility, come to this House and make a statement on why the longer the Tories are in power, the longer patients wait?
We can believe the former Chancellor when he said this week that he has no working-class friends, because literally none of them here are doing any work! But this is serious: the Prime Minister has already done untold damage to our country and to standards in public life. He has repeatedly been caught disrespecting the British people, and his pattern of behaviour as Foreign Secretary shows that he is potentially a risk to national security. Those on the Tory Benches are all complicit. They know that he is not fit to govern—they told the public so just days ago—and they are now propping him up until September. He must not be allowed to stay over the summer, when he will have no parliamentary scrutiny and can do whatever he wants.
This situation needs more than challenging the Tory at the top. Conservative Members have failed to remove the man they admitted was entirely unfit for office, and they are all culpable. Labour will act in the national interest and vote with no confidence in this failed and frankly dangerous Prime Minister and his Government, because we need a fresh start with a Labour Government who will reboot our economy, end the cost of living crisis, revitalise our public services, re-energise our communities, unite our country and clean up our politics.
Mark Spencer
I start by welcoming the deputy Leader of the House of Commons to his place. It was a very wise decision to appoint him, and it will certainly make business questions easier for me to have him sitting on the Front Bench rather than on the Back Benches asking awkward questions.
Turning to the weekly rant from the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), let us get to the crux of the matter. The Labour party wants a no-confidence vote and we are supplying it with one. The wording is now constitutionally correct. It is not my fault that the Labour party cannot seem to copy and paste from what is constitutionally accepted, but we are giving it its confidence vote on Monday. I trust she will be in her place—
Mark Spencer
I hope that I will be with the hon. Gentleman in giving confidence to the Government.
The hon. Member for Bristol West also says that we are not getting on with the job, but that is absolutely not true. Payments are landing in people’s bank accounts today to help them with the challenges of the cost of living—£326 is being given to 8 million households. That is the Government getting on with the business of supporting people through the challenges that we face. Rather than being in the Westminster bubble making cheap political points and trying to stir up trouble, the Government are delivering for people on the challenges that we face.
The Home Secretary will be in her place the next time we have Home Office questions. I am sure that she will be very keen to stand by her record of recruiting 20,000 more police officers; we already have 13,500. We have given more powers to the police and are giving them £17 billion extra this year. We are ensuring that our police have resources through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. We produced our beating crime plan last summer. We have a huge track record of defending police officers and pushing down crime. The shadow Leader of the House should pay tribute to the Home Secretary.
The hon. Lady will be aware that we are recruiting even more people to the Passport Office to try to help. The vast majority of passports are now being delivered within six weeks, so progress is being made—[Interruption.] It is factually correct that a huge volume of the people who apply for a passport now get it within six weeks.
The hon. Lady mentioned that the Health Secretary was busy; he will be here next week for health questions. I am sure he will point out to her when he gets to the Dispatch Box that although there are challenges following covid and queues that we need to overcome—that is why we are investing in our health service through the social care levy—compared with Wales, the queues are shorter in England. That is because the Conservative party is managing the health service in England whereas the Labour party is doing so in Wales, where the queues are longer and the challenges are not being met with the same efficiency. The hon. Lady needs to stop trying to score her cheap political points and recognise and celebrate what the Government are doing to support people.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
The Ministry of Justice wants to build a large new prison in my constituency, on a beautiful piece of open land between Lubenham and Foxton. It is completely the wrong place to build a new prison; it will force smaller traffic on to some very narrow country lanes, including in front of a rural primary school. There is also an issue of democracy: Harborough District Council clearly voted against the prison proposal, because it was not in its local plan. I asked the Ministry of Justice not to appeal against the decision, but unfortunately it has done so, as it has done in other locations. I am in favour of new prisons— we need new prisons, because we need longer prison sentences—but this is not the right location. There must be a better brownfield location for the new prison. Can we please have a debate about the new prisons programme? I know that the same issue is occurring elsewhere.
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is a tenacious campaigner for his constituents and I know that he will make sure we get to the right decision. I will pass my hon. Friend’s comments directly to the Secretary of State for Justice and ask him to write to my hon. Friend about the matter.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and welcome him to his place. He is the very epitome of bizarre Brexitism, and he is now finally part of the payroll that up to now he has always loathed. When they have got so far down the pecking order to fill places in this ramshackle Government, we know that they have finally reached the bare Bones.
We need a debate about squatting and forced evictions, because we have a problem here in central London that we need to resolve. At the bottom end of Whitehall, there is someone we just cannot get rid of: Schrödinger’s Prime Minister, simultaneously gone and apparently still here. His latest wheeze is this vote on Monday: a Government tabling a vote of confidence in themselves. It would be great to think that they have finally got it and that they will be joining us in relieving this nation of this appalling Conservative Government, but actually it is more ridiculous than that. Knowing that any motion specifying the Prime Minister would probably be passed in this House, they have decided to make it a motion about a Government they can barely fill—a motion of confidence in themselves. Denying Labour’s legitimate motion was just shocking; it was against every principle of House democracy. Any Opposition must be able to table a motion of confidence in the Government at any time and in any way they want.
Wednesday was an appalling instance of democracy denial, but at least it was a diversion from the tedious, grotesque Tory anti-beauty parade. The “I’m the Most Right-Wing Candidate…Get Me Out of Here!” franchise is making Margaret Thatcher look almost like Mary Poppins. One of those people is going to be Prime Minister. For the third time in a row, a small group of Conservative party members will determine who governs Scotland. Is it not therefore timely that today our First Minister will lay out the democratic case for an independent Scotland? I do not know what will be in it, Mr Speaker, but I can tell you something: it will be almost the exact opposite of what happens in this place.
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. When he had a pop at my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, I think he lost the Chamber. My hon. Friend is very popular in this place.
Mark Spencer
I am confident that we would win that Division quite handsomely, to be honest.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) wants to pivot to talking about a referendum on independence, because he does not want to focus on the record of the SNP in Scotland. The Government are getting on with the job: we are delivering for millions of people up and down this country, including in Scotland, where people will be getting large amounts of support to help with the challenges of the cost of living. That is what we are focused on.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be here next week to make the same point about the need for a referendum. I will give him the same answer: we are focused on getting on with the job, and we will not fall for his smoke and mirrors.
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
The delivery of the urgently needed and far too long-awaited town centre revitalisation in Burgess Hill is an absolute priority for me. Nearby, 3,500 homes are coming forward, supported by Homes England. Our spade-ready pride in place bid for round 2 of levelling-up fund round 2 is ready to go. Will the Leader of the House please make time for a debate in Government time about how levelling up in action is based not on geography, but on the Government responding well to the needs of all our communities?
Mark Spencer
I wish my hon. Friend well with the bid for Burgess Hill and her ambitions to improve that area. She will be aware that there is a £4.8 billion levelling-up fund that I am sure she has been bidding into. I know that Members across the House will be making their bids and putting them in as we speak, and I wish all colleagues well with that process.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business, particularly the Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate next Thursday.
I welcome the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) to his place. He is a former member of the Backbench Business Committee. This is more proof that the Committee is an amazing springboard for ministerial advancement. Conservative Members should therefore be rushing to their Whips Office to volunteer to take the currently unfilled place on the Committee that the Government should have. I am looking forward to that in no short order.
A report issued this week—it is no shock to many of us—shows that a greater proportion of children in the north-east of England are now living in poverty than in any other part of the country. Child poverty is not a new phenomenon in the north-east, but it is getting much worse and rapidly so. Can we have a statement from the Government on what they are going to do to lift children in constituencies across the north-east out of poverty as a matter of urgency?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman, because the Sir David Amess debate was the idea of the Backbench Business Committee and I pay tribute to the Committee for coming forward with that plan. He referred to the fact that the Committee is the springboard to ministerial greatness. I would say to colleagues on the Back Benches that, like the Deputy Speaker, if you serve on that Committee for 17 years, you too could aspire to ministerial greatness.
On the hon. Gentleman’s very serious point about child poverty, the Government do recognise that there are huge challenges out there at the moment with global spikes in the cost of fuel and food. That is why we are coming forward with huge amounts of money. We have unveiled a £15 billion intervention to help households in these challenging times. Today, payments of £326 will be landing in 8 million households. We are also providing one-off payments of £300 to 8 million pensioner households and £150 to individuals receiving disability benefits. We are doubling the value of the October universal energy bill discount to £400 and scrapping the requirement to repay that money. That is a huge intervention to try to help people in these times of global turmoil.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Could we have a debate about the Boys Brigade? That would allow me to congratulate 1st Buckie Boys Brigade on receiving the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service, which is the most prestigious award for voluntary organisations and is richly deserved by 1st Buckie, one of the biggest companies anywhere in the United Kingdom, in this their 75th year. They are also helped by dedicated officers and helpers, 14 of whom were recently given awards for a combined total of 455 years’ service. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating 1st Buckie Boys Brigade and everyone involved who has made this company so successful?
Mark Spencer
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating 1st Buckie. It is a huge achievement that they have been given this award, particularly in the platinum jubilee year. I pay tribute not only to 1st Buckie but to Boys Brigades up and down the country, and to all the volunteers who help them to keep young people busy, occupied and stimulated.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Last Saturday was the Durham miners gala, with this big meeting taking place after an absence of two years. It is magnificent to see the banners flying and the brass bands playing again. I was proud to march behind the banner of Chopwell in my constituency and then to join the Greenside banner, which was an emotional experience as we remembered our dear friend and colleague Jack Graham MBE, who did so much to contribute to our local community and our local mining heritage. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of the Durham miners gala to our communities and our local history?
Mark Spencer
I did not myself receive an invitation to the Durham miners gala this year, but I recognise its importance. Nottinghamshire has a huge and proud mining history as well, and there are still a number of banners in my constituency. I know the pride that goes with those communities, and I hope the event went well.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I am delighted that the Government have such an ambitious outlook in seeking to sign as many free trade agreements as possible. Unfortunately, however, they have set in motion the process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in respect of the UK-Australia free trade agreement without allowing our International Trade Committee to present its report to the House and without providing a debate on the agreement. It is essential for all Members of Parliament to be able to give their views on the trade deals that we are signing, and to give our constituents a voice in this place. I know that this is ambitious, given that my right hon. Friend has already outlined next week’s business, but may we please have a debate on the UK-Australia free trade agreement before we ratify it?
Mark Spencer
The International Trade Committee had six months in which to examine the agreement before the commencement of the CRaG process. The Government’s commitment to holding debates on free trade agreements during that process is subject to the timeliness of requests and the availability of parliamentary time, and my hon. Friend will doubtless appreciate that there is a wide range of competing demands on time in the Chamber before the House rises for the summer recess.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that fish and chips are the great British culinary gift, and that the local fish and chip shop is often the centre of a community. You may not agree that the best fish and chips in the world are made in Yorkshire, but I will concede that the second best are on the other side of the Pennines.
Mr Malcolm Tully has run the same fish and chip shop, feeding the same community, for 30 years, having used his miner’s redundancy money to set up the business. However, it is now under threat because of the rising costs of various artefacts that he needs to use, and there are tens of thousands of other small businesses in the same perilous position. Will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time so that we can discuss the pressure on fish and chip shops and all the other small businesses in the country?
Mark Spencer
I declare my interest, Mr Speaker.
Let me join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Malcolm Tully on the work that he does. Fish and chip shops are indeed a great community asset, and there are some great ones in my constituency. They do face huge challenges—particularly the price of sunflower oil, which is driving many of their costs—but the Government recognise the great contribution that they make to our communities, and we should support them.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May we have an urgent debate on the response from both the Government and the local community to the disgusting and abusive vandalism perpetrated by young teenagers in my constituency this week? Some of it was racially motivated, and some of it targeted one of our finest female police community support officers. Does the Leader of the House agree that this requires both a police and a community response? We have a record number of police officers in Bedfordshire—1,411—but they need to be deployed throughout the county.
Mark Spencer
Of course I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the work that he does in his constituency. Antisocial behaviour will be one of the primary focuses of the £50 million-a-year safer streets fund. Next week is antisocial behaviour awareness week, and there will be a debate in Westminster Hall. The deployment of police officers is a matter for the local force, which is operationally independent, but I certainly think that antisocial behaviour is something on which it should focus.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Telford published its findings this week, providing an opportunity for the authorities to reflect on their failings and take responsibility for their mistakes. Telford and Wrekin Council, however, published a response suggesting that the child sexual exploitation had happened a long time ago, that the council had made improvements, and that many of the inquiry’s recommendations had already been implemented. There was no apology for the failings, no reference to having made any mistakes, and no commitment to change. Telford and Wrekin Council is in denial. May we have a debate on the report and the response of the authorities?
Mark Spencer
First, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I know that she has worked tirelessly on this matter, and she is a huge champion for those people who have been victims. The scale of the abuse carried out in Telford and Wrekin was truly appalling. I understand that Telford and Wrekin Council has confirmed that it will accept all the inquiry’s recommendations and deliver all the suggested improvements, but we must ensure that the lessons are learned so that victims are protected and offenders are brought to justice. This is an important matter and I am sure that any debate on it would be well subscribed.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Further to the Leader of the House’s failure to answer the question from the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), could we have a statement on the whereabouts of the Home Secretary? Along with her failure to appear before the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, she has cancelled a long-arranged meeting on Monday with Tony Cox, the father of my constituent Lorraine Cox, who was brutally murdered in September 2020. It would be an understatement to say that Mr Cox is upset about this, particularly given the Home Secretary’s previous admission that the circumstances around Lorraine’s murder represented “total state failure”, the serious police failings in the murder investigation and the concerns shared by Mr Cox and many on both sides of this House about the lack of Government action generally to improve women’s safety.
Mark Spencer
I will of course make sure that the Home Secretary is aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and write to her directly on his behalf. She will be here on 5 September, the first day back after summer recess, and I hope that he will be in his place to hold her to account.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Leader of the House has already mentioned the £326 payment that is arriving in the bank accounts of 1.5 million people today and further people in the days to come. The cost of living crisis is the biggest issue we face in this country, so can we have a debate on the Government’s wider package on this, which could see low-income households benefiting from £1,200 of help and other macroeconomic measures needed to get inflation down?
Mark Spencer
My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the £37 billion of support. That is a huge amount of money that is going to support people in these challenging times. What Putin did in Ukraine has caused huge turbulence across food and energy markets around the world. That is why, as she said, we are making the £326 payments today to 8 million homes, but there also further payments coming. I think it is worth reiterating the £300 to 8 million pensioner households, the £150 to individuals receiving disability benefits, the doubling in value of the universal October energy bill discount to £400 and the scrapping of the requirement to pay that back. That is a huge amount of Government cash going out to support people in these challenging times.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
As the England women’s football team reach the quarter-finals of the Euros, I want to raise the lack of recognition for the women who played for England in the first official international women’s football match, against Scotland in November 1972. The women in that team have never been awarded a cap by the Football Association, while the Scottish FA has awarded caps to its women footballers for that match. Not only that, but when the England women footballers of the 1970s were invited by the FA to Wembley in 2019 as the “legends of women’s football”, they were only allowed to walk around the pitch and not on it, and yet the male football legends were paraded on the pitch just a few weeks later. I am calling on the FA to award an official cap to every woman who played for England in that match in 1972, and to give those first Lionesses the same status as legends of football that it gives to the male footballers. Will the Leader of the House join me in this call, and will he make time for a debate on the issue?
Mark Spencer
I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising this matter; I think she carries the support of the whole House. Of course I join her in making those representations to the FA. I will also write to the FA on her behalf making that very point. It is worth reflecting that we have moved a very long way and that now, in 2022, we are in a whole different world. We should celebrate all women’s sport and women’s football, and I wish the Lionesses all the best for their future matches.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Peel Group announced yesterday that it is likely to close the award winning Doncaster Sheffield airport, saying that it is not viable. The people of Doncaster and South Yorkshire need that airport to remain open. Not only are 800 jobs at risk; so is our local economy. The airport is a strategic asset, and could and should be the driver to increase prosperity for South Yorkshire as a whole. Will the Leader of the House meet me to discuss the airport’s future, whether that be through another private investor or maybe—as our very own Ben Houchen did in Teesside—through the mayoral combined authority?
Mark Spencer
I have not had the opportunity to fly from Doncaster airport, but I know a lot of people who have, and their experience was very good. Regional airports are a key part of local communities; as my hon. Friend said, they support hundreds of jobs. Although this is a commercial decision for the owners of the airport, I hope that after consultation with stakeholders, they conclude that there is a viable aviation future for the airport. I wish my hon. Friend all the best with his campaign.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Department for Work and Pensions figures that have come out since the House has been sitting show that 359,000 households—1.3 million children—are affected by the two-child limit in universal credit and child tax credit. Shockingly, just to put food on the table, 1,830 women have had to fill out a form to prove that their child was born as the result of rape or coercive control. The two-child limit is driving up child poverty rates right across the United Kingdom, so can we have an urgent debate in Government time about the desperate need to scrap this policy once and for all, and to value every child, regardless of when they were born?
Mark Spencer
These are difficult decisions to take. People up and down the country who are not receiving benefits have to make very difficult decisions about how many children they can afford to have. There is not a blank cheque from the taxpayer to keep funding people. It is about bringing balance and fairness into the system, so that we can protect taxpayers’ money and make sure it is spent in the fairest possible way.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Another issue of confidence, on which we need an urgent debate, has come to my attention: Taunton station. The staff there are utterly lazy and incompetent. Those who are young, vulnerable, disabled or need help cannot get from one side of the station to the other, because passengers have to walk around a main road and up a ramp, taking all their suitcases with them; it makes Gatwick and Heathrow look positively balmy. It is beyond belief! Great Western Railway says it is inclusive and stands up for its customers—well, Taunton does not. Can we please have a debate on the issue before somebody gets injured or, worse, killed?
Mark Spencer
There has been huge investment in access to railway stations up and down the country, particularly for disability access to help people get from platform to platform, but I will of course pass on my hon. Friend’s comments directly to the Secretary of State for Transport.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to earlier questions, MPs on both sides of the House will be acutely aware that the Home Office’s MPs’ inquiry line for visas and passports is on its backside. Waits are now measured not in minutes, but in hours. Could the Home Secretary take some time to find her way to the Chamber and make a statement on what she will do about it?
Mark Spencer
Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by telling him what the Government are doing. Some 850 additional staff have been brought in since April 2021, with a further 350 arriving before the summer. Between March and May this year, the Passport Office processed approximately 3 million passport applications, 1.5% of which had been in the system for longer than 10 weeks, so the vast majority of passport applications now are being processed within six weeks.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
May I start by wishing everyone a bostin’ Black Country Day, as we celebrate the beating heart of the west midlands?
I come here today with some frustration about an issue that I raised with my right hon. Friend’s predecessor regarding onerous clauses in council house tenants’ contracts and leases that said they would be evicted if they criticised the Labour Administration in Sandwell. After a promised U-turn by the local authority, I found out an hour ago that those clauses have been included in council house tenants’ contracts. That is absolutely outrageous. Members of Parliament in Sandwell were given a guarantee by the Labour Administration that this would not happen. We have had corruption, commissioners and now contempt for the most vulnerable. Can we have a debate on the Floor of the House about this reckless council, and put this situation to bed?
Mark Spencer
I am sorry to hear of my hon. Friend’s frustrations. He is a tenacious champion, and I know he will continue to hold Sandwell Council to account. I suggest he applies for an Adjournment debate to raise the matter fully with a Minister and get a proper response.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It is 52 years since the contaminated blood scandal started. Since the former Prime Minister announced the public inquiry—five years ago this week—419 people have died. On average, a person dies every four days. The Government’s independent reviewer of compensation said there is a “compelling case” for interim compensation payments to be made now.
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate? I had a wholly unsatisfactory answer from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General this morning as to when the Government will make an announcement about the payment of compensation. The Government have rightly found time to make interim compensation payments in relation to the Post Office’s Horizon scandal and the Windrush scandal. Why has the infected blood community again been left with nothing when people are dying?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady, who has been a strong campaigner on this topic over a number of years. The infected blood inquiry is a priority for the Government, and it is extremely important that all those who have suffered so terribly get the answers they deserve, and for which they have spent decades waiting.
I know the right hon. Lady raised this with the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General at Question Time. The Government published Sir Robert Francis’s compensation framework, and I will encourage the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General to keep the House updated as this work progresses.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Leader of the House aware that the World Health Organisation tells us that the biggest killer of children and young people worldwide is not a virus or an epidemic but the roads? Is he further aware that, 40 years ago, an all-party parliamentary group secured the introduction of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982, making the wearing of seatbelts compulsory and saving so many lives? Since then, the UK has been a leading light in raising road safety standards worldwide. We are having a party today in the Cholmondeley Room to celebrate those 40 years of success, and he will be very welcome. Although we have not persuaded a Transport Minister to come, he would be a very good substitute.
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I am a former winner of road safety parliamentarian of the year and, if my diary allows, I would be delighted to come along. I pay tribute to all the work of successive Governments to improve road safety, although we can always do more. The wearing of seatbelts was a huge step forward and, as new technology develops, we should also pay tribute to the car manufacturers for improving the safety of vehicles, too.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I know the Leader of the House will be delighted that Derby County football club have been saved from administration by a local long-term fan, David Clowes. However, serious questions remain to be answered. It was reported this week that legal action has commenced after Chris Kirchner, the former preferred bidder, was not able to pay the staff wage bill, which he guaranteed. I am very concerned that Quantuma, the administrator, could appoint Kirchner—apparently a man of straw—as the preferred bidder and allow him to get close to a deal that all Rams fans can now see would have been disastrous for the club. Can we have a debate in this House about the responsibilities and accountability of administrators, particularly in relation to community assets such as football clubs?
Mark Spencer
I am delighted that Derby County have been saved from administration. I am only sorry that they are now two leagues apart from Nottingham Forest, who are now a premiership club. Maybe we will get lucky in a cup draw and be able to knock them out of a cup in the near future. To be serious, we do know that there is a widespread culture of clubs operating unsustainably. That is not acceptable and we must ensure that clubs such as Derby are sustainable for the long term. I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to the relevant Department; she raises a very important point.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on taking his seat on the Treasury Bench. I confess that I hardly recognise him with his clothes on; we often change next to each other in the gym.
May I ask the Leader of the House about two issues relating to the recess? First, there may be substantial changes in the situation in Ukraine in the next few weeks and months, and, obviously, we would want to make sure that all Members were informed of what the British situation was. It may be necessary to recall Parliament, and I hope he would say that that would be possible.
Secondly, the passport figures the Leader of the House gives are simply unrecognisable to my constituency office. Many staff have gone to the Home Office team in Portcullis House, but I gather that that will stop for the recess. What will be put in place to ensure that we can still get things sorted for our constituents? Many families are terrified of losing the first holiday they have had for two or three years.
Mark Spencer
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Clearly, where people are waiting for their passports, that is enormously frustrating for them. The good news is that they are a diminishing group of people, as the vast majority of passports are now being processed very rapidly. However, I will pass on his comments to the Home Office so that it is aware of them. Any possible recall of Parliament over Ukraine would be a decision for Mr Speaker, but other methods are available to Ministers to keep all colleagues informed as to progress. “Dear colleague” letters would certainly be one method of doing that.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The levelling-up fund represents a real opportunity to transform areas of Teesside, particularly in the Greater Eston area, where I have signed off an £8 million bid for the redevelopment of Eston Square and another £8 million bid for a renewed Eston baths. May we have a statement from the Government on round 2 of the levelling-up fund?
Mark Spencer
I wish my hon. Friend well with his levelling-up fund bid. This is a huge opportunity for communities up and down this country to invest in their local communities and improve their local economy. I have no doubt that his local authority’s bid will be a very strong one, and I wish him and all colleagues who have put in such bids well.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
This week, the 150th Open championship returns to the home of golf, St Andrews, in my constituency. A record 290,000 spectators are expected to attend. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the event and the work that the R&A is doing to increase participation, with 20,000 children’s tickets available? Can we have a debate in Government time on how to maximise the benefit of such sporting events, from both a social and an economic perspective?
Mark Spencer
I join the hon. Lady in her comments and wish everyone who is going to attend at St Andrews well. Even the weather might be nice and not too windy in Scotland this weekend for the golf. I hope that the event goes very well; the UK should be very proud that we can host such international events.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then, Brian Lee, an 82-year-old from Skegby, in Ashfield, is deeply disappointed with Trentbarton’s decision to axe the 141 bus service, which is a lifeline to Brian and many other people in Ashfield and throughout Nottinghamshire. Will the Leader of the House throw his considerable weight—sorry, his considerable political weight—behind the campaign to provide a service on this route?
Mark Spencer
Now then, first, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend, as I know he is campaigning vigorously on this matter, and to Brian Lee—I hope he will get the resolution that he deserves. I also want to put on record the efforts of Tom Smith, a local councillor in Sherwood, who is working hard, with Trentbarton, to try to secure the future of the 141. It is a vital bus service to that community and I sincerely hope that Trentbarton changes its mind.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
While the Conservatives have been romanticising about the post-covid return to austerity cuts, I doubt they have noticed this week’s Resolution Foundation report, which highlighted growing inequalities as a consequence of the low wages and low growth that have consistently occurred over the past decade and a bit. We might think that, as a country, we are on a par with France and Germany, but we need to recognise—as one of the conclusion sets out—that, except for those at the top, this simply is no longer true when it comes to living standards. On people on the lowest incomes, we are 22% behind France and 21% behind Germany. That is the record of this Government. That is what levelling down has meant over the past decade and a bit under the Conservatives. Can we have a statement about how the Government might respond to this report?
Mark Spencer
There are huge global challenges that face the United Kingdom at this moment in time. We have seen huge spikes in energy and food prices, which are, of course, bringing challenges to people up and down the country. That is why the Government are investing such a lot of money—£37 billion—in supporting people with the cost of living challenges. There is more that we can do to try to invest in those communities through levelling-up bids, and that is what the Government are focused on doing.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
UK Government proposals to reduce compensation levels for delayed, cancelled or over-booked domestic flights are in place at a time when passengers across the UK face unprecedented disruption. This cutting of compensation can only be bad news for consumers. Compensation levels have been set to deter airlines from running late services. Reducing them opens the door to poorer standards, which will adversely impact travellers. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out his concerns about this wrong policy at the worst possible time?
Mark Spencer
I hope the hon. Lady is aware that the Secretary of State for Transport has done a lot of work with the airlines to try to resolve the challenges that the industry faces this summer. There has been an amnesty on slots, which means that airlines can give an early indication that they may not be able to make their slots so that airports can inform passengers at a very early stage if their flight will not be taking off, allowing them to find an alternative route. We are making progress. I hope that, by the time we get to the summer, those people who have booked holidays will be able to get on those planes and enjoy the summer.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
President Putin said in 2004 that there is
“no such thing as a former KGB man”.
Was the then Foreign Secretary Johnson aware of that when he met the KGB’s Alexander Lebedev without officials or security in 2018, which only became clear last week? Can we please have a statement on that, because it is a high security risk for our country?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was an urgent question on this matter last Thursday. The particular incident to which he refers was thoroughly debated at that time. We are blessed in this country with some of the finest security services, which keep us safe on a regular basis. I know that all Ministers will want to make sure that their own security and that of the nation is paramount in their minds.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
On Tuesday, Sir John Major appeared before the Public Administration Constitutional Affairs Committee. I asked him about the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill with regards to breaking the law. He said:
“If it is breaking the law, it ought not to happen. You cannot be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker. That is an absolutely flat line. If they are breaking the law, the Attorney-General should be in there saying, ‘This is not legal.’”
I pressed him further, saying, given the Government’s majority, where does Parliament go from here if it passes. He said:
“Parliament ought to see unexpurgated the advice from the Law Officers as to whether it does break the law at home or internationally. If it does not, it is a matter for Parliament. If it does break the law, it is a Bill that ought not to be laid before the House of Commons.”
The Leader of the House is our spokesperson—our person to the Government. It is his duty to be the voice of Parliament. Has he seen the legal advice himself? If so, is he satisfied that Bill does not break the law, or, if not, will he seek to withdraw the Bill?
Mark Spencer
I can give the hon. Lady good news: the Bill does not break the law. The Attorney General has been clear on that. Legal advice of that nature is not published, but the Attorney General has ruled that it does not break the law and I think that is good news.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Two days ago, my constituent sent me a photograph of his 15-year-old daughter Zahida. She was lying in her coffin, because she had drunk poison to avoid a worse fate, living under the Taliban. On 25 August last year she, her mother and her sisters were called to the Baron Hotel at Kabul airport but were unable to board the plane to safety because of the bomb explosion that occurred on that date. Many families of British residents are still trapped in Afghanistan. I wholly applaud all the work the Government have done for Ukrainian refugees and the setting up of the hub, but it seems that the Afghan refugees are absolutely forgotten. Please will the Leader of the House secure a debate in Government time on what the Government are doing to assist Afghan refugees?
Mark Spencer
I am truly sorry to hear the story the hon. Gentleman relates, which clearly is a tragedy. The Government have done a huge amount to help people to escape from Afghanistan and from the Taliban. Operation Pitting evacuated 15,000 people; I know the hon. Gentleman recognised those efforts, but the story he describes is a tragic one and I will make sure his comments are passed on directly to the Minister. I hope we can continue to support Afghan refugees as they escape the Taliban.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Leader of the House has already made a statement about hoping to bring on 300 extra passport staff before the summer. May I point out that we are nearly halfway through the Scottish school holidays and passports continue to be a huge issue in my constituency? In the case of one individual, the passport was received by the Passport Office on 26 April, but then sat untouched for more than two weeks so that its starting date now is 15 May and the Passport Office will not deal with me because it says the application is less than 10 weeks old. We need a Government statement on this; despite what the Leader of the House says, these cases are increasing, not decreasing.
Mark Spencer
Some 800 more staff have already been recruited, with 300 more to come. There will always be the odd case that does not meet the threshold of six weeks’ turnaround; if the hon. Lady wants to write to me with the specific data, I will raise it personally with the Home Secretary on her behalf.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
As many places through the Homes for Ukraine scheme approach their end, Ukrainian families will face a cliff edge. One mother, her two boys and their grandmother have found it impossible to search in the private rented sector. They need to pay six months’ rent up-front and provide income history and a guarantor earning more than £45,000 a year. The boys have already settled into school, but if the family cannot find a home, their lives will be uprooted again. Can we please have an urgent debate on supporting Ukrainian families so that those who have fled war now do not face homelessness?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to the tens of thousands of families up and down the country who have opened up their homes to support people fleeing Ukraine. The UK has a very proud track record of supporting and looking after those people. I will pass on the hon. Lady’s comments directly to the relevant Minister to ensure he is aware of her concerns, but we should be very proud of what we have done as a nation.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Riverside Drive in my constituency has been subjected to repeated flooding since 2015. The residents live in genuine fear of further flooding. I have raised this matter many times on the Floor of this House, in the media and with anyone who will listen to me. The work was due to start last year, yet the Environment Agency has delayed it again. The total cost is only £5 million, but neither the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs nor the Treasury will stump up the money. Will the Leader of the House use his office to persuade the Chancellor and the Environment Secretary to release the required funding, so that my residents can have the peace of mind they richly deserve?
Mark Spencer
I join the hon. Lady in expressing my sympathy to the residents of Riverside Drive. Having your home flooded is a terrible experience. The Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work together to prioritise schemes to make sure that they get the best value for money. I will pass on her comments directly to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so that he is aware of her concerns.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Almost a year ago to the day, the Post Office announced that Neston post office was to be closed, but that it would be a temporary closure while it found a commercial partner. I warned at the time that that would be a tough ask, and lo and behold, a year on, the Post Office has announced this week that because it has not been able to find a commercial partner, the post office will close permanently. A town of Neston’s size, with 20,000 people, should have a post office, and it is unacceptable that the Post Office continues with these flawed business models where they rely on commercial support that clearly is not there. Can we have a statement from the relevant Government Minister about what they will do to ensure that the Post Office can serve all communities?
Mark Spencer
I am sorry to hear about Neston post office. Post offices are great community assets. The Government set access criteria to ensure that services remain within reach of all citizens. I think that 99% of the UK population is within three miles of a Post Office outlet. It is a great resource. It is obviously a shame that Neston post office will not reopen, but we should celebrate all that is positive about post offices up and down the country.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Frequently the Department for Work and Pensions is sending constituents to their MP when a decision has been unfavourable, giving constituents the impression that colleagues in this place, and not the Government, are responsible for policy changes or the decision-making process. This gives constituents false hope and unrealistic expectations. Will the Leader of the House please ask his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that Departments are taking responsibility for the decisions they are taking?
Mark Spencer
I will pass on the hon. Lady’s comments to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I know that the Department does a huge amount of work to support people on benefits and to try to help them get back into work, but I will make sure I pass her comments on directly to the Minister.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We are told time and time again that this is a voluntary Union of equals, but with the plague of democracy denying and the choruses of “Now is not the time”, it certainly does not feel like it. The former Chancellor and current frontrunner for leader, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) said in 2017:
“It seems hard to block a referendum, but we should push the timing until after Brexit”.
The Scottish Government have an unquestionable mandate from the electorate, which was demanded as a prerequisite by the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar in 2016. We live in a country signed up to article 1 of the UN charter on self-determination, so can we have a debate on self-determination and the routes available to it in a so-called model democracy?
Mark Spencer
I strongly suspect that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will continue to press for such debates. I am of the view that there are huge challenges facing people across the United Kingdom, including in Scotland with the cost of living challenge, with children in Scotland being let down by the SNP Government and their education system and with the SNP Government not getting on with delivering ferries. I understand why they want to try to distract from some of the shortcomings of their Government, but there are bigger things to concentrate on at this moment in time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
After the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland donated £1.5 million to Kenya’s drought areas, I was glad to see that the first shipments of that high-density food arrived on Tuesday 12 July. There is no better day to deliver aid. The aid will help support 31,000 severely malnourished children. Sadly, too often, religious minority communities are deprived of such aid, as distribution points tend to be situated far away from such communities. Will the Leader of the House, in solidarity with me and all the communities affected, arrange for a statement on Kenya’s drought and the need to ensure that aid is distributed fairly, equally and without discrimination?
Mark Spencer
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on not being called last in business questions. With such progress, in the next 30 years he might get called first. I draw his attention to the Backbench Business debate next Thursday on sanctions for human rights abuses and corruption, where he may be able to raise the matters. That will be a great opportunity for him, but if not, there is the opportunity in the Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment Debate for him to raise any such matters.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Aberdeen has been a global energy hub for the best part of the last 50 years—something that I am sure the Minister is all too well aware of, given the £400 billion that has flowed from Scotland to the UK Treasury. In order to retain that status, we need to be at the forefront of investment in net zero. On that basis, will he back Aberdeen’s bid for a green port, or perhaps go one better and bring the relevant Minister to the Chamber to make a statement to that effect?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to the economy of Aberdeen, which is an important part of the United Kingdom. I will of course pass on the hon. Member’s comments to the relevant Minister. The oil and gas industry has a huge part to play as we make our transition towards a greener future.
Point of Order
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you, like all other colleagues, have staff spending a lot of time in the special queue for the very welcome passport facility in Portcullis House. However, one of my staff recently spent more than two and a half hours in that queue, and yesterday a member of my staff was turned away because there were not enough staff there to deal with the queries, which is unfortunate. This is taking up an awful lot of our office time at the moment.
Hon. Members are, quite rightly, able to go to the front of the queue if they have an urgent case to deal with themselves. However, I gather that a particular complaint has been that hon. and right hon. Members have regularly been going to the front of the queue with an office staff member and then going away, leaving that staff member to deal with the query. That is not the procedure that I gather was agreed, and it is very unfair on the rest of us, whose staff are spending a lot of time there, only to fall further down the queue because other hon. Members are frankly gaming the system. What advice can you give, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make sure that everybody is following the spirit of the rules as well as the rules themselves?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for notice of it. I have been to the passport office in Portcullis House in person—I do not have staff members going; I go myself—and I think the staff there are doing a marvellous job in assisting hon. and right hon. Members with their queries. I am sure the hon. Member will understand that the operation of the service is a matter for the Home Office. However, the House will have heard his concerns, and I very much hope that those on the Treasury Bench will report them back as quickly as possible. Perhaps Members could be contacted to explain exactly how the system should work, and what is and is not acceptable, because we obviously must not put pressure on the officials working there. It is for Members to take the responsibility.
Educational Poverty: Children in Residential Care
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 these in turn. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the relevant Minister. Any interventions should be in the form of questions and should be brief. Front Benchers may also take part in questioning.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the time today, and I thank the officers and members of the Committee for working so hard on this report on educational outcomes for children in care.
We found widespread state failure to ensure that looked-after children receive a quality education. The state repeatedly fails to act as a pushy enough corporate parent when it comes to the education and career outcomes of children in care. The statistics speak for themselves. At key stage 2 for reading, writing and mathematics, just 37% of looked-after children reach expected standards compared with 65% of non-looked-after children. Just 7.2% of looked-after children achieve the grade 5 good pass in English and maths GCSE compared with 40.1% of non-looked-after children. Children in residential care at age 16 scored over six grades less at GCSE than those in kinship or foster care.
Our report has four key findings. First, there is a culture of impunity that enables schools to get away with blocking or refusing admissions of children in care. Looked-after children are less likely to attend the best schools. Ofsted has found that 76% of children in children’s homes attended a good or outstanding mainstream state school compared with 84% of other children. Surely the proportion of these children should be 100%, especially given that laws state that good and outstanding schools should be prioritised for children in care. We heard that some schools discriminate against looked-after children, while local authorities are not sufficiently ambitious in getting them into their good or outstanding schools.
Secondly, unregulated education is rife for children in children’s homes. Local authorities have a legal duty to ensure that the looked-after children in their care are receiving full-time education in a school registered with the Department for Education, but this is not always happening. Some local authorities are flouting that duty. As a result, vulnerable children are falling through the cracks. Ofsted has identified that 9% of children in children’s homes attend unregulated education settings and 6% are not in education, employment or training at all. I think these statistics on children missing from education or receiving unregulated education are a national scandal.
Thirdly, we heard that over 6,000 children in care are living in unregulated accommodation, which poses a barrier to young people’s educational progress. These are vulnerable children often living in unsuitable and unsafe environments, and that negatively impacts on their education and mental health.
Fourthly, too many children in care have poor career and life outcomes due to lack of support. Employment outcomes are bleak: 41% of 19 to 21-year-old care leavers are not in education, employment or training, and just 2% go on to do an apprenticeship. Only 22% of care leavers aged 27 are in employment compared with 57% of others, and even when they are in jobs, there is an average pay gap of £6,000. Thirty-three per cent. experience homelessness, 25% of them are sofa surfing and 24% of those in prison have been through the care system.
What are the solutions? First, we need to tackle the data black hole. The existing data on the educational outcomes of children in children’s homes is not good enough. The data is fundamentally unreliable and should come with a health warning. Without the right data on where children in care are being educated, how much education they are missing and what kind of education they are receiving, the Department for Education will fight these issues in the dark. The Department for Education should commit to annual data publication through a data dashboard of looked-after children. We could then disaggregate the information by care placement type, flagging when the child is living in unregulated provision, as well as data on progress, attainment, attendance, suspensions and exclusions.
Secondly, we need to penalise schools that block or refuse admissions of children in care. A clear sanctions mechanism is needed for schools that consistently refuse or delay admissions of looked-after children, with the lever of accountability coming in the form of impacting on their Ofsted judgment. A school should not get a good or outstanding grade if it does not provide good or outstanding support and outcomes for looked-after children.
Thirdly, we need sanctions for local authorities that flout their duty to ensure that their looked-after children are receiving full-time, high-quality education. Greater accountability is needed for local authorities that fail to ensure that looked-after children receive full-time education at a school registered with the Department for Education. We could do that by capping the Ofsted rating of local authorities that fail to fulfil that duty.
Fourthly, we need to extend the pupil premium plus beyond the age of 16. The pupil premium plus is vital extra funding that raises the educational outcomes of looked-after children, but it ends at 16. With unemployment rates so high for care leavers, it is indefensible for children to be left out in the cold after 16, at the beginning of their transition into professional life. Extending the pupil premium plus past 16 to 18 will help looked-after students to do their best at that crucial stage of their education and kick start their careers. Virtual school heads, the local authority professionals with a duty to promote the education of children in care, should be given statutory powers, guidance and control of the allocation of the pupil premium plus grant.
Fifthly, we need to roll out the Staying Close scheme nationally. For too many young care leavers, the transition from care to independent living can feel like a cliff edge. Staying Close is a support scheme for young people in care leaving their children’s home, and it provides support and accommodation to help with the transition. Pilots have evidenced significant benefits: fewer evictions, fewer care leavers not in education, employment or training, and better well-being. Further to support care leavers to develop their full potential, the Department should strategically weigh the apprenticeship levy in favour of care-experienced young apprentices under the age of 25. A secure place to live, and a future in the world of work with an apprenticeship, are the first two critical rungs on the ladder of opportunity.
Finally, early intervention spending has fallen by 48%, while spending on the crisis end of children’s services and costlier downstreaming interventions has risen by 34%. Short-changing early intervention is a false economy. It does not provide value for the money for the taxpayer, who ends up funding less effective and costly interventions, and most importantly it means that children are suffering harms that could and should have been addressed earlier. Our report calls on the Government to explore a range of options to funnel excessive care home profits into improving the care system, especially through early intervention. The recent review by Josh MacAlister talked about a windfall tax and the Government should respond to that. Other options include increasing the bargaining power of local authorities and transforming care home businesses into community interest companies.
There is much to be done to support the progress, champion the attainment and raise the life chances of children in care. The number of children in care is rising and could reach the significant milestone of 100,000 children in care by 2025. Our report states that action is needed now to ensure that every looked-after child is properly supported to succeed in education and life. They should have as much chance to climb the ladder of opportunity as everybody else. If levelling up is not about this, what is it really about? The recommendations in our report provide that roadmap for how that can be achieved.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
It was a privilege to serve on the Education Committee and to produce this report. I could not agree more with the Chair about the recommendations. It is important that the Government look at those and react positively to them, because we are letting down children in our care system. When I was a local authority councillor, chaired the education committee and was the lead member for children’s services in Gateshead, I took very seriously my role as corporate parent. But it is not just the local authority that is the corporate parent. This House, the Government and the Department for Education are also part of the corporate parenting system and should be taking their responsibilities very seriously. When I see the statistics, outlined in the report, that 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, employment or training, and that only 2% of those aged 16 to 18 are able to take up an apprenticeship, I feel ashamed of what the governance of this country is doing to the children in our care.
It is important that we do something about this barrier to apprenticeships. Paying youngsters who are living independently after coming out of care £4.81 an hour while they learn on an apprenticeship is just not satisfactory—they literally cannot do it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I just want to emphasise that contributions should be in the form of questions to the Chair of the Committee.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Member. He is an incredibly hard working member of the Committee and is passionate about this issue. I am so grateful for his support. He is right—this is unforgivable. I am asking all the leadership candidates what they plan to do about educational poverty in all those disadvantaged cohorts who are underperforming in our education system. The answer, as he will know from our report, is that the levy should be changed to incentivise big business to hire apprentices and care leavers should be paid the national living wage. That would make a huge difference, given the disadvantage that those care leavers have faced.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I refer the House to entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the report. I do not agree with all its findings, but it is a great report. The depressing thing is that it could have been written 12 years ago, when some of us in the Department for Education were trying to grapple with just these sorts of injustices that children in care continue to suffer. We need to be so much better at the concept of the pushy parent.
One issue that has not been resolved is children being placed in care closer to the homes they come from, and the multiple placements that mean they do not get the stability and continuity of being in the same school, which inevitably leads to educational underperformances. Why on earth is that still happening, despite everything that Governments have tried to do over 12 years and more? What new evidence did the Committee take about part of the problem still being the lack of smart commissioning, rather than ad hoc, day-to-day commissioning, in order to provide the continuity and stability needed to get children the most appropriate placements, and not just whatever happens to be available, which may not be in the best interests of that child?
Robert Halfon
On the wider point, there are enough reviews and reports—ours is yet another—and as I said to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) a moment ago, I hope that the new leadership candidates, and whoever becomes leader of the Government, take these issues seriously. We talk in our report about constant changes of placement, with children being moved around all the time. As my hon. Friend will know, that is occasionally necessary if people have problems in their local area, but children are being moved from place to place, and from school to school—if they are getting to school at all—and that has got to stop. Much more work needs to be done to ensure that children are kept in one place and go to good or outstanding schools. My hon. Friend’s second point is more of a matter for the MacAlister review than the Committee, as we focus predominantly on education and employment outcomes.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I welcome the report and echo all that I have heard in the Chamber. I particularly back up the comment about the constant moving around of children and young people, as we know how incredibly disruptive that is to their education and to them forming solid relationships. While children are still being moved around, sometimes quite far across the country, does the right hon. Gentleman think there is more to do to secure good data sharing, and a trail of data that follows the child wherever they may find themselves in care over their childhood? He mentioned admissions policies and the ways in which schools can seek to prevent children from being admitted to schools if they come from care backgrounds. That is also the case for exclusions policies, and I wonder whether the Committee had any particular recommendations on that.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Lady, who is an expert on these issues. I absolutely agree with both the points she made on her first topic, that of placements and being moved around: as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), that has to stop. Children in care should be given a digital passport so that all their qualifications are known, because often they have to start all over again in a different school. If they are moved, there should be a thread, but those moves should not be happening in the way they currently are.
I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon: could she repeat her second point?
Kate Green
My second point was about the disproportionate likelihood that a child in care may experience exclusion.
Robert Halfon
Our Committee did a separate report on exclusions a few years ago, just before the 2019 election; as we know, 40 children are excluded every day, which I think is wrong. It is a huge report that contains a whole load of recommendations. The problem is that when those children are excluded, they either do not end up in school at all, or end up in poor alternative provision. Often, that alternative provision is not in the areas where those children are excluded, so I refer the hon. Lady to our report on that issue, which contains quite a few recommendations dealing with some of the points she has made.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for all his hard work, his personal commitment, and his endeavours. I, for one, am very much impressed by all he does, and by the work of the other Committee members who contribute as well.
Can the Chair outline the approach that has been taken to help provide adequate mental health care? Nine out of 10 children who have been abused or neglected at a young age will develop mental health problems by the age of 18. If that is sorted out early, it can give them a better life later on.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman makes some very powerful points. Sadly, we have a mental ill health epidemic among young people in our country, especially since covid. The Committee has done a previous report on mental health, working jointly with the Health and Social Care Committee. The Government are doing some good things, but I believe they need to rocket-boost the programme to have mental health counsellors in all schools, and we need to do more to teach children resilience. I have proposed a levy on social media companies, which I think are responsible for a lot of these issues, especially companies such as TikTok. That levy would raise money to fund mental health resilience programmes in schools.
I also believe in a longer school day: not children learning algebra until 8 pm—although I do not know whether the new Schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), would like that—but children being able to do arts, wellbeing and sporting activities, which all the evidence shows improves not just their mental health but their academic attainment. We need mental health counsellors in schools, because obviously some looked-after children—although not all—will need extra support, which is lacking. We in this country need to get a real grip through our education policy on the damage that children have suffered because they have been shut at home for two years on and off, and come up with a proper, serious, well-funded mental health strategy for young children. The damage we have done to their educational attainment, life chances, mental health and safeguarding has been enormous, and of course the most vulnerable children—many of them looked- after children—have suffered the most.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The report sets out a devastating account of the Government’s failure of some of our most vulnerable children, and sits in the wider context of this Government’s utter complacency about children’s social care. Half of all local authorities’ children’s services departments are rated inadequate or as requiring improvement, and the Government have been content to allow that to happen. There has been no leadership to get a grip on those failings. Reform of children’s social care is long overdue, but the Government will not publish a response to the MacAlister review until the autumn, despite having known about those issues for years. The report sets out a range of measures that could be delivered now to improve access to education and educational outcomes for looked-after children. Does the Chair of the Select Committee believe it is important that the Government move to introduce those changes immediately?
Robert Halfon
I thank the Opposition spokesman for her question. To be fair, I do not think everything the Government have done is bad: they have done some very good things for vulnerable children, and it is important to mention that. My job as a Select Committee Chair, as well as that of my colleagues, is to provide challenge on some of the things that need to be improved.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, with his Man from Del Monte suit, made the point that there had been a lot of reviews and reports about this issue, and that we need action. Obviously, there will be a new Prime Minister in the next few weeks, but I very much hope that whoever takes the post of Education Secretary looks seriously at the MacAlister review and adopts many of its important proposals. I also hope that they look seriously at our report on educational outcomes and the educational poverty that too many children in care face, and respond to our recommendations as soon as possible and enact some of them sooner rather than later. We have waited long enough, and children in care need help and support. As I said in my statement, they should be given the chance to climb the educational ladder of opportunity along with everyone else, and it is wrong that we have not even brought them to that ladder to help them climb up.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement, and for answering the questions in such detail.
Backbench Business
Srebrenica
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that from 4 to 11 July 2022, the UK marked Srebrenica Memorial Week with commemorations taking place in hundreds of schools, local authorities, places of worship, community centres and police forces to name but a few to mark the 27th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica where over 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were murdered by Bosnian Serb forces; expresses concern about the current threat to Bosnia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty from secessionists who are operating with the support of Russia and the prospect of a return to conflict; commends the invaluable work undertaken by Remembering Srebrenica in using the lessons of Srebrenica to tackle prejudice to help build a safer, stronger and more cohesive society in the UK; and urges the Government to continue funding this vital work which since 2013 has educated nearly 200,000 young people on Srebrenica, enabled over 1,500 community actions to take place right across the country each year, and created 1,450 Community Champions who pledge to stand up to hatred and intolerance in their communities.
Before I go into the substance of the debate, I wish to say a number of thank yous. First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) this debate to mark the commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide 27 years ago, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who attended the Backbench Business Committee with me to support my application for the debate. Like your, Madam Deputy Speaker, she is stepping down as a Member of Parliament at the next election, and I am truly sad about that.
Secondly, I thank the Speaker for granting my application for a commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide. That commemoration took place at Speaker’s House, and I thank him and his staff for allowing us to host it. Thirdly, I thank the Administration Committee for allowing a book-signing commemoration in Portcullis House yesterday. I declare two interests: first, I have been the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Srebrenica since 2013, which I helped found with Baroness Sayeeda Warsi. Secondly, from 2000 to 2002, I worked for the United Nations mission in Kosovo.
Two genocides have taken place in Europe. One was the holocaust, in which over 6 million Jewish people were murdered. The other was the Bosnian genocide between 1992 and 1995, which involved the planned, systematic and industrialised murder of just under 100,000 Muslims, the displacement of 2 million people, and the genocidal rape of up to 50,000 women simply because they were Muslims. Many of us of a certain age will remember seeing images of the war in Bosnia on our television screens during the 1990s. We remember watching with horror the footage of Sarajevo under siege and people being held in concentration camps, and slowly learning about the reports of atrocities being committed across Bosnia, which culminated in a genocide taking place on European soil just 50 years after the world pledged “never again”.
This week marks the 27th anniversary of events in Srebrenica where, over a period of just a few days in July 1995, over 8,000 men and boys—Bosnian Muslims—were systematically murdered by Bosnian Serb forces. The victims’ bodies were dumped in mass graves as the Bosnian-Serb soldiers sought to cover up what they had done. Twenty-seven years on, the remains of a significant number of victims are still missing.
Although the anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide gives us an opportunity to commemorate and reflect on what happened, it is important that we understand the reason why commemorating the anniversary is so important. We commemorate it, first, so we can recognise the suffering of the victims, their loved ones and the survivors. In 2018, as a guest of the charity Remembering Srebrenica, I had the privilege of visiting Bosnia and meeting the survivors and some of the mothers. They are inspirational women who, despite experiencing the very worst of humanity, have shown great strength and determination to rebuild their lives and resist hatred. By commemorating the genocide, we help to ensure that the victims are not forgotten. I also visited the genocide memorial centre just outside Srebrenica. Thousands of simple white gravestones stretch across the hillside as far as the eye can see. Even today, the remains of the victims are still being found and identified.
Secondly, commemorating the genocide is made even more important by the continued denial of what happened. To be clear, the events of the Srebrenica genocide have been documented in forensic detail by the investigations of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Despite that, Bosnian-Serb political leaders in Republika Srpska, one of the two entities that make up Bosnia and Herzegovina today, in which Srebrenica is located, continue to deny and minimise the events that occurred. The Serbs refuse to allow the history of the genocide to be taught in schools.
Further afield, we know that the genocide has been an inspiration for far-right extremists and Islamophobes. The Christchurch mosque attacker played a song glorifying Karadžić just prior to the attack and, years earlier, Anders Breivik in Norway also sought inspiration in the Balkan wars and Serb ultra-nationalism. There have been other events around the world in the past few years that reinforce the importance of remembering what happened in Srebrenica.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate, which is so important. I speak as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. The week before last, the Government held and sponsored an international conference for those who are persecuted across the world. The conference remembered all the genocide that has taken place across the world, so I commend her on bringing this issue to the House.
I am reminded of a verse from Ecclesiastes:
“Wisdom is better than weapons of war”.
Does the hon. Lady agree that the international community must have the wisdom to learn from its errors and finally put an end to repeating the same mistakes over and over? We always hope that this one will be the last, but it never seems to be.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and commend him on and thank him for all his work on religious freedom and preventing the persecution of people because of their religion.
There are worrying similarities between Srebrenica and the plight of the Rohingya in Burma, or the rise of Hindu nationalism in India—the Hindutva movement under Prime Minister Modi—and the growing tide of anti-Muslim violence. Indeed, there are numerous examples around the world of people being targeted and killed because of their identity or beliefs. That makes it critical that we continue to remember and reflect on Srebrenica.
Even here, the Srebrenica genocide and the events leading up to it contain important lessons for us. Low-level prejudice escalates to crime, violence and hatred. It creeps up on us in stages. It begins with differentiation and discrimination, fostering and fostered by a sense of grievance or perceived grievance, yet at every stage, as we watch hate unfold, we have the opportunity to break into and halt that journey. I hope that the Minister will take note of that for the Government’s strategy in tackling far-right extremism. We must actively promote tolerance in and between our communities; work with them and encourage them to educate and share with one another; support individuals bravely speaking out against hate speech; recognise and act on inequality and injustice; and intervene at the earliest possible stage.
I recognise that there are clear differences between Bosnia in the 1990s and the UK today. None the less, these events demonstrate where hatred and the dehumanisation of others can lead.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I admit to not having been completely up to speed with the horror of the events in Srebrenica—many of us have perhaps been complacent—until I was asked to give a talk at my local mosque as part of a previous commemoration. The horror of just how recent it was— 27 years ago—and the blatant way in which those Muslim people were picked out and massacred under an international gaze was extraordinary. Therefore, does she agree that however historic genocides are—I have my Recognition of Armenian Genocide Bill; that genocide goes back 100 years—it is still so important to make sure that we educate current and future generations about the horrors that have happened so close, both in time and geographically? It is also important to ensure that we continue to call out contemporary genocides, such as the one that she and I know is going on in Xinjiang province by the Chinese Communist party against the Uyghurs. This House has voted to recognise that and I hope that the Government, in short order, will appreciate that and do the same thing.
Yasmin Qureshi
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need to recognise genocide wherever it is happening. As he may know, I set up the all-party parliamentary group on Uyghurs, which deals with the genocide, and I know the enormous amount of work that he and other parliamentarians across the House have done on that. These are not party political issues; they are issues about humanity that affect us all.
Reflecting on what happened can strengthen our resolve to stand up to hatred in our society. The othering and scapegoating of marginalised groups is an everyday reality that has been perpetuated by parts of our media and, I am sad to say, by some politicians, whether that relates to refugees, immigrants or Muslims. That is why it is so important to remember this genocide. We cannot allow the suffering of the victims and survivors to be forgotten or denied.
Let us face it: when the persecution of Jews in Germany or what happened with the Bosnian Muslims took place, people did not just get up one day and say, “We are going to start killing our Jewish neighbour” or “our Muslim neighbour”. It was because of the perpetuation of hatred, which carried on over many years. A lot of that was carried out by the media, with their narrative about people. I am sad to say that quite a lot of that is happening with the media in our country, in terms of the othering and scapegoating of people who do not look like us. All of us as politicians should call that out and not—as I am afraid happens in some cases—join in with the othering and scapegoating of communities. We have to be vigilant against hatred and intolerance.
We say the words “Never again”, but we are seeing that same rise of hatred, division, sectarianism and the beast of nationalism rise again. We see fears rising and still-raw wounds being opened. Peace in Bosnia is under threat, and the Dayton peace agreement is under enormous strain. There have been warnings about the rise of the same army that was responsible for committing genocide at Srebrenica. The Army of Republika Srpska successfully co-opted civic society through a careful and systematic process of dehumanising Bosnian Muslims so that the agents of death and their collaborators found common and easier cause in achieving their goal of ethnic cleansing.
Perhaps the Minister can update the House today and set out his views on Serbian succession and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that Bosnian Serbs are not rewarded, in their goal of creating a “Greater Serbia”, by being handed the very territory in which they committed a four-year campaign consisting of forced deportations, torture and mass murder. Although the responsibility to prevent the gravest of crimes from occurring is shared by all states, we in the United Kingdom are uniquely positioned to bring essential global leadership to defuse the tension and support a safer and more unified Bosnia and Herzegovina. The UK must do its part to ensure that the violent, dark days of the 1990s do not return.
I am pleased that we have the opportunity today to commemorate in Parliament the atrocities suffered by the people of Srebrenica, but commemoration must be accompanied by action. I urge on Ministers the determination to learn the lessons of how intolerance takes root, be alert to the markers that identify its growth, and be resolute in working with our diverse communities to tackle it early and comprehensively.
I also call on the Minister to work with his counterparts in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that the escalating situation in Bosnia is closely monitored and that early diplomatic steps are taken to prevent violence from occurring. We know from what we are hearing and seeing in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia that there has been a rise in Serb nationalism and that the nationalists effectively want to take over Srebrenica as part of their territory. Sadly, they are getting a lot of support from the Russians; we know the steps that the Russians have taken in Ukraine. Hon. Members will remember that the second world war started with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Bosnia. I think it is better to deal with the situation in its early stages than at the end, when it may be too late to do anything constructive. I really hope that the Minister will touch on that point in his response. That would be a fine memorial to those who died in the Srebrenica genocide 27 years ago, the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who were killed in that war, and others who were murdered.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee again for allowing this debate. If you will allow me to digress for just two sentences, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to thank my brother, Mazhar Hussain Qureshi, who passed away four days ago. One of the reasons I am here is that he always said that as elected representatives we must do our duty to make sure that evils like this do not happen. I really want to thank him—I do not know if he can hear me—for the support that he has always given me, as the most loving brother anybody could have.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in giving the hon. Lady our sincere sympathy for the loss of her brother, who was obviously a great man. We all appreciate what she has just said about him.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for coming to this place at such a difficult time. My heart goes out to her and her family and to all those for whom she cares so deeply. She is a true friend to Bosnia and Herzegovina; she has been since she came to this place, and I know that she will continue to be for a long time. I thank her for all her work on the issue and for working with me to secure the debate, which matters because what we say in this place is heard. What we say in this place changes things and can make people safer, so we have a duty to speak today.
I must declare an interest in this debate as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Our debate takes place during Srebrenica Memorial Week; I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making sure that that could happen. Most of all, I am pleased to be able to speak today because we are joined in the Chamber by my constituent Karen Packwood and her family, who are observing the debate. I thank her for allowing me to tell the story of her late husband Amir, a victim of the Bosnian war—a proud, kind, and loving man.
Before I come to Amir’s story, I want to reflect on why today matters so much. We all know that the Srebrenica genocide represents the most extreme case of ethnic cleansing in the long and painful Bosnian war of 1992 to 1995. There are many other atrocities that we should reflect on, and we must take the time to do so, but that one has become symbolic of just how industrialised, appalling and truly evil were the acts that we saw taking place during that time. It was the barbarity in Srebrenica and the failure of the UN’s peacekeeping mission that forced the international community to finally put an end to the bloodshed and implement the Dayton agreement, which has prevented a bullet being fired in anger since then.
Back in March 1995, the so-called President of the self-declared Republika Srpska directed his military to remove Bosniaks from Srebrenica. He called for the creation of
“an unbearable situation of total insecurity, with no hope of further survival or life”.
This grim directive was followed on 11 July 1995 by the then leader of the Bosnian Serb military entering Srebrenica and boasting:
“We give this town to the Serb nation…The time has come to take revenge on the Muslims.”
Ten thousand Bosniaks had fled in advance, but many were captured or intimidated into surrendering by the use of terror, murder, torture and rape. The men and boys were rounded up and put into makeshift concentration camps, and then the killing began in earnest.
Over 8,000 Bosniak Muslim boys and men were killed in cold blood, often after mutilation or being blindfolded. Their bodies were not just hastily buried without respect or decency; they were buried and then, weeks later, in came the diggers to dig up their bodies and move them from site to site in what was an obvious attempt to hide a genocide. As a result, many have yet to be buried. Their bodies lie in small boxes in a dark, cold chamber that I have visited in Bosnia, where I could see the many bones that people are working tirelessly to put together so that families can bury their loved ones and finally find some semblance of closure. I remember seeing a funeral when I was in Bosnia. The heartache in that community, as people came together to finally bury one of their loved ones, is something that I will never forget.
This was a deliberate genocide to eradicate the Bosniak population and replace them with a Serbian community that was somehow suggested to be superior to another. Today, we remember the victims. We remember what led to this, and we draw and learn lessons to prevent it from happening again.
I also want to remember all the victims of the Bosnian war, which saw more than 100,000 deaths and 2 million people displaced. Whether they were in Banja Luka, Sarajevo or Brčko, those who faced expulsion, terror and death in the name of ethnic cleansing must always be remembered. That is why I will use their names and the stories of people like Amir, rather than naming those who sought glory in the death of others. Each of those victims is an individual whose story was distorted, tortured and eradicated, cut short by the brutality of ethnic cleansing. We must always keep that truth close to our hearts and remember it, because hearing individual stories matters, no matter how difficult it might be. That is why I want to share the story of Amir, who was only 11 when the war began in 1992.
Amir was a happy boy who lived with his family, played football in the park and enjoyed toy cars and comics, but then the militia came and Amir was evicted. He lost everything: his toys, his comics—everything he loved—and his innocence. As Amir, aged 13, walked down the infamous Sniper Alley in Sarajevo, a Serb soldier took aim and shot him. I am not ashamed of my tears today, Madam Deputy Speaker, because every time we shed a tear we show that we care and that we will not stand for these people being forgotten and silenced. When he was shot, Amir cried out to the soldier: “I’m just a boy, I’m not a soldier. Why are you shooting me?” Sadly, Amir knew the answer: he was a male and he was a Bosniak. This made him a target for annihilation, because according to the Serbs he was not human, did not deserve to live, did not deserve a family, and did not deserve a future. That day, they tried to take everything from him—but they failed. As Amir lay struggling, he noticed a nearby United Nations tank and a peacekeeping soldier. He cried out for help and the soldier did nothing. The soldier ignored his screams of agony and the cries for help of an innocent 13-year-old boy.
We know the international community failed in Bosnia, but there are also many who served with distinction at that time, including British soldiers who were in this place, and those who saved thousands. I particularly commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—now known as Bosnia Bob, for exactly the right reasons—who helped to evacuate thousands by helicopter from around Srebrenica, despite being told not to. That is the kind of heroism that we need more of around the world—people who step up, step through bureaucracy and refuse to be told no, because they will save lives and protect those who deserve it.
Despite such actions of heroism, the international community did not do enough. It did not stop the war, it did not prevent the genocide, and it did not do enough for Amir. We have to work harder in this place, within our Government and internationally to help those struggling against hatred and violence, some of whom have been mentioned. The voices of the Uyghur people should have been heard two decades ago, because the genocide is not new, and yet somehow it is only since 2019 that anyone in this place has wanted to talk about it. We have an obligation to do better and to be the voices for those who others seek to silence.
As Amir lay bleeding on the floor, a passing civilian grabbed him and carried him to a car, saving him. In the car, he fainted. He awoke in a Sarajevo hospital, where he was subjected to attempts to save his life that no 13-year-old child should ever have to endure: blood transfusions and operations lasting up to nine hours. Amir had a heart attack and barely survived. But finally he began to recover, only to awaken to discover that parts of his body would never truly be the same again. His colon was attached to a colostomy bag, and he had to see his body in a state that no child should.
After three months in hospital, Amir was barely hanging on. Malnutrition caused his teeth to fall out and his weight to drop to 3½ stone. Then holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel saw him on the news, and, unbeknown to Amir, someone decided that goodness had to win and began to organise his rescue. Elie ensured that Amir was taken to Paris, where, away from the war, he received the first-class care that he deserved and was given the food that his body needed to recover and survive. But he took no joy in being able to eat; he thought only of his family in Sarajevo who still starved under the Serb blockade.
Amir survived, and he learned to thrive and to find joy again. He found love with Karen and he lived a full life. Many of the boys of Srebrenica, and across Bosnia, did not receive this second chance. But the agony of war stretches far into the future, and it was not the bullet that was shot in hatred but the transfusions that had saved his life that ultimately killed him, because they were of contaminated blood. His liver failed him 25 years later, and he became another victim of the Bosnian war. Today, we pay tribute in this place to Amir and his family, and we remember all the victims and all the survivors, whoever and wherever they are.
I have been and remain deeply moved by the strength of those who survived those terrible events, particularly the mothers of Srebrenica, whom the hon. Member for Bolton South East mentioned. These women fight so hard for justice, and for their loved ones and communities, and they have seen the worst of humanity yet demonstrate the best of it. I met them again most recently a few months ago, and they gave me this flower—a memorial of Srebrenica, and one of only 8,000 made—so that I could carry their strength in my heart at all times. Their lack of vengefulness or desire for revenge in the face of such evil, and their drive for justice, is the story of Bosnia and Herzegovina now. From the pain, the people of Bosnia have built a culturally rich, vibrant and beautiful place that is a forward-looking European nation. Positivity out of pain is one of the greatest strengths of the Bosnian people.
But the ability to move forward and heal is reliant on one thing—the truth. Through dialogue and through truth we heal, and we help those who are still searching and still healing. The whole foundation of modem Bosnia relies on truth—the truth that what occurred in the war was a deliberate genocide. That is why genocide denial is not a difference of opinion. No, genocide denial is a deliberate and calculated attack on survivors. It is a weapon that seeks to hurt the people and institutions that have grown out of the ashes, against everything that has been thrown at them. Denial is a continuation of the genocide itself. What begins with violence and killing is continued through the falsification of history. We see this today. I have sat opposite Dodik as he used the word “Muslim” as a weapon. I have sat opposite people who glorify these murders, deny they took place, and still go and intimidate Muslims in Bosnia, lighting up flames and saying that they will drive them out of that country. Language is a weapons system, and there are foreign Governments facilitating secessionist and divisive narratives.
I am pleased that since we last debated this, there has been enormous progress, driven by the all-party parliamentary group. We demanded that the Government raise Bosnia and Herzegovina at the NATO meeting of Ministers, and as a result we were the only country to do so. We demanded sanctions, which have now been put in place and which the President of Bosnia thanked us for again last night. We demanded that disinformation experts be delivered to Bosnia, and they have been. All this is thanks in large part to the amazing Bosnian ambassador, Vanja, and to our ambassador, Matthew Field, who has sadly now moved on to another role.
We know that violence must be combated with strength, but we must also remember that denial is fought through remembrance. That is why this debate matters. The theme for this year’s Srebrenica Memorial Week is combating denial and challenging hatred. So let us be very clear today that the British Parliament and the British people will never forget Srebrenica, and we will never forget our Bosnian friends. We will remember the past, reject hatred and division, and build upon a foundation of truth, and in so doing we can only build a better future. We will be a voice for those whom others seek to silence. We will aspire to adopt in our own lives even a shred of the dignity, compassion and strength that the survivors of Srebrenica and their loved ones show. They are the best of us, and as the spectre of hatred and division is weaponised again in Bosnia, we cannot let them down.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a great honour to speak in this debate, and particularly to speak after the contributions of my hon. Friends—if I may say that of both ladies—the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who has done an enormous amount in her short time in this House to ensure that Bosnia is indeed not forgotten here.
Some years ago, I visited Bosnia with the charity Remembering Srebrenica, and I am very proud to be its ambassador in the north-west. I pay tribute to all who contributed to our commemorative event in Manchester cathedral last Thursday. I was very sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East could not be with us because of her brother’s illness, and I give her my deep condolences on his death. I pay particular tribute—I know my hon. Friend will join me in this—to Elinor Chohan MBE, the chair of Remembering Srebrenica in the north-west. She does exceptional work to educate and raise awareness of the genocide and of the need to bring peace to the Balkan region, and to make sure that young people in this country, in particular, understand the horror of genocide and why it must not happen again.
No one who has visited Srebrenica can come away anything other than appalled at the massacre of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys on European soil 27 years ago. As we have heard, 27 years is not long; many of us still clearly remember those events. We remember, too, that a reason for our exceptional horror was that we had believed in the vow made after the holocaust—never again. Yet Srebrenica showed us how easily and quickly that pledge could be forgotten, and is still in danger of being forgotten, or ignored, today. The actions of Republika Srpska, and the rise of a Serbian nationalist narrative that seeks to rewrite history—to deny the fact of the Srebrenica genocide, despite Srebrenica being one of the most well-documented and scientifically verified atrocity sites in recent history—is a powerful lesson on the importance of the theme of this year’s Remembering Srebrenica commemoration: “Combating Denial: Challenging Hatred”.
We know that denial is the final step on the road to genocide, and we know today that it is happening all over again. We think of Milorad Dodik’s unspeakable claim that the killing of 8,372 Bosnian Muslims was a justified reprisal for the killing of 3,500 Serbs by Muslim forces. We think of the boycott of state institutions by Bosnian Serb politicians in direct retaliation for the decision of the UN High Representative to impose a genocide denial ban—a boycott that is now being used as a Trojan horse for Republika Srpska’s ambition for the effective dismemberment of, and its secession from, Bosnia. We think of the charging of a Montenegro mayor for denying the Srebrenica genocide; and we think of Russia’s veto, in 2015, of a UN resolution to recognise Srebrenica as a genocide.
In the face of this ongoing pattern of denial, I want particularly to raise the UK’s role in supporting reconciliation and peace building. That is hard, but the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton was absolutely right to say that peace building must be founded on truth. We remain an active member of the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board, and in that context I hope that the Minister will describe this afternoon how the UK is working with international partners to use our influence to support credible democratic and liberal reforms in Bosnia, and to challenge any genocide denial and nationalist rhetoric. Both the Royal United Services Institute and the Aegis Trust have suggested the need for UK peace- keepers on the ground, in partnership with international allies. I should be grateful if the Minister explained how he sees the UK’s peacekeeping role evolving even as tensions increase.
Ultimately, of course, peace must come from within rather than outside the region, with the different communities, civil society organisations and civic leaders working together to challenge denial and hate. That will not be easy, but we should not forget that one of the reasons for the horror of the 1990s war in Bosnia was the fact that people who only days earlier had been neighbours and friends found themselves taking arms in brutal opposition to one another. That is horror, but it also shows the capacity for people from different communities to live side by side in peace. Non-governmental organisations and faith groups must be supported and enabled to work together, and with the Bosnian authorities, to bring people together to help rebuild the lives of families and survivors. That work remains sorely needed even today, as families continue to mourn the loss of loved ones, and—as we have heard—as body parts continue to be discovered and identified.
We have also heard this afternoon of the Mothers of Srebrenica, women whom many of us in the Chamber will have had the great honour of meeting. I believe that we should particularly recognise the important role of women in peace building. In every community in every country where I have ever known of conflict, it is women who have been important and instrumental in helping to rebuild the peace. Let me also emphasise the importance of young people in peace building, and their importance to Bosnia’s future success. If future generations, from different communities, are to live harmoniously side by side, we must invest in them now. We must invest in jobs in Bosnia, invest in the economy, and invest in education. These too will be vital drivers of peace. Today, the lack of hope for a peaceful future means that Bosnia’s economic potential is being harmed by a brain drain of its talented young people. May I ask the Minister what priority the UK Government are giving to investment in the western Balkans to support the region’s economy, to support vital sectors such as tourism, and to encourage trade, sharing training and business expertise?
A peaceful and prosperous Bosnia is, of course, in the interests of Bosnians, but peace in the region is in the interests of everyone. The UK has a vital role to play in leading that endeavour, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the chance to reaffirm our commitment to that in this Parliament this afternoon.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing a debate in memory of the Srebrenica massacre in 1995 during this official week of remembrance. Let me also welcome the Minister to his new position. It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and it is a real privilege to wear this beautifully crafted flower of Srebrenica.
In January we marked Holocaust Memorial Day in this Chamber, as we do almost every year. In those debates we promise never to forget past genocides and atrocities, and the contributions are always moving and insightful. We all pledge to do our part so that never again will something so terrible happen on our watch. 1995 was only 27 years ago: what happened in Srebrenica occurred within our lifetimes, for some of us within our children’s lifetimes, or even our grandchildren’s. What we in the UK were experiencing during that summer was similar to what we are experiencing now: we were going through a record-breaking heatwave, and a Conservative leadership competition was coming to a head. My point is that history repeats itself. Throughout history we see cycles—sometimes coincidental, like those examples.
We are seeing the resurgence of radicalised far-right extremism across the developed world, despite these memories of recent atrocities being so painfully close. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, that harmful rhetoric is spreading, and has been for a long time. We saw it in Trump’s America, the so called free world; France has grappled with the same growing sentiments, and the UK has seen an uptick in right-wing extremism too. It still exists, it is still prevalent, and it is still incredibly dangerous.
Between 1992 and 1995, during the Bosnian war, just under 100,000 Muslims were murdered there, 50,000 women were subjected to rape, and 2 million people were displaced. This was a campaign of terror that was thoroughly planned, and executed with terrifying determination. It was July 1995, though, that saw one of the worst atrocities in post-war Europe. Over the course of just a few days, more than 8,000 people were murdered in this genocide by Bosnian Serb forces. Most of them were Muslim men and boys, separated from their families and taken away to be killed, and buried in mass, unmarked graves. As the Bosnian Serb forces began to panic and try to cover up their crimes, bodies were dug up, moved and reburied, sometimes more than once. Some are yet to be found. Mothers will have passed away in the intervening years, without the closure of knowing their child’s final resting place.
1995 was also, by chance, the United Nations Year for Tolerance, and the world year of people’s commemoration of the victims of the second world war. That is in direct contrast to the events we are here to remember today, for today in Bosnia and Herzegovina tensions are high once again, and there is a very real possibility of renewed conflict. While it is not the root cause of the tensions, the amendment of the country’s criminal code to include acts of genocide denial certainly triggered a reaction from Milorad Dodik. A series of actions and threats that could tear the country apart followed. Secession and upheaval in that part of the world would have a devastating impact on stability in the region, and that in turn would have an impact on stability in Europe more widely.
There is someone else whose influence cannot be overlooked. President Putin has deliberately emboldened Dodik, offering support and courses of action he knows would be deeply damaging because he is focusing on what he personally has to gain. Dodik in turn has emboldened his supporters. Dangerous and divisive rhetoric is rife in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Hatred left unchecked spreads like wildfire. It has to be controlled or it will consume everything it touches and burn faster and hotter until all that is left is destruction and the charred remains of surroundings that were once warm and familiar, now warped forever. What Putin has done in Ukraine is a frightening preview of his plans. Right now he is testing the waters, seeing how far his power extends. It is a hard reality that some, like Dodik, will have been inspired by his actions and his perceived dominance. Hatred, prejudice and racism dehumanise their targets, and we have to restore dignity to the 8,000 people needlessly murdered at Srebrenica. These were people with lives, families, friends and colleagues; people with faith.
Remembering Srebrenica was set up in 2013 and it has a crucial mission. It leads the yearly commemoration of Srebrenica in the UK and educates on the significance of the events in July 1995. It holds over 2,000 commemorative events each year across the UK in schools, prisons, town halls and places of worship. Its work and support mean that the UK is the only country to mark this anniversary on a national level outside Bosnia and Herzegovina. Internationally, we have a moral duty to play our part in preventing future atrocities. At home, we must focus on eradicating division and hatred in our society and communities. We cannot afford to take our eye off the ball.
Politics is often, by its nature, divisive. What it should do, though, is unite. We all come into it for the same reason: because we care about our communities and our country. When we are elected, we are given a platform, and if we make it into government we are presented with a unique opportunity to push forward a legislative agenda and shape the future of our country. That is why this Government must ensure that they are not feeding into hatred and right-wing extremism. Policy making is important, and this Government have shown that they are willing to tolerate certain forms of discrimination. It is time for that to be corrected. This year’s memorial week has the dual themes of combating denial and challenging hatred. I have spoken a lot about the hatred aspect, but combating denial is just as, if not more, important. If we do not learn from history, unfortunately we are destined to repeat it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Alyn Smith.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a privilege to sum up for the SNP in this debate. I warmly praise the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for her powerful and moving speech and I extend my condolences to her. This is an important thing for us to take account of today. I am also glad to see the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) in her place and I commend her for her deeply powerful speech. She organised a trip to Bosnia for a number of colleagues across the House a few weeks ago and I was glad to be part of it. We visited Tuzla, Sarajevo and Srebrenica, and it was a deeply moving experience. I suspect I will remember the smell of the Tuzla morgue forever. I pay tribute to the work that it does in reconciling the human remains with the still grieving relatives. The truth and reconciliation process is still necessary across Bosnia; it is ongoing and it needs wider support. I was also glad to briefly see the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) in his place today. He was on that trip, and he has a deep connection to Bosnia, having served there during the dreadful situation. It was a privilege to spend time with him and hear his stories of the events.
All of us across the House can unite around the fact that genocide denial is an act of aggression. I pay tribute to Remembering Srebrenica, an important charity that does leading work not only to ensure remembrance but to challenge and remind us that the world has not learned the lessons of Srebrenica and other genocides. Sadly, I see the ingredients of what brought us to the dreadful events at Srebrenica present in other places around the world: Syria, Ukraine, Xinjiang, Yemen and other places besides. It is easy for us to say that we need to remember and learn the lessons, but the challenge to all of us in this House is: what are we going to do to prevent other genocides from occurring?
As we see a more unstable world, with resource scarcity, climate instability and all sorts of other pressures, I regret to say that we are going to see more pressure on decency, democracy and international law. We can unite around the need for action, and I extend a hand to the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), whom I welcome to his place, to work together on this. There is a variety of world views and perspectives across the House, but surely we can all agree that more needs to be done to protect civilians, to protect and uphold international law and to protect decency.
I have some concrete questions for the Minister. The peace in Bosnia remains fragile and I would be grateful for an update on just how the UK is supporting the institutions of Bosnia to make sure that peace is maintained. It is under pressure from external forces and also from internal forces that remain dangerous. I have called long since for the adoption by the UK Government of a specific atrocity prevention strategy. There is good work going on, and I pay tribute to that, but crystalising that into a unified document and a unified policy to work across the embassy network would be beneficial for all of us, and for the UK efforts as well.
Alicia Kearns
When I was elected, I fought for the creation of a genocide prevention centre, and the Government did indeed create it, although they called it the conflict centre. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the conflict centre would be ideally placed to do this work? It is a place of excellence and expertise that could identify very early the markers of a genocide and have experts who could deploy to the FCDO team to advise on the programmes, the social and community group interventions and the sanctions that would work to prevent genocide. Does he agree that that would be the best way to ensure that atrocity prevention was at the heart of the Government’s efforts?
Alyn Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention and I warmly agree. There is no shortage of good ideas around and I appeal to the Government and the Minister to take advantage of them, and of the opportunity for cross-party working across the House right now on this sort of issue.
I acknowledge that the UK has done much on ensuring accountability. We discussed this just yesterday in the case of Sri Lanka. We are seeing it in China as well. We are seeing it particularly in Ukraine. I acknowledge that the UK has done work to support the International Criminal Court and the special prosecutor on Ukraine, but again, crystalising that into a specific strategy would be helpful for all of us in punching up the efforts to increase prominence and clarity across the world.
In closing, I want to make a plea for Remembering Srebrenica and its funding. It does incredibly important work not just for Srebrenica and Bosnia but for these issues as a whole, and it needs a much more certain financial future than it has had, because it has had funding issues. So I hope that an update will be forthcoming from the Minister on ensuring that Remembering Srebrenica is safe to do its work to help all of us in the efforts we want to unite around. It has been a privilege to sum up in this debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Minister, Bambos Charalambous.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing this immensely important debate today, and Members across the House who have made moving, thoughtful and measured contributions. I also welcome the Minister to his place.
This House is at its very best where we speak with one voice and in defence of the core values that, despite our political differences, we all share: democracy, a commitment to conflict prevention and the defence of human rights. Peace in the western Balkans is a priority for me and our team, and would be for a Labour Government. The shadow Europe Minister is currently in the region and continues to engage with officials to build consensus on achieving lasting stability, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) made a moving speech alongside the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina on Tuesday at the Speaker’s House.
It must be recognised that the UK and its armed forces have played a powerful and lasting role in ensuring peace and stability in Bosnia and across the western Balkans. Labour recognises that the UK must continue to provide that critical support during these deeply concerning times. The horrors of the 1990s are ingrained in the minds of so many people across the country, including our armed forces personnel.
I put on record our thanks to and continuing support for Remembering Srebrenica, whose work has been so important in paying tribute to those who lost their lives and in warning us that we can never allow this to happen again. I echo the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition: let us use this day and the memory of Srebrenica not only to remember those we lost, but to educate future generations and bring communities together. That is why Remembering Srebrenica has done so wonderfully. It has done the necessary and critical work of keeping the memory of the tragedy alive, and educating more than 180,000 young people about the evil that took place. That is integral to building stronger and more cohesive communities into the future, and developing an awareness of contemporary challenges.
This debate, marking the 27th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, comes at a particularly salient time for our continent. During Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have seen some of the most shocking and harrowing war crimes committed on this continent in decades. We must ensure that our collective resolve remains unwavering as the conflict across the east and the south continues to intensify. Labour continues to support the Government’s humanitarian, military and diplomatic efforts to support Ukrainians, who face enormous challenges in Putin’s barbaric and egregious war.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
A theme seen in Ukraine and in Srebrenica has been not only the killing of civilians and the genocide, but the sexual violence used as a tool of war. As well as those who have lost loved ones, many people are still living with the scars of the events that happened to them—not just in Srebrenica, but in pretty much every conflict across the world. Does the hon. Member agree that we must do more to support the victims of sexual violence in conflict?
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Sexual violence is one of the most heinous war crimes that can be committed, and it has a lasting effect. It is unspeakably dreadful. As she says, we need to do so much more to ensure that the victims are supported. I am sure that the Minister will make reference to that in his speech.
Alicia Kearns
It strikes me that there is much that we can learn from Bosnia regarding what is happening in Ukraine at the moment. I fear greatly that all the women, men and children who have been raped in Ukraine will be silenced by shame, because Ukraine has not seen anything like this for a long time. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government could facilitate meetings between the Mothers of Srebrenica and women’s groups in Bosnia, which could send a delegation to Ukraine or a nearby safe country to provide advice on supporting women and the mothers of children who are the result of rape to get through the situation, to recover and to rebuild?
Bambos Charalambous
Once again, the hon. Member makes an excellent point. I am sure that the Government will consider that and, if they do, they will have the full support of the Opposition.
For so many reasons, it is crucial to reflect on and commemorate the genocidal crimes committed against more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in July 1995. More than 1,000 victims’ remains are still unaccounted for, and for the families still mourning those lost, every effort must be made to recover them. The massacre at Srebrenica was one of the most heinous and appalling atrocities committed against innocent people since the second world war, and no matter how long it takes, those responsible must face justice. The war in Bosnia resulted in close to 100,000 civilians being killed, 2 million forced displacements and, as colleagues have just mentioned, the systematic rape of more than 20,000 women—all due to ethnic and religious identity. Indeed, the graves at Potočari are a harrowing reminder of what we must work tirelessly to avoid.
When today we see forces across Europe and the Balkans seeking to sow disharmony, spread acrimony and stir up tensions, it is critical that we remember Srebrenica and how we got there. I pay tribute to the unrelenting work of High Representative Christian Schmidt, who continues to warn of the very real prospect of a return to conflict in the region, given the behaviour of Milorad Dodik and Russian attempts to aggravate the situation further. The task of the High Representative is an enormous responsibility, and it is critical that the Government work with our European allies to support his efforts in preventing a return to the dark days of the past. I also put on record my support for the work of Sir Stuart Peach, the Government’s special envoy to the western Balkans, whose experience will be integral to efforts for long-term stability.
Ivana Stradner from the Foundation for Defence of Democracies pointed out just this week that,
“Russia is undermining Bosnia’s stability by working with Serbia to exacerbate ethnic divisions between Croats, Bosniaks, and Serbs…What we see in the Balkans is the same playbook Putin is using in Georgia and Moldova, weaponizing secessionist movements”.
In these efforts, Putin has a conduit in Dodik to undermine the hard-won peace and stability across the Balkans. Those seeking to undermine stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, from Dodik to Cvijanović, must face consequences, and Labour will continue to support the targeted measures that the Government brought in in April this year. To that end, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the sanctions, and what discussions he has had with officials across the western Balkans on how we can apply further diplomatic pressure on Dodik and Republika Srpska.
Dodik and Putin share the same goals when it comes to Bosnia; they want to strengthen the Serbian-Russian alliance, block Bosnia from securing membership of the European Union and NATO, and undermine the legitimacy of state institutions that have preserved the delicate balance of peace since the 1990s. Russia’s clear intention to undo the authority of the High Representative is a testament to the Kremlin’s nefarious intentions for the Balkans. It has become yet another arena to incite conflict and maximise Putin’s influence. There are also serious concerns about Russian disinformation operations in the region, including in Bosnia and Serbia. Will the Minister explain whether he shares those concerns, and assure the House that serious efforts are being made to support local partners to tackle fake news and rebut the constant tide of provocations that could further drive tensions?
Russian proxies are integral to secessionist efforts across the western Balkans, and we must heed the warnings of the High Representative, who said last year that a lack of response to the current situation would endanger the Dayton agreement and that instability in Bosnia and Herzegovina would have profound wider regional implications. He has also said that the conflict in Ukraine—not so far away—is a sobering reminder that even in the 21st century another war on European soil is not an impossibility. This would be Putin’s dream come true for the Balkans. If we are to honour the lives lost in Srebrenica and the lives being lost in Ukraine today, Britain must be a force for unity, co-operation and democracy on the global stage, as a foil to Russia’s ambitions to subvert them.
Today, let us reflect on Srebrenica, the lives lost and how the aggravation of ethnic tensions can lead to appalling evil that should never be forgotten and never be repeated. There are those who would still deny the scale of the atrocities that occurred in the war in Bosnia and those who have avoided justice. One of the most powerful ways to hold those individuals to account is to remember Srebrenica, to pay tribute to the lives lost, to tell victims’ stories and to ensure that the future does not replicate the past. Will the Minister therefore commit to keeping the House informed of developments in Bosnia and the wider region through written and oral statements? What assurances can he provide today regarding countering Russian influence in the region? I appreciate that he has only been in post for just over a week, but what conversations has he had with officials at the Department for Education to ensure that as many young people as possible benefit from the resources and expertise of Remembering Srebrenica?
I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton for securing today’s debate, as well as reiterating Labour’s commitment to supporting efforts to hold to account those who would see peace in the region break down for their own secessionist ambitions. We must continue to stand firm against both internal and external forces that we know are seeking to destabilise Bosnia and Herzegovina. The collective resolve the House has shown today is critical. The lives lost needlessly and tragically in Srebrenica must be remembered, and their story must be continually told. I am pleased that today we have reflected, remembered and resolved to continue our efforts against division, conflict and hatred.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Graham Stuart)
It is a great, albeit sobering, pleasure to follow so many powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House, showing the unity to which so many referred. There is real-world power in standing up for the principles and values that are shared on both sides of the House, and that all of us, including the UK Government, wish to back and reinforce.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate and, of course, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is fantastic to have Members on both sides of the House who not only speak with passion on this issue but have deep personal knowledge and engagement from their previous professional career. I pay tribute to them for their work as the respective chairs of the all-party parliamentary groups on Bosnia and Herzegovina and on Srebrenica. The professional career of my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) also involved him in that part of the world.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am very much involved in Bosnia, so I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, which is terribly important because it is widely viewed in Bosnia. People pay huge attention to what is happening, because they do not get this sort of debate in their own country. The young people, by the way, do not want another war, and people in Bosnia are watching what we say and do very carefully.
Graham Stuart
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention.
Colleagues on both sides of the Chamber are right to continue drawing attention to the fragile situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to the lessons we must all learn from the Srebrenica genocide. I am grateful for the contributions made by hon. and right hon. Members, and I will try to respond to the points they have raised.
This debate comes just after the 27th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. As colleagues have said, it was the worst atrocity on European soil since the end of the second world war. Today, as we did on Monday, we remember the victims of those terrible events and stand with the families in their ongoing fight for justice so many years on.
There is no question but that what happened in Srebrenica was genocide. That was the conclusion of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and of the International Court of Justice after extensive legal processes, yet some individuals and groups continue to deny these events. We have seen this over the past few days in and around Srebrenica, and we utterly condemn this behaviour. Glorifying the perpetrators and instigators of such heinous acts takes us further away from reconciliation and hinders the country’s ability to move forward and come together, so it is vital that we deliver justice and challenge the lies and false narratives, as successive speakers have said.
To date, a total of 57 individuals have been tried at the state court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for crimes committed in and around Srebrenica in July 1995. A further 20 individuals have been tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and its successor, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, for crimes related to Srebrenica. We are proud to have supported this work.
Of course, we house Radovan Karadžić in a UK cell as he serves his whole-of-life prison sentence following his conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for the genocide at Srebrenica. Last month, the UK helped to pass a UN Security Council resolution on the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, extending the term of the current prosecutor. We will continue to fight to end impunity for war criminals, and to see that they are held to account.
As others have said, Bosnia and Herzegovina faces new challenges today. Threats are on the rise, from the knock-on effects of Putin’s war to the destabilising actions of Russian-backed secessionists, about which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) spoke so powerfully.
Alicia Kearns
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. He is talking about the prosecutions we have achieved, but there have been very few prosecutions for sexual violence. Will he commit to meeting me to discuss whether we can create an international organisation with the sole job of going in at the start of a conflict to collect evidence of sexual violence so that we are able to prosecute and get justice? Waiting until the end of a conflict is too late because, unfortunately, the evidence will have gone.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She will be aware that, on 16 November 2021, the Government launched a major global initiative to stop sexual violence against women and girls in conflict, which included a £20 million fund. We are alive to this issue, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss how it is not enough to have effective mechanisms afterwards, and how we need to get in early to try to make sure it does not happen in the first place.
The leaders of Republika Srpska have been emboldened by Russia’s actions. With Moscow’s support, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned, they are using divisive and dangerous nationalist rhetoric. They are encouraging ethnic hatred and genocide denial, and they are pushing for the de facto secession of Republika Srpska, in direct contravention of their country’s constitution.
The situation is serious, and we must learn the lessons of the region’s history and the consequences of inaction. The west took too long to act in the 1990s, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary argued when she visited Bosnia and Herzegovina just two months ago. Sarajevo suffered under siege for 1,425 days. We were not bold enough to prevent terrible events such as the genocide at Srebrenica. If the Government and I, and everyone who has spoken today, are serious when we say “never again,” and if it is not just empty rhetoric, we must act today to preserve security and stability. That is why we are deploying a wide range of diplomatic, economic and defence support to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
First, we are working to protect the hard-won Dayton peace agreement. In April, in response to their unacceptable nationalist rhetoric and denial of the genocide, we sanctioned Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian Serb member of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s state-level presidency, and Željka Cvijanović, the President of Republika Srpska. These designations include travel bans and asset freezes, and they were the first under the UK’s Bosnia and Herzegovina sanctions regime. We will keep the situation under review, and we will apply further designations if necessary. We will continue to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and we will continue to back the work of the High Representative, Christian Schmidt.
It is fantastic to see total co-operation and agreement, from what I can tell from every word of the speech by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, between Her Majesty’s Opposition and Her Majesty’s Government on almost every aspect of this.
Secondly, as has been said, we have to give hope and show that Bosnia and Herzegovina can succeed. We are investing to boost the country’s economic security. We are extending our offer of honest and reliable infrastructure investment to the western Balkans, and we aim to mobilise $100 million of UK-backed investment by 2025. Across the western Balkans there is a nearly £13 billion facility at UK Export Finance, our credit agency, to support and encourage British involvement in such activity, which will help to provide the resilience and capability to counter Russian interference.
Thirdly, we are boosting Bosnia and Herzegovina’s ability to counter security threats and malign influences—again, I am directly answering a point made today. That includes training its cadets in world-class British military academies such as Sandhurst. That support, like our support for Ukraine, is about our belief in a simple principle: the right of people to decide their democratic future and to protect themselves. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future lies on that path—it must do—and in greater partnership with NATO and countries such as the UK.
Finally, we are ensuring that the truth about Srebrenica will endure. We have built a strong partnership with the Srebrenica memorial centre, to develop its operational capacity and establish a centre for genocide research, prevention and reconciliation. We are also supporting Remembering Srebrenica, which just yesterday hosted its national commemoration event in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We have provided £200,000 to that organisation to ensure that it can continue to do its highly valuable work.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am glad that £200,000 has been given to Remembering Srebrenica. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that that charity, which has been in existence for some time, has always struggled to get sufficient funding. Every year, it has to beg for money from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities or the Foreign Office, and the situation has been very difficult for it. In the light of what is happening, should there not be a proper system in place to fund this charity, on a yearly basis, with a decent amount of money to allow it to carry out the work it does across the country?
Graham Stuart
I hear what the hon. Lady says. I think most Members in the Chamber would recognise that £200,000 is a substantial sum and that we in the UK are unusual in having that kind of Government backing. She and I, and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and others, attended the events this week, and it is important to see the power they have and their ability to bring people together. Like her, I hope that the charity can succeed and we can ensure that it has a viable future.
Let me have a look at some of the other issues raised and make sure that I am dealing with them all as best I can, given that there is the opportunity to do so. On tackling the destabilisation efforts, I have already mentioned the sanctions on Bosnian Serb presidency member Dodik. On the military aspect, the UK supports EUFOR and wants to see its mandate renewed at the UN Security Council in November. We cannot allow a security vacuum in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we will work with allies on a NATO alternative should Russia choose to use its veto—the House should be aware of that, as that threat could be there. But if Russia tries to stop EUFOR, we would look to provide a NATO alternative, which the Russians might find less satisfactory. I have stated on the record the importance we attribute to the need for a speedy response.
On Amir and the powerful tale told about him, I thought the most memorable line from a powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton was that
“denial is fought through remembrance.”
That is why it is so important that we continue to do this, so that Amir’s story is heard and his family feel that it is, and so that it positively contributes to ensuring that there is not a repetition in this part of the world or somewhere else.
On the support for reconciliation, my predecessor as Minister for Europe visited Bosnia and Herzegovina on 16 June, where he met young politicians, Foreign Minister Turković and the Central Election Commission. We are trying to ensure that we have those kinds of ministerial ties. I have also already mentioned that the Foreign Secretary visited Sarajevo on 26 May, when she reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to peace and stability in the western Balkans in the face of Russia’s malign influence. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for his support for the role of Sir Stuart Peach, which is really important.
On work with the Department for Education, I have not yet had that opportunity, but I hope that, given the general tenor of my speech and the unanimity strongly felt in this place, we have shown that we are determined to ensure that we remember the past but do not see this act of remembrance as somehow separated from current circumstances, as it is anything but. It is part of dealing with the current threats and destabilisation and taking them seriously. On various fronts, diplomatic, civil society and defence, we are trying to make sure that we are an active player. At the heart of what a lot of colleagues have raised is that we must stay focused on this, and that we do not find ourselves asleep at the wheel and failing to respond, alongside allies, when circumstances demand action. I am delighted to conclude the debate, and I hope that I have answered colleagues’ questions.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank all my parliamentary colleagues for attending today’s debate. I reiterate my thanks to Mr Speaker for allowing the Speaker’s House to be used on Monday for the commemoration, with my request having been accepted. I see the Chair of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), is in his place, and I thank him for the fact that the Committee allowed for the commemoration and book signing in Portcullis House. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place.
I wish to make a correction, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think I said in my speech earlier that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand caused the second world war—I meant to say the first world war. That was just a slip on my part.
I am glad that the Foreign Office is recognising that the situation in Bosnia is delicate and that it is aware of it. That is important, because one act can lead to a horrendous situation; the first world war came from one assassination, and the second world war also led to millions of people dying. Sometimes strong action at the early stages, when the problem arises, is probably the best way forward. I thank the Government and the Minister for acknowledging that this is a genuine, pressing issue at this moment in time.
Again, I thank Remembering Srebrenica for all the work it has been carrying out, and I thank the UK for being the country in the whole of Europe that has been commemorating the Srebrenica genocide. As always, in so many things, we in the UK lead on these things. I thank everyone in our country, and all my political parliamentary colleagues, not for what they have done today, but for all the assistance, advice, help and working together we have done over the years.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that from 4 to 11 July 2022, the UK marked Srebrenica Memorial Week with commemorations taking place in hundreds of schools, local authorities, places of worship, community centres and police forces to name but a few to mark the 27th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica where over 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were murdered by Bosnian Serb forces; expresses concern about the current threat to Bosnia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty from secessionists who are operating with the support of Russia and the prospect of a return to conflict; commends the invaluable work undertaken by Remembering Srebrenica in using the lessons of Srebrenica to tackle prejudice to help build a safer, stronger and more cohesive society in the UK; and urges the Government to continue funding this vital work which since 2013 has educated nearly 200,000 young people on Srebrenica, enabled over 1,500 community actions to take place right across the country each year, and created 1,450 Community Champions who pledge to stand up to hatred and intolerance in their communities.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2022
Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022.
Protecting and Restoring Nature: COP15 and Beyond
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered protecting and restoring nature at COP15 and beyond.
I am delighted to open today’s debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its support in securing this important debate. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) to his new post. I look forward to working with him and hope he will be a champion for nature in the most crucial of years.
COP15 is the most significant biodiversity summit in a decade. As we all know, it has been delayed multiple times, because of the covid-19 pandemic, and it is now due to take place in Montreal from 5 to 17 December, while China still retains the presidency. If the negotiating process has been slowed down, environmental decline most certainly has not. Deforestation in the Amazon, for example, one of the most biodiverse places on Earth, has now reached a six-year high. Recent satellite observation suggests that it could fast be approaching a tipping point beyond which the forest could be lost in its entirety.
The sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from working group II showed that climate change is already causing what it calls
“dangerous and widespread disruption in nature.”
A new UN report published in April warned that human activities have already altered 70% of the Earth’s land surface, degrading up to 40% of it. The truth is that our only home is not only on fire, but being bulldozed before our very eyes. That is why COP15 must agree a framework not just to halt biodiversity loss by 2030, but to reverse it. Our world desperately needs a nature-positive decade, so that by 2030 species and ecosystems are on a measurable path to recovery and biodiversity loss has started to be reversed.
By now, we all know the facts that, globally, 1 million species are at risk of extinction, and that the UK has lost, or I should say destroyed, almost half of its biodiversity since the industrial revolution, more than any other G7 country. A report published just this week by the Environment Agency showed that a quarter of mammals in England and almost a fifth of UK plants are now threatened with extinction.
Let me focus very briefly on what that actually means, because it is very easy to stand here and quote global or national statistics. I want to see it through the lens of one of my favourite species, which is the swift. Since 1995, we have seen a decline of more than a half in the population of that bird. As the Minister may know, in December they were added to the UK’s red list of endangered birds along with the house martin and the greenfinch, joining the cuckoo and nightingale whose songs are now very rarely heard.
Swifts are summer visitors from Africa arriving in the UK in the last week of April or in early May, staying only long enough to breed. They are the most amazing, beautiful creatures and they are the fastest of all birds in level flight, reaching speeds of almost 70 miles an hour. A single bird can fly more than 1 million miles in its lifetime. That is why it is honestly heartbreaking that we are seeing them less and less in our skies, and a profound tragedy that, without urgent action, our children and grandchildren are running out of time to discover the wonders that nature holds.
In that context, it is therefore extremely concerning to hear about the lack of progress at the recent COP15 meeting in Nairobi, with just two targets finalised and ongoing disagreements about finance and the headline nature loss targets in particular. The post-2020 global biodiversity framework, due to be adopted in Montreal, should be setting out a vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050 at the very latest. It should be setting out a vision of reversing biodiversity loss, with a series of targets and milestones for 2030. As others have noted, it must be a Paris agreement for nature and mark a turning point in our relationship with the natural world.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the goals that we need to secure at this and future conferences is protection for the world’s peatlands, as crucially important carbon sinks and a source of great biodiversity, supporting many species?
Caroline Lucas
I could not agree more with the right hon. Lady. In fact, I will come on to say a few words about peat very shortly. It sometimes feels that with all the focus on planting trees, which is very important, people sometimes forget that, actually, there is far more carbon sequestered in our peatlands than we will replace with our trees.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Lady has to say. Does she agree that one of the most important things that we can do is reduce the amount of waste that we send for incineration? In that respect, will she welcome the targets set out in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation document of 16 March, which look as if they are taking the Government towards reducing the amount of waste that goes to incineration? Does she agree particularly that the incinerator at Westbury has no place in our waste disposal strategy going forward and does she hope that the Government will place a moratorium on these horrible things?
Caroline Lucas
I am delighted to agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the Westbury incinerator in particular and about incineration in general. He is absolutely right. The sooner that we can move towards a genuinely circular economy, where we are not producing the waste in the first place, the better.
I was talking about the progress at the pre-meeting of COP15 in Nairobi just a few weeks ago. Frankly, it was woeful. In the closing plenary, non-governmental organisations warned:
“Biodiversity and the ecosystems across our planet are on the brink of collapse, and so is the CBD process itself right now. If nothing changes, we are heading towards failure at COP15. We cannot afford for that to happen.”
Indeed, while Nairobi saw positive development on the goal for halting extinctions and the mission to achieve a nature-positive world by 2030, even those proposals are absolutely littered with brackets, meaning that they have yet to be agreed multilaterally. As a reminder, following the earlier talks in Geneva, Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, the executive secretary of the UN convention on biological diversity noted:
“Most of the recommendations…have many brackets. Not few—many brackets.”
According to observers there was an apparent lack of political leadership and urgency in those negotiating rooms in Nairobi, with countries failing to build consensus and with the text as a consequence being described as “messy and lacklustre”. As one campaigner with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds put it, “We have a marathon to finish before we can say that we are close to a successful outcome, but no one seems to be running let alone sprinting.”
As the Minister will know, the world failed to fully achieve any of the 20 UN biodiversity targets that were agreed back in 2010. Here in the UK, we missed a shocking 17 out of 20 targets, again leading the RSPB to declare that we had seen a “lost decade for nature.” The world simply cannot afford another lost decade. It is essential that an ambitious framework is agreed at COP15 and that we learn from the failed efforts of the past to ensure that its targets are met.
Here in Parliament today, there has been far less scrutiny of this summit in comparison with November’s COP26 summit in Glasgow. In some ways that is understandable given that COP26 was a UK-hosted summit, but it is still concerning that, to date, there have been no debates or ministerial statements on COP15 in the House of Commons, all the more so given that Ministers have themselves acknowledged that nature and climate are two sides of the same coin and that we needed a joined-up strategy both for COP26 and indeed for COP15.
While MPs have been able to engage with the COP26 President at COP26 oral questions for which I am very grateful, no parallel mechanism exists for COP15. As a consequence, I just do not think that we have the same familiarity with the UK’s negotiating objectives or, indeed, the milestones in the run-up to that Montreal summit.
I have some crucial questions for the Minister. Ahead of the summit in Nairobi, it was reported that the UK Government were helping to co-ordinate a High Ambition statement, which called for, among other things:
“An ambitious global biodiversity framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss globally, with goals for 2050 and targets for 2030 and strong reporting and review mechanisms.”
That, of course, is very welcome, but will the Minister provide us with a more specific breakdown of the UK’s negotiating objectives? What steps is his Department taking to secure them? Will he commit to regularly updating this House as we progress towards the summit in December? Will he commit to raising the profile of the summit across government?
I appreciate, particularly this afternoon, that we have no idea who the Prime Minister will be in December, but regardless of who wins the Conservative leadership race, they should attend in person as a practical and tangible way of demonstrating their commitment to securing an ambitious global agreement. As we know from Glasgow, attendance of world leaders focuses minds and sets the pace of negotiations, and all of the evidence suggests that that will be much needed in Montreal.
Let me highlight several critical elements that will be essential in ensuring that that global biodiversity framework does indeed reverse nature loss. I welcome the strengthening of the 2030 mission, which now includes words on “halting” and “reversing” biodiversity loss, meaning that it is aligned with the Leaders Pledge for Nature, which is a vast improvement on the previous draft that aimed only to put biodiversity on a “path” to recovery by 2030. We also need to see specific and ambitious commitments from Governments to ensure that that mission is delivered, underpinned by robust accountability mechanisms and, of course, the necessary finance.
Looking at the agreement first, there should be a set of 2030 targets to prevent extinctions, recover species populations, and to retain and restore the extent and quality of habitats. Secondly, we need accompanying 2030 action targets that genuinely tackle the key pressures and drivers of biodiversity loss. Thirdly, we need agreement on the prominent target to effectively and equitably protect and conserve at least 30% of land, inland waters, seas, and coasts by 2030. I welcome the fact that the Government have championed this goal in negotiations so far. I hope in their role as a member of the High Ambition Coalition and as Ocean co-chair they continue to persuade others to do so.
Fourthly, in addition to a strong implementation mechanism, the UK Government should also champion a ratchet mechanism similar to that enshrined in the Paris agreement, to encourage countries to strengthen their plans over time.
Fifthly, the framework must recognise the important role of indigenous peoples and local communities in protecting biodiversity. Globally, their lands cover one third of the Earth’s land surface and 85% of biodiversity conservation areas. It is essential that the global framework respects and strengthens their land rights.
Sixthly, while target 16 includes some positive language on consumption, it is notable that the framework is missing a clear target to reduce countries’ ecological footprint. That is particularly crucial for our food systems, which are responsible for 80% of deforestation. The Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, has recommended that the UK advocate for stronger wording on developed countries’ reducing unsustainable consumption and production, but as well as stronger language we need a clear target. I ask the Minister whether the Government will champion the need for an outcome on halving our global production and consumption footprint by 2030.
Then we come to funding. Any framework must be underpinned by the resources necessary to implement the targets and hold countries accountable for their progress towards achieving them, yet finance has been one of the most challenging parts of the negotiation so far. When he appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee last month, the Minister of State for the Pacific and the International Environment in the other place told us that, on finance:
“The UK has a particular role to play, given the networks and relationships that we built in the run up to COP 26… We intend to use and are using those networks to try to plug at least that part of the gap.”
That is welcome, but can the Minister tell us what kind of financial figures the Government are looking at? Can he tell us if that will be enough to meet the so-called biodiversity funding gap?
In the final plenary session in Geneva, developing countries called for richer countries to provide at least $100 billion a year for biodiversity, rising to $700 billion by 2030. That is obviously a large sum but, as the Minister for the International Environment reminded us, the top 50 food-producing countries spend about the same amount every year in subsidising often destructive land use. Regardless of the final figure, funding for biodiversity must of course be new and be additional to climate finance and overseas development aid and, at the very least, harmful subsidies must be redirected towards nature-positive activities and investments.
It may be that in his response the Minister will point to the fact that the Global Environment Facility saw its funding increase by almost 30% for 2022 to 2026. That is welcome, but let us remember that that funding supports countries to meet their obligations under not only the convention on biodiversity, but several other agreements, including the climate change agreement. Totalling just $5.25 billion, its funding remains vastly insufficient to respond to the growing crisis.
Domestically, the UK must meet the Paris agreement for nature with renewed commitment and determination to deliver on the ambition of the 25-year environment plan, to leave the environment in a better state. We all know that the Government are not short of warm words when it comes to being a global leader on the environment, but too often the reality tells a different story. Nature in this country is under pressure from every angle: industrial agriculture, climate change, pollution such as microplastics, which are now widespread in our environment, and untreated sewage regularly dumped in UK waters, creating a risk for the environment and public health.
The Government’s failure to ban peat burning meant that vital carbon stores were set alight just weeks before COP26, and its Environment Act 2021 targets fundamentally lack ambition, with a target of increasing species abundance by just 10% by 2042 compared with 2030 levels leading some to say that England will have less nature in 20 years’ time than we do today. That is hardly a helpful target, and it has led the Office for Environmental Protection to conclude that it
“will not deliver nature recovery”,
or achieve the aims set out in the 25-year plan.
Warm words need to be replaced with meaningful action. Given the scale of the biodiversity crisis, the Government must also go further and faster than the commitment in the Environment Act to halt the decline of species by 2030, strengthening it to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030. Simply stopping things getting worse is no longer enough. The pledge to protect 30% of land and sea for nature was welcomed by the environment sector, but research shows that as little as 5% of land is currently effectively managed for nature, not the 26% the Government sometimes suggest. For 30 by 30 to genuinely deliver, it must ensure that protective areas are effectively managed for nature in the long term, with effective monitoring.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member recall that we set out a biodiversity target to halt the decline in nature by 2010, and we set out a target again in 2010 under the Aichi targets to halt the decline in nature loss by 2020, but we achieved neither? Is there anything in the papers in advance of COP15 that gives her any hope that our ability to implement a reverse or even a halt in the decline in nature by 2030 is more likely this time than it was in the previous two decades?
Caroline Lucas
I am genuinely struggling to know how to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. I want to say yes, and in a sense awareness is greater now and the general public’s anger at seeing nature decline before their eyes is perhaps stronger. However, although there are some good words, unless we get rid of all the brackets in the texts and get them agreed, and unless, crucially, we have both the finance and the implementation, with a real focus on putting this stuff into practice, I am afraid I cannot stand here and tell him with any degree of certainty that we will have a better outcome.
I am coming to the end of my comments, as I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will touch briefly on the marine environment, because I do not want us to leave that out. I was lucky enough to join Greenpeace as part of its Operation Ocean Witness to see for myself the destructive fishing practices that are still happening, even in our supposed marine protected areas. We came across a French-flagged industrial fly shooter fishing vessel in the Bassurelle Sandbank MPA, and it was shocking to see the destruction in its wake. Fly shooting is hugely damaging not only for our marine ecosystems, but for local fishing communities, including those in my constituency, who are increasingly unable to make ends meet.
Will the Government finally please use their powers under the Fisheries Act 2020 and take action to restore our depleted seas? Will they make all MPAs in UK waters fully protected and immediately restrict the fishing licences of industrial vessels so that they cannot fish in those precious ecosystems?
I also want to underline how crucial it is that we address climate and nature together. They are two sides of the same coin. In Parliament I have championed the climate and ecological emergency Bill, which would address the climate and ecological crises in a holistic way, and I urge the Government to pick up that Bill in this new Session.
Finally, at the core of the climate and ecological crisis is our broken economic model, which prioritises growth above all else, including the health of people and planet. There is a growing body of evidence showing the dangers of our current economic model, with a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by 82 of the world’s top scientists and experts saying that the
“focus on short-term profits and economic growth”,
often excludes the value of nature.
The Minister will be aware that the Treasury-commissioned Dasgupta review called for an
“urgent and transformative change in how we think, act and measure economic success to protect and enhance our prosperity and the natural world”.
Yet we are still not really seeing what follow-up there will be to the Dasgupta review. Another inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee on biodiversity in the UK made it clear that
“Alternatives to GDP urgently need to be adopted as more appropriate ways to measure economic success”.
We must now look to build an economy for the future, following countries such as New Zealand, which is already leading the way with the world’s first ever wellbeing budget. The nature of our economy must be on the agenda at COP15 and the Government should join other countries in showing leadership by urgently introducing alternative indicators of economic success that prioritise the health of people and planet.
Much of this debate is around global challenges, but I want to end by focusing on the local and talking about the round-headed rampion, of which I am a proud species champion. The round-headed rampion is a beautiful blue wildflower, which is known as the “Pride of Sussex” and is the official county flower. However, it is increasingly rare, since it grows only on chalk grasslands such as those on the South Downs, and those chalk grasslands have declined by 80% just since world war two. Its fate relies on the protection, preservation and restoration of these important habitats.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and I agree with her on protecting habitats, grasslands and other places. However, does she also accept that isolated protection does not really work, and that there has to be a connectivity between preserved areas, just as there has to be a connectivity between forests and natural grasslands?
Caroline Lucas
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is absolutely right: that connectivity is crucial to a thriving natural environment. Unless we ensure that we have not just isolated protection areas, but a genuinely joined-up corridor of environmental improvement and even widen out from that, we will not be successful in our aims.
I will just wind up by saying that as we head towards COP15, let us remember the beauty of this world and what we risk losing by failing to protect it for ourselves, for our children and for future generations. I urge the Minister once again to do all he can to ensure a positive outcome from this important summit.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be speaking in the debate this afternoon. While I do not always share the views of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I agree with much of what she said. She is absolutely right to highlight the imperative this year to deliver a good outcome at COP. I very much welcome the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), to his new position. Nobody is expecting him to be able to rewrite the world in one afternoon, but I hope he will be able to secure or stay in his position, and that he will listen to this afternoon’s debate and take a steer on a subject that brings together Members from all parts of the House.
This issue does not divide us—fundamentally, every one of us agrees that the loss of the natural world is a disaster in every respect that has to be reversed step by step. We have to take an approach that begins to rebuild nature. I happen to believe that we can do that and achieve other things as well—I do not think this is an either/or, as I will explain. This is such an imperative, and this year it is so important that the world acts and, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion rightly says, starts to deliver.
It is a matter of regret to me that the COP summit is not happening in China. In reality, we need the Chinese in particular to take a lead on this, because they are by far the world’s biggest consumers right now. Given the scale of China and the emerging demand for natural products and agricultural products in China—apart from the issues we all know about relating to the parts of the wildlife trade that we all abhor and detest—we need the Chinese to be at the heart of the necessary changes, so it is a shame that they are not hosting the summit. However, I very much hope they will still play an active part in it.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I am listening with interest to the comments that my right hon. Friend has made. It is unfortunate that COP15 was unable to take place in China. Does he not agree that to try to ensure that China recognises the global importance of its chairmanship of COP15, albeit in Canada, we need as many world leaders as possible to attend in Montreal, including whoever is the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? They should put the date in their calendar and make it a priority to attend in Montreal, to take part in those negotiations and to demonstrate that we need a Paris moment for nature. The UK’s leadership at COP26, delivering the Glasgow climate pact and also our leadership on net zero have been conditional on ensuring that leaders at the very top take part in negotiations. Does he agree that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should also be there in December?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree with that. I hope that he or she—whoever is elected—will do that. One of the questions I have been asking the candidates is, “Will you protect and keep up the agenda that this Government already have on the environment?” We are seen as leaders internationally. Yes, the strategies need to be actioned, but nevertheless we are doing good work in this area. We are targeting aid in the right places, and we are doing as much as any nation on Earth, but that does not mean there is not an awful lot more to do, and that is one of the things I will be talking about this afternoon. I absolutely agree with the point he is making.
Let me start by touching momentarily on what we are doing here, and then I will go on to talk about the international challenge. First, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is absolutely right to talk about the decline in native species. She is parliamentary species champion for a sadly rare flower in Sussex. I am parliamentary species champion for the not yet very rare, but much too reduced in number, hedgehog. There used to be 35 million hedgehogs in the UK, and there are now probably 1.5 million. The numbers are recovering in urban areas, but not in rural areas. The decline has been appalling, and if we do not do something to reverse it, they will rapidly move from the vulnerable list to the very endangered list. For a creature that we all love and adore, that must not be allowed to happen.
It is about protecting and extending habitats, a smart approach to the management of our countryside and doing things differently. I happen to believe that we have to be pretty robust in trying to change the nature of the pesticides we use. It seems pretty clear that they have been a factor in the loss of biodiversity. We have to do that in a smart way—we cannot compromise our food production.
As we know, we have a crisis in Ukraine that is feeding through to food supplies around the world. Last Monday, I visited a regenerative farm in Gloucestershire, which I thought mapped out a pretty good path towards sustaining our agriculture, but in a much more nature-friendly way, and I am encouraged by those who have started as pioneers in regenerative agriculture, which involves a much closer relationship between farming and the natural world, leaving aside more space for nature, much more careful management of the land and taking advantage of natural approaches to manage pests, rather than simply covering the countryside in pesticides. It is encouraging to see that that movement, which started small, has now grown and the number of people in the farming world expressing an interest in it is growing. We have to protect the interests of our farmers, and we have to look after and support our farmers, but I am yet to meet a farmer who wants to trash the countryside. If we can help them farm in a more environmentally sustainable way, that has to be the right thing.
I very much support the work that the Campaign to Protect Rural England is doing to try to encourage more planting of hedgerows. For a creature like the hedgehog, hedgerows in the countryside are vital, as is a good field margin. It creates the kind of corridors that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was talking about. It is no good having wildlife in a little pocket. We need more hedgerows, more corridors and more space for them, and farming does not have to be done in a way that kills everything around. A wider field margin can still be part of a successful field with a successful crop, where the creatures can live side by side with the crops. If we do not take a much more enlightened approach to the management of our countryside, we will not be able to reverse the decline of species that we have sadly seen. That is our task here.
I very much welcome the steps the Government have taken so far. The structures put in place for farming, with a much greater focus on environmental stewardship, are good. There are challenges in the farming world as they adapt to that, but we should not move away from an approach that says, “We will reward farmers who can look after our countryside and we will encourage the use of farmland in the best way to sustain the wildlife that is so important to our countryside.”
I want to focus today on deforestation internationally. To my mind, it is one of the biggest global challenges we face. The destruction already done to forests around the world has had a huge environmental impact. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made reference to what is happening in the Amazon. It is a scandal and a disgrace. It is mostly illegal, and it is a matter of extreme regret to me that as we in this House continue to challenge the Brazilian Government over what is happening, warm words are sent back via the embassy here, but on the ground nothing seems to happen.
Many of us in this House have met people from the indigenous communities who have told us in no uncertain terms about the illegal logging and illegal mining happening in those areas. It has to stop. I have said it before and I will say it again: Brazil cannot be treated as a good member of the international community unless this stops, and we should not sign trade deals with the Brazilians unless this stops. All our diplomatic contacts with Brazil should be focused around saying, “If you want us to work with you normally, this has to stop.”
It is not as if there are no alternatives. I know from discussions with people in Brazil that there are 19 million hectares of degraded land in Brazil, and there are programmes to restore parts of it. That is good, but they are still chopping down the rainforest at the same time. Why not focus on the restoration of land in areas where deforestation has already taken place and where that land has become substantially degraded, rather than simply cutting down and cutting down? It needs tough enforcement action and political willpower, and it must happen, because as the hon. Lady said, the consequences globally of the loss of the Amazon rainforest are simply enormous.
It is a matter of enormous discredit to Brazil and the international community that this illegal action is being allowed to take place. Month after month we hear from Brazil that the situation is getting worse, not better. It really has to stop. I praise the Government for the work they are doing to try to protect the other great forest, in the Congo basin. The noble Lord Goldsmith has been at the forefront of supporting efforts to protect that rainforest. We must keep that important work up as the Administration evolve towards a new leadership, but the Brazilian issue has to be solved. We simply cannot go on like this.
The biggest subject that needs to be on the agenda for the discussion at COP about how we should start restoring biodiversity around the world should be the restoration of degraded land. The World Wide Fund for Nature estimates that the amount of degraded land around the world is equivalent to an area the size of South America, and we can see it. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am an active member of the International Conservation Caucus Foundation, along with the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—we are very much of the same mind on these issues. I went with the ICCF to Kenya in April to visit projects in the Maasai Mara. As I flew back to Nairobi, looking down from the plane, I could see what has gone wrong. Areas that were forest have been cleared and the land has been poorly farmed. It is now degraded and will gradually dissipate into desert.
That exists all around the world, whether it is that kind of land in Africa, derelict mangrove swamps or areas of arid land in other continents. If we are to solve the issue of biodiversity loss, and at the same time provide livelihoods for the people living in those areas who have chosen to chop things down because they see it as their only option, we will have to start restoring that degraded land. That is the biggest thing that I want to see come out of the COP summit: a global programme to start to restore the land that we have lost, with some of it returning to habitat, some of it used in a proper way for farming—not subsistence farming where people scrape a living, but properly managed agriculture that can create genuine livelihoods—and some degree of sustainable logging and forestry, because that can be done in a nature-friendly way. The key, however, is to bring that land back into proper use.
Jeremy Corbyn
I absolutely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. Does he not also think that we have to do something about the market for very rare, valuable tropical hardwoods? That market acts as a huge economic incentive for people in forest areas, because it is their only way of surviving economically. We have to do something about that as well, because we are indeed the market for those products.
Chris Grayling
I do not often agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I absolutely agree with him on that point. None of us in this country should be buying tropical hardwoods for furniture or other purposes.
At the same time—this is perhaps where I differ slightly from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion—for communities in developing countries where we want to see the restoration of the natural habitats that are so crucial to some of the world’s most iconic endangered species, our starting point should be the people themselves. We have to ensure that there are proper livelihoods, so that people can earn a living and at the same time benefit from the restoration of nature. That means helping them to establish proper, viable farming on part of that land, on a much larger scale and more efficiently, it means ecotourism to bring wealth into those areas, and it means sustainable logging and the sustainable management of forests. All those things are necessary. This is, to some extent, about GDP growth, because that is how we give those people the sense that, by properly managing that land, they benefit from it and also benefit from the restoration of nature.
Caroline Lucas
Just to be clear on the record, I absolutely agree that people in developing countries who would otherwise be deprived of their livelihoods if current unsustainable practices are not stopped should be supported into more sustainable practices. We have an absolute responsibility to do that, but the idea that we should go out there and treat increasing GDP as an overall abstract aim is wrong. If GDP happens to go up, then fine, but surely our aim should be to allow those people to thrive by giving them sustainable livelihoods, not chasing some kind of GDP figure, which is what I worry about both here and there.
Chris Grayling
But if we do not help them to grow their GDP—and do that in a sustainable, nature-friendly way that enables them to derive real benefits from the proper stewardship of that land, the restoration of natural habitats and the restoration of degraded land for other purposes—in the end, we will not create the kind of local ownership that will break the cycle of illegal logging, poaching, the illegal wildlife trade and the rest.
My message to the Minister is this. This COP is enormously important. It is a vital moment for the world. In my view, it is as important a moment for the world as COP26 was last year. The hon. Lady is right: climate and nature are two sides of the same coin. We have played a really important leadership role at COP in securing agreements, which might not do everything we wanted but took us a step forwards. We need to do the same this year. We need to send a senior delegation, we need to push for a proper agreement, and we need to be leaders ourselves in what we do in this country, but we cannot let the global community miss this opportunity. So my message to him, as he takes up this role and as we prepare for a reshaped Administration—I hope he stays where he is—is this. Will he please do everything he can to ensure that the United Kingdom plays the cornerstone role in the COP discussions this autumn, which will be so important to ensuring that we manage to reverse a global decline in nature that should be a matter of shame to the whole of mankind?
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I am so glad to be called in this important debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for the debate, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for opening it and getting the attention of the House.
As has been said, these are twin emergencies. We have a crisis in nature and a crisis in our climate. It is often forgotten that the two are intrinsically linked. We will not be able to play our part in keeping temperature rises below 1.5° C without a plan to restore the natural environment. This is also something that many constituents are concerned about, and there are some great projects up and down the country. In Sheffield, we have had our swift summit this year, which was sponsored by Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust. We have also had amazing opportunities for friends groups, one of which has been doing work—it is called climate work, but really it is nature work—in Whirlow Brook park. The friends group is doing a fantastic job to tackle the issue locally.
But the COP discussions are obviously global, and they are not a peripheral part of the climate diplomacy that we need to see. They are integral to co-ordinating global action to halt rising temperatures. That is why the Government’s failure to deliver the renewal and restoration of nature in the UK is so alarming. The fact that we are such a nature-depleted island is very concerning. I will not say that there has been a lack of action, because the Government have had plenty to announce. Doubtless the Minister will reel off a list of initiatives, strategy documents and pots of money in his response to the debate, but the stream of press releases seems to be driven more by the need to say something than the need to face up to the reality of the challenges ahead and do something.
It is not just me who thinks that. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee has said:
“Although there are countless Government policies and targets to ‘leave the environment in a better state than we found it’, too often they are grandiose statements lacking teeth and devoid of effective delivery mechanisms.”
The Environmental Audit Committee has previously commented:
“There is no strategy indicating how new biodiversity policies will work together. Implementation of these policies could be piecemeal, conflicting, and of smaller scale as a result.”
The 2021 Climate Change Committee progress report agreed and said that the Government should
“Publish an overarching strategy that clearly outlines the relationships and interactions between the multiple action plans in development for the natural environment”.
The CCC’s verdict in 2021 was damning: the Government planted less than half of the trees and committed to restore less than half of the peatlands recommended. It is alarming that, after a whole year, the 2022 progress report reads so similarly. Peatland, woodland and hedgerow restoration are not the start and finish of nature restoration, but they are a significant part of lowering our national emissions. Since 2021, the Government have made little to no advance in meeting the targets they have set. In the case of peatland, they have actually enshrined into law regulations that leave huge swathes outside protections. Again, it is not me saying this; it is the CCC.
Despite pledging hundreds of millions for new trees, the Government have done nothing to address the skills shortages and the availability of training for new arborists, to ensure that we have the mix of trees we need and to increase the capacity of domestic tree nurseries so that we do not risk new diseases coming into the UK. Ministers even sat on their hands while the Wykeham nursery was closed.
It is shocking that, in its assessment of the Government’s policies and plans for agriculture and land use, the CCC can identify not one credible plan to abate emissions. It is a wasted opportunity that emissions have been flat in this area since 2008. We should be using the power of our natural environment to lock away carbon. A lot has been said about our rainforests, but in the UK the peatlands are our rainforests. Other countries would be thrilled to have that natural environment, and we are not valuing it. That means we need a proper plan to restore and protect all our peatlands. It means we need real action to increase tree canopy cover and renew our hedgerows, and it means protecting important water and marine habitats such as salt marshes and seagrass meadows. All these measures will reverse the decline in nature at the same time as developing natural carbon sinks to help us meet the challenge of the climate emergency.
I have one message for Ministers today. They cannot spin their way out of the nature and climate emergencies. A press release for a badly thought through pot of money or a strategy that is light on detail might give them something to say in a debate such as this, but sooner or later the rhetoric will meet reality. It is well past time Minsters started to deliver.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am really pleased that this debate is happening today and that we are able to have a serious discussion about the effects of climate change on biodiversity. We have to be realistic: what is happening now is absolutely unprecedented in known human history, given the rate at which we are losing wildlife, biodiversity and insect life, and ultimately this is extremely damaging to human life itself. There has to be a much more thought through process of linking up all the environmental consequences of our lives, of industries and of the pollution that takes place.
Conferences such as COP15 are very important because they are a way of bringing people together. They are a way of trying to persuade all countries that the issues of CO2 emissions and their effects on climate change and global warming are absolutely huge, and that something has to be done about them. However, that is not the whole story, because to some extent we are guilty of exporting our pollution and our emissions elsewhere. This country, most of Europe and some parts of north America have increasingly strict environmental protocols—on river waste, air pollution and so much else—which I absolutely support and endorse, but the effect of that is to shift manufacturing and polluting activities somewhere else. That means we are not actually improving the global environment; all we are doing is shifting the pollution to some other place.
I hope one conclusion from this debate—I am sure the Minister will understand all this—is that we have to be very active internationally in trying to bring about a more sustainable world everywhere. This is about joined-up actions being taken by the UK Government. A very lengthy letter sent to them recently talks about the need for joined-up action by the British Government, as well as reducing the
“ecological footprint, domestically and globally”,
ensuring that
“biodiversity loss has been halted and reversed by 2030, against a baseline of 2020”,
and creating
“robust and well connected natural infrastructure across all UK nations”,
as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out in her excellent contribution to the debate. If we do not have that sense of joined-up thinking, we will be missing the whole point altogether.
There are many issues we could discuss today, but the one to which I want to draw attention first is water pollution in this country. I grew up with the idea that, somehow or other, the appalling levels of pollution created in all of our major rivers in this country by industrialisation and the industrial revolution of the 19th century were gradually becoming a thing of the past and that we were beginning to clean up our rivers. Yes, rivers in some places are a lot cleaner than they have ever been. The Thames, just outside, was biologically dead at one time, but it was eventually—very slowly—restored quite considerably. There used to be a huge tank in County Hall showing all the varieties of fish now found in the Thames.
Sadly, for many of our rivers, the trend is now going in the opposite direction, as the water companies routinely discharge raw sewage into our rivers, which obviously has a devastating effect on fish and natural life, and clearly becomes dangerous for the rest of the population as well. Yesterday, right on cue, Thames Water sent a very long letter to all of us who represent constituencies within its area telling us how much it is going to do to try not to pollute rivers, mainly the Thames, in the future by better management of the tributary rivers, the drainage system and so on. That is good, if it is actually going to do it, but its record, like those of most other water companies, is pretty terrible. At the same time, the water industry is dragging vast profits out of the water supply and allowing pollution levels to get so bad.
I do think we have to be extremely tough on the water companies and their management of rivers. That includes managing rivers upstream, as well as managing our paved-over areas in our urban communities to deal with the flooding issues in this country. It is not as if any of this is not known, but this is a question of joined-up thinking between planning and local authorities, water suppliers and central Government to try to achieve something much more sustainable.
If we are to deal with increasing levels of unusual rainfall, that obviously means better management of rivers. It is not all going to be done by flood protection. It would be done much better by upstream planting on rivers in this country, which to some extent has been done in Somerset and the west, and the use of the floodplains as what they are intended for—the key is in their name—so that we end up with less flooding and damage to property through better environmental management of those water resources. This is about the biodiversity of our river systems, which is central to so much of our thinking.
There is a debate everywhere about rewilding. Anyone who has read Isabella Tree’s excellent book about Knepp, and the way that that rewilding took place, knows that initially, many of the neighbouring farmers objected to it and said that she was creating a scruffy place that had lots of weeds on it and was damaging their crops and so on—I have heard many of these arguments for a very long time. She reports in a fascinating section of her book that eventually, after the rewilding had grown a great deal and become much more biodiverse, crop production rates went up because of the high levels of pollination by higher levels of insect life surrounding those farms. As the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, there is an interesting phenomenon of joined-up thinking on farming, because it is about the biodiversity surrounding crop production as well as the preserved areas that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion talked about in her excellent contribution. We must think about that aspect.
This is also about how local authorities behave. I have the honour of representing my constituency, which I believe is the smallest urban constituency in the country and, I am pretty sure, the most densely populated in the country. Most people in my constituency have no open space of their own whatsoever, not even a balcony. Bringing up our children in that atmosphere, it is not easy to get them to understand the interaction between human life and natural life, because they live in an entirely concrete environment. What we do in our schools and our parks is important, as is the message that those young people get.
I have always visited each of the primary schools in my constituency as often as I can, usually once a year, and I have been to two primary schools and one secondary school in the past week to hold a discussion with students about their views on the environment. These are children growing up in a very urban environment, but they absolutely get the connectivity between the natural world and themselves, and they get what is possible in the small growing spaces that they have in those schools.
Yesterday morning I was in Ambler Primary School near Finsbury Park. It is a very densely populated urban area, with high levels of traffic around it. We were talking about biodiversity, growing flowers and so on, and one student asked me what I meant when I said that we should not be cutting grass too short. I was explaining about wildflowers and biodiversity, and he wanted to know whether that included football pitches. I explained that there had to be a balance between keeping grass on football pitches the right length and growing flowers and other things—it is a serious practical question if your interest is mainly in football.
Winning people over to these arguments is so important, and today’s debate will help us to do that. We must also encourage local authorities to have more permeable surfaces and fewer car parks with impervious layers, and to end the appalling practice in many parts of the country of paving over front gardens to park cars, when those front gardens are an important point of nature. Indeed, paving them over increases the danger of flooding, and thus the pollution of rivers further downstream. Some local authorities have done well on that. For example, Rotherham Council has done an excellent job in ensuring a huge level of biodiversity on all its roadside borders, and a number of other councils have done exactly the same. We should support them in that.
Those are the things we can do ourselves, through farming policy, the use—or non-use—of pesticides, and building up a sense of biodiverse resilience, which in turn will protect endangered species. Sadly, as the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell pointed out, the hedgehog is not far off being an endangered species. Obviously I hope its population recovers, but it seems to be recovering in urban rather than rural areas. That is deeply disturbing and suggests that it is due to a combination of farming practices and dangers from roads, whereas urban areas seem to be maintaining or even recovering their hedgehog population. We can do an awful lot, and we must bring up our young people to understand that.
I pay tribute to teachers in schools who do their best to achieve that. During a visit that I made recently to another local school, Newington Green Primary School, there was another brilliant set of children who were concerned about these issues. Older students, such as those at the Arts and Media School Islington, who are preparing to do their GCSEs and later their A-levels, believe—this view has also been put forward in the House—that there should be much more environmental education at all stages of our education system, so that children grow up understanding such things.
To add to what has been said already, the loss of biodiversity on a global scale is huge. The number of animal species that are becoming extinct year on year is increasing fast, and there will come a time when the elephant, the tiger, the lion and so many other large species will be on the danger list, as well as very many smaller species that are almost extinct at the present time. As such, I agree with what the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said about changing the story and the narrative.
In some places, such as the Indonesian, African and Amazon rainforests, there is a huge economic advantage to be gained from selling tropical hardwoods. On the way to get one tree—iron tree, mahogany, or whatever else it happens to be—the whole forest around it is destroyed or, in the case of the Amazon rainforest, wantonly burned down in order to create the short-term advantage of growing soya for a few years, leaving a virtual desert behind. I discussed that issue with a lot of environmental campaigners and others from Brazil, both from Rio and from the Amazon, during the COP in Glasgow last year, and the similarity of views between those from urban Rio and those from the Amazon area was very interesting. The commitment now being made by the putative and hopefully next President of Brazil, Lula, to end all the destruction of the rainforest and promote sustainability there is welcome. I hope he gets elected and is able to achieve that goal, because it would be an enormous step forward.
It is no good western countries lecturing the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world about the need to protect their environment, because we believe it is the right thing to do, when they cannot feed their children, do not have a proper education system, do not have a health service, and are living in levels of desperate poverty. Something else has to go with it. Eco-tourism does help, as do sustainable agriculture and our purchasing practices and powers, but this is also about bringing people on board. If we just fence off an area and say, “This is preserved, and we are going to put armed guards in it to protect the animals that may become extinct”, we are not sending a very good message to the people who live in that area. The most effective conservation, whether marine or land conservation, is done with the participation, support and involvement of the entire community that lives locally.
I will give one example. In Mexico, the turtle on the Atlantic coast was rapidly depleted in numbers and was not far off extinction. There was an idea to create a protected zone for sea turtles, with lots of guards to prevent people from stealing turtle eggs. What would have happened then? Corruption would have come in, somebody would have started stealing the eggs, and so on. What they actually did was recruit all the turtle hunters to become turtle protectors as a way of making money out of visitors going there. There is nothing like a poacher turned gamekeeper to look after a species that was at great risk. Conservation can work if people bring the population along with them; it does not work if security companies, armed guards and everything else are sent in. It is so important to achieve that more universal buy-in.
I am delighted that we are having this debate. We have to ensure that the generation going through school—the next generation coming up—understands that our lives and the survival of this planet depend on how we interact with nature. That means bringing children up to understand that insects, wildlife, and wild places are not their enemies—that we have to live alongside nature, not destroy it through our activities and our greed. They will then get the message about connectivity: that when a person drops a plastic bag in a river, it ends up in the sea, and we end up eating that plastic with the fish we consume. It is about conserving and preserving the natural world and the environment. Of course, that includes the big global conferences and the international agreements, but environment is basically a state of mind: whether we live with nature, or destroy it and see it as something solely to be exploited. Today’s debate is a good example of how we can advance both of those agendas at the same time, ensuring that we get the international agreement that is essential, but bringing that debate into all the other actions of our lives and all the services that are administered by the public in this country.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate and on making such a terrific speech. As she said, the forthcoming COP matters enormously for all the reasons she set out. We need targets so we can measure progress—that is the great benefit of them—and we need funding to help make that progress. We need every country that makes a commitment to have a plan back home to deliver it. We need progress to be measured and above all we need leadership. We need leadership internationally, leadership domestically in communities and leadership by us as individuals.
The decline in biodiversity and the loss of species across the world is well documented, but sadly not well known enough. I should declare my interest, as one or two other Members have, as the water vole species champion. That is an extremely grand title, especially when it is held by someone who, despite his best efforts, has yet to see a water vole in the wild. I did once hear the characteristic plop sound that water voles make—I know Ratty well from reading “The Wind in the Willows” to my grandchildren—when they come out of their mud tunnels in the riverbank and drop into the water. Perhaps it is very hard to see them for the very simple reason that since the end of the 1990s, a nationwide survey showed that water voles had disappeared from 90% of the sites where they were found a decade before—90%! There has been a further decline in the decade thereafter. In the case of water voles, one particular problem is predation by mink, who need to be controlled. What is really needed, however, is to improve water quality and to encourage farmers to restore and protect healthy waterways—in other words, places and rivers where water voles can thrive.
The heart of the problem we must address—colleagues touched on this in their contributions—is that we as humankind have been making use of the earth’s gifts, those on the land and those beneath the seas that surround us, as if there was no consequence and no end to nature’s bounty. That is what we have been doing and the pace at which we have done that has accelerated enormously in the last century or so. Just as with the climate crisis, we know now that that is not true: there is a limit and we have to start taking proper care, because we rely on the natural world and biodiversity for our very existence, including our economic welfare. We should applaud the work of Pavan Sukhdev—I had the privilege to meet him when I was the Environment Secretary—and Sir Partha Dasgupta, who have taught us about the economic value of biodiversity, if we wish to measure it in that way, just as Nick Stern told us about the far greater cost of not dealing with dangerous climate change, as opposed to the far lower cost of dealing with it, saying, “You make the choice.”
As we know, the natural world provides us with the very essentials of life: clean air and water, and food and fuel. It regulates our climate and helps to deal with pollution. It stems floodwaters and produces medicines. It is the very foundation of our economic and social wellbeing. A few years ago, I had the honour and privilege to visit the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi. We went into a lab and there was a range of plants on a bench. I went along, asking “What’s this? What’s this?” One was a small artemisia sapling and another rather odd-looking bit of bark apparently came from the prunus africana tree. I happened to know, because of my job, that artemisia is essential to making combination anti-malarial drugs more effective. I learned that pygeum—I do not know if I have pronounced that correctly—from the bark of the prunus africana tree has properties that help to treat prostate cancer.
We stood there discussing malaria, which is predominantly a disease of the poorer world, and prostate cancer, which has been a disease predominantly of the better off world, although that is beginning to change. We rely on both those plants to treat those diseases. Let us imagine that some clod-hopping human being millions of years ago had walked through the forest and decided to pull up to examine the only artemisia sapling and the only prunus africana sapling on the planet—think what we would have lost. That is why there is such a strong argument for looking after both what we have and know about and the plants that surround us of which we have not yet discovered the properties.
Despite the gravity of the crisis in biodiversity, it is important to try to address the task with optimism, because in the end, making ourselves depressed about the scale of the challenge is not, in my experience, a great motivator for action. We know that we can make progress. We can look at the creation of the national parks: that extraordinary bit of legislation from the post-war Labour Government came out of a time of great conflict, economic crisis, debt and so on, with the support of politicians right across the House who were legislating to preserve beauty for posterity.
We can look at the size and commitment of the wildlife trusts. They have about 870,000 members, look after 2,300 nature reserves and provide some of the connections that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who spoke so well, was talking about. Bits can be looked after, but the connection between them will help us truly to restore nature, which is why, towards the end of my time as the Environment Secretary, I asked Sir John Lawton to produce a report precisely on how those connections can better be made.
We can look at the marine conservation zones, which were created thanks to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Jeremy Corbyn
My right hon. Friend’s point about connectivity is very important. Is he aware of the agreement between a number of central American countries to create a wildlife corridor for the jaguar to survive, because it travels over a huge range? If it is cut off in certain isolated bits, it will simply die off.
Hilary Benn
I was not aware of that—I am now—and what a great idea for countries to work together in that way.
When we were taking the Bill that became the 2009 Act through Parliament, I was really quite surprised to discover how little we appeared to know about what was on the seabed surrounding these islands. Some very intrepid divers, some of whom I met, went down and took photographs. If the photos were shown to me or to anybody else and the question was asked, “Where was that picture taken?”, most people would say, “Is that the Great Barrier Reef?” No—it was under the murky waters of the North sea.
One thing we know about nature is that although we have been destroying it at a rate of knots, if we give it the chance, it can recover with astonishing speed. The North sea was originally covered abundantly in oyster beds, coarse peat banks and rock deposited by glaciers, and it was home to a rich community of marine species. A lot of that was sadly destroyed by bottom-trawl fisheries over the past century and it is now a relatively poor community of species.
Let me say a word on bottom trawling. It is an incredibly destructive practice, but it is unseen because it takes place beneath the waves. To make a slightly absurd analogy, let us imagine that to collect apples, someone decided to drag a net across the countryside taking with it all the hedges, tree saplings, bird nests and the trees on which the apples hang just for the purpose of collecting the apples in the process. People would be outraged and appalled, but that is what we have been doing on the surface of the seabed for a long time and no one sees it happening. It is about bearing witness to what is going on. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who is not in his place, talked about the deforestation of the Amazon. The thing about technology is that, with satellites, we can see how the rainforest is reducing over time. It is really important that we use all those means to bear witness to what is taking place in order to motivate change.
We find the recovery of nature in some surprising places. There has been a lot of debate about the impact of wind farms on birds, but research has shown that, in effect, wind farms act as artificial reefs. They can host a very wide range of marine species once nature has had a chance to recover.
My final point is about the contribution that nature makes to our health and wellbeing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am sorry that I could not be here for the beginning of the debate. Is there not a concern that although many marine protected areas have been designated, they are really just paper parks because things like bottom trawling are being allowed to continue? Does my right hon. Friend also share my concern that there is now a move towards deep-sea mining, which could be hugely environmentally damaging?
Hilary Benn
Yes, I do. There was cross-party support in the House of Commons for the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the creation of marine conservation zones. We basically have a planning framework; we have had one on land for a long time, but we did not have one for the sea at all. We are now confronted with a choice about what we permit. The ability to understand the consequences of what is happening beneath the waves is important. We now have the means to do something about it, but we cannot just say “We’ve got the designation —job done,” and move on to something else. That is not sufficient at all.
Yesterday, my wife and I were discussing what I might talk about in this speech. Apart from telling me, “You must mention the water voles,”—I have now duly done so, and I hope that she has noticed—she said, “Tell them about our oak trees.” For the past 30 years or so, we have been planting oak trees from seed, along with ash and silver birch trees. “Nature reserve” would be a very grand title for the eight acres of former farmland in Essex that my mother set aside, where nature has been left to do its work. The tallest oak tree is probably about 20 or 25 feet now. Over the years, the trees that we have planted—the trees that nature has brought—have brought with them cuckoos, owls, adders, foxes, muntjac deer, the odd badger and white campion, as well as loads of brambles that I attempt to do battle with whenever I can. Every time I walk on that piece of land, I feel the same sense of anticipation about what has changed, what has grown and what is different.
Why do we feel like this? Because nature is part of our very soul. It is about who we are and where we come from. Think of how we encounter it—looking out of the window of a train as it rushes through the countryside, seeing the first crocus of spring, encountering the wonders and glories of the Yorkshire dales, seeing a view of Ditchling Beacon or a view of Scafell Pike from Great Moss, or hearing the buzz of a bee at the height of summer. We do not hear that buzz as much as we used to, or see as many moths. I remember when moths were really common in the summer. When did I last see one? There was an extraordinary experiment in which people were asked to put a bit of sticky plastic on their number plate, drive around and count how many insects were caught. That showed that there has been a catastrophic decline.
Chris Grayling
I apologise for popping out briefly for a family call. Last summer, I went to the far north of Scotland. The further north we got, the more insects hit the windscreen. As more arable farming happens in the south of the country than in the north, that seems pretty clear evidence of the link between the disappearance of insects and pesticides. That is one reason why I was so attracted by the regenerative farming model.
Hilary Benn
I agree completely. There are one or two insects in the north of Scotland—midges in particular—that can cause a certain amount of distress, but just think of the glory of the Scottish countryside and the mountains. Who does not feel a sense of awe and wonder as they contemplate the astonishing biodiversity and landscape that our small islands reveal unto us?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the planting that he has done on his acres of land. He spoke about the changes that he has seen. I am fortunate to live on a farm, where we have had the opportunity to plant trees directly. We have planted some 3,500 trees, retained the hedgerows and put in two ponds. We regularly see bees, moss and lots of wildlife. The Government have committed to replanting across the whole United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that there should be more of a commitment to tree planting, to ensure that we can become the lungs of the world?
Hilary Benn
I agree completely. There should be no limit to the number of trees that we can plant. We can each play our part if we have the opportunity. As MPs, because of the nature of our job, we probably get invited to plant the odd tree in our constituencies.
The point that the right hon. Member for Islington North made about front gardens is really important. One of the things we did after the floods of 2007 was to change the planning rules. People cannot hard pave over their front gardens any more unless they use permeable paving, because if we pave, tarmac and concrete over all the land in a town or city and huge quantities of rain fall out of the sky, of course the water is going to flood into people’s homes. That makes us realise the inter- connection between our choices as human beings and the consequences of not paying sufficient attention to nature.
I would argue that to be disconnected from nature is to be disconnected from the Earth itself, so it is not just self-preservation that should urge us to confront the threat of climate change and biodiversity loss, which are absolutely connected, but our love for the soil from which we all came and to which one day we will all return—but not just yet.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), whom I congratulate on securing the debate.
Here is my perspective. Life on this planet has been going for 4.5 billion years—4,500 million years. Human beings have been on this planet for 6 million years. That means that we have been around for 0.013% of the time that life has existed on this planet. We are cashing in 4.5 billion years of planetary saving bonds and blowing it on bling, and nothing but our own hubris gives us the right to do so. Exponential growth within a finite system leads to collapse, and that is what is happening—collapse. We know it is happening. Only last weekend, as I was in Durham, the IPBES report set out again what we already know: the global rate of species extinction is between 10 to 100 times higher than the average rate over the past 10 million years. We are living in the Anthropocene—the sixth great extinction event. Human activity is actually being compared to the asteroid that obliterated the dinosaurs—except that unlike the asteroid we know what we are doing. We know that 12% of tree species and over 1,300 wild mammal species are threatened by unsustainable logging and hunting, more than 25% of the world’s forests are subject to industrial logging, and 34% of marine wild fish stocks are overfished—but the plunder goes on.
We politicians are strange creatures: we say we want to do the right thing but so often we end up doing the easy thing instead. We spend our lives trying to win, but in this struggle between ourselves and our planet, there is always going to be just one winner: planet Earth will continue in a new form long after we have made it impossible for our own species to live on it. Reversing the trend of biodiversity loss requires urgent, transformative change. That is code for saying that we need to consume less, because at the current rate of consumption, we would need three planets-worth of resources by 2050. That means that we must examine our economy. It is not just about reducing our consumption; it is about changing our economic accounting model in order to account properly for the free goods and services that we are destroying. Pollination services, clean air, the purification of water by forests and the protection of coastal cities by mangroves are all regarded as externalities by classical economics.
Let me now enter into the earlier debate between the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion—my hon. Friend on this side—and the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), whom, certainly in terms of conservation, I am happy to call an hon. Friend on the other side. Our obsession with GDP suggests that the coastal surge that destroyed cities such as New Orleans—under hurricane Katrina—resulted in the growth of GDP owing to the economic activity when all the new levees were built. The disaster that destroyed so many lives and so much wealth is counted in our economic system, GDP, as a positive, but the loss of the tupelo and cypress forest swamp, which had previously—when the trees were not being taken down—reduced the surge swell and protected the city, was not counted as a negative in any economic calculation.
The Dasgupta review, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central referred, set out with great economic force the consequences of what Professor Dasgupta termed “impact inequality”: the imbalance between humanity’s demand and nature’s supply, and the need to reconstruct economics so that nature is an essential part of it and ecosystem services are properly valued. It was disappointing that when the then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee to discuss the Dasgupta review, it became clear that she had not read it. Yesterday, when the chair of the Committee on Climate Change appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and was asked about DEFRA’s plan for net zero, it was notable that he said not only that there was no clarity for others, but that there was no implementation that it was possible to judge because the metrics were not there. Just as the Government should implement net zero stress tests for all budgets, so they should implement net nature tests against all expenditure to ensure that alignment with our post-2030 biodiversity framework is maintained.
That brings me to the importance of data. We are extraordinarily blessed in this country to have more than 250 years of amateur scientific data-gathering. We have baselines against which we can say, with real confidence, that 41% of all UK species have declined in the past 52 years, since 1970, but under-employed Church of England vicars and other gentlefolk going back to Georgian England provide us with a database that other countries can only of dream of. May I ask the Minister to ensure that our support for COP15, and the financial assistance that we make available to countries, focus on enabling them to have an accurate dataset of their own natural and biological assets.
Barry Gardiner
I will give both ways, but not simultaneously. I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend. What he is saying about data is a huge issue for the small island developing states, because there is so much biodiversity, particularly in the territorial waters, and populations of perhaps a few hundred are somehow expected to manage a vast space. I agree with what he said about the importance of supporting them, and our overseas territories, so that they can do that work.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the constant problems, particularly in our overseas territories, which do not have the resources to be able to establish their own datasets, is the gaming between them and the Foreign Office, because technically, through the convention on biological diversity, we are responsible for the biodiversity in those overseas territories.
It is a great tragedy that this palming off of responsibility between the two continues. I know that the Minister is new in post, and I welcome him to his post, but I hope he will have robust discussions with his colleagues in the Foreign Office about this. Perhaps he could whisper something to that effect in Lord Goldsmith’s ear, given that he is Minister of State in both DEFRA and the Foreign Office. This really does need to be sorted out. The overseas territories need that support to get the database.
Jeremy Corbyn
I absolutely agree that there has to be a measurement of the effect on the natural world and the environment, measurements of human inequality and all the normal GDP measurements. Would it not be better if the UK Government set an aim to come away from the next round of discussions with an agreed position on how we will measure the effect on the natural world of economic activity as part of the whole measurement of GDP? In that way, it would be factored in and give a legal status and entity to the environment and the natural world, as opposed to just discussing it as a separate thing as a consequence of our own activities.
Barry Gardiner
Indeed. One of the things COP15 is grappling with at the moment is how to reconcile the different metrics that different countries use to assess their national biodiversity and sustainability action plans, and how to integrate them into a common measure. It is much more difficult to do this with biodiversity than it is with climate change. We know the common measure in climate change—it is CO2—but we do not have an easy common measure for biodiversity. My right hon. Friend is right. It is one of the things that COP15 really has to grapple with.
I mentioned the national biodiversity and sustainability action plans—NBSAPs—that are produced by many countries. The truth is they are simply inadequate, not from a lack of goodwill on the part of those countries but often because of a lack of the robust scientific data we were speaking about.
We also know that, even when NBSAPs are based on sound scientific data, they have to be implemented. There is no point in simply putting them into your action plan and not implementing them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central spoke about the Lawton report. Professor John Lawton set those principles in place over 15 years ago and those principles are clear. We have to act. Whether it is in the UK, sub-Saharan Africa or south-east Asia, we have to act at a landscape scale. As John Lawton suggested, we need “bigger, better, more joined-up” habitat. That in effect is the response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on the metrics. We need to see at a landscape scale that that is happening.
The COP is setting out its target to halt the loss of biodiversity, but as I said earlier, sadly that has been our 10-yearly target for nearly three decades now. For effective implementation, we must ensure that there are key staging posts to show that we are on the right track to achieving the long-term objective. Interim objectives around the amount of reforestation and the amount of marine protection zones must be used as staging posts in the same way as we in this country use the five-yearly carbon budgets as staging posts towards our 2050 net zero target.
Chris Grayling
This is why my argument is around a real focus on the restoration of degraded land. Semi-desert subsistence farmland will never deliver anything for anyone except an impoverished lifestyle and poor biodiversity, but the restoration of land is a tangible that can be addressed in the COP because it can be measured and tracked.
Barry Gardiner
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is right that we need to look at land restoration as one of the key indicators. It is particularly the case in sub-Saharan African countries, which are facing an increasing challenge of desertification from climate change, which they are having to fight against, rather than just looking at the land that is already semi-desert and trying to see how to restore that. It is a huge problem. The NBSAPs must be living documents, which is why they need to be ratcheted up, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, every five years between major COPs.
Let me turn to finance. I pay tribute to Mia Mottley, the Prime Minister of Barbados, who spoke at the beginning of COP26. For my money, she was the most powerful speaker at the whole event. She pointed out to the politicians assembled for the launch of COP26 that the promise we had given was for $100 billion a year to be put into the global planet fund to help the global south to cope with climate change and to take effective mitigation efforts. We have not delivered that, and we are nowhere near delivering it. She pointed out that it was not because we could not afford it, because we had just spent $9 trillion—trillions, not billions—bailing ourselves out over the covid pandemic. The funds are available and they must be made available.
The extent of quantitative easing that the global north has allowed itself since the 2008 global financial crisis has been more than $36 trillion. What is COP15 asking for? It is asking for the same as was promised at COP26: $100 billion a year, rising to $700 billion a year. That is essential. If we are to enable those developing countries in the global south to do exactly what the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell was talking about with regard to the restoration of degraded land, and if we are to deal with these problems, we have to be serious. As the human species, we do not have the right not to be.
Kerry McCarthy
On the amount of money we need to give to help countries in the global south to cope, those countries are often faced with crippling debt—we had the whole jubilee debt campaign. Belize, for example, is a small island state that is right in the forefront of the impacts of climate change. It has incredible biodiversity that needs protecting, but is crippled by debt repayments. If we do not deal with that side of the equation, there is not an awful lot of point giving such countries money to help them invest in the sort of projects my hon. Friend is talking about.
Barry Gardiner
I am delighted that my hon. Friend made that intervention at precisely that moment, because it enables me to talk about green finance, and the importance of involving the private sector and ensuring that critical private finance is coming in. Green bonds and debt-for-biodiversity swaps are innovative and fundamental ways in which we should facilitate countries such as Belize to tackle the environmental problems they face. It cannot be done without money, and it cannot be done simply with public money. In fact, green bonds are now classed as more attractive than ordinary, vanilla bonds, because they tackle not one issue, but two; they mitigate risk on two factors. The secondary market in green bonds has really taken off.
I want to talk about the way in which the financial sector needs to be regulated and guided through the issue. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke about the way in which our financial sector was incentivising deforestation, particularly in Brazil. He is absolutely correct. We should not simply say, as is the Government’s position, that companies need to declare their climate and sustainability actions in their mandatory annual reporting, and that they should not fund any activity, such as ranching in Brazil, that drives illegal deforestation. That is not good enough. When those stipulations were put in place, countries such as Brazil simply changed the law to make it legal so that they could continue to receive the finance. There must be objectivity about whether something is or is not deforestation.
I am conscious that I should not take up too much more time, but it is critical that COP15 addresses access and benefit sharing. We will not have global agreement and global co-operation on the environment and our failing global biodiversity unless biopiracy by pharmaceutical companies is addressed. These companies must not go into communities—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central referred to this—and say, “We are going to take the genetic sequences of these two trees and use them in our pharmaceutical products, but you will not get any advantages from it.” That is why the UK must be foursquare behind access and benefit sharing at COP15.
An ecosystem has the right to exist, to flourish, to regenerate its vital cycles and to evolve naturally without human disruption. Nature has rights. We often think that rights apply only to us, but trusts and institutions have rights, and those rights are safeguarded by trustees and guardians. That is us. Nobody else is here to argue for nature. We must be the guardians of that trust. We have been on this planet for only 0.13% of the time that biodiversity has existed. We have no right to destroy the world around us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. She began with a typically well-informed and passionate speech, and one thing among many that struck me is that our only world is on fire and being bulldozed, which set the scene for a debate that can only lead those viewing it to agree entirely.
The hon. Lady spoke of the recent negotiations in Nairobi, and how the proposals are littered with brackets, as they remain to be ratified. We all devoutly hope those brackets will be removed, because Governments must provide robust commitments, with action targets, at COP15. Governments cannot be allowed off the hook and to fudge the commitments with warm words; they must have the targets, monitoring, enforcement and funding required to achieve them.
I also commend the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for highlighting how alarmingly quickly this is happening. The speed of biodiversity loss, even among wildlife in the UK, is terrifying. We are clearly guilty of taking biodiversity for granted.
So the COP15 biodiversity conference in December comes at an extremely critical moment. As we have heard, biodiversity is declining more rapidly than at any point in human history. The Aichi biodiversity targets set in 2010 have largely been missed, and nature continues to decline, with more than one in five species globally at risk of extinction. In the UK alone, more than 1,000 of the more than 8,000 species assessed in the 2019 state of nature report are threatened with extinction. As we have heard, once common species such as the swift, the house martin and the greenfinch have been moved on to the red list in the latest “Birds of Conservation Concern” list for the UK, meaning that they are in critical decline and in need of urgent action.
Scientists are warning that the Amazon rainforest is at a dangerous tipping point that could trigger a mass and irreversible loss of trees. Warming seas and ocean acidification are wreaking havoc on coral reefs. As any of us who heard Sir Patrick Vallance and his colleagues’ evidence the other day will know, biodiversity loss and the biodiversity emergency are intrinsically linked with the climate crisis. It is therefore imperative that all countries at COP15 recognise the scale of the biodiversity crisis that faces us all and that international leaders use the conference to urgently set the most ambitious targets possible for biodiversity and nature protection.
The IPBES—Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature, released this week, bears stark witness to the catastrophic extent to which humans are overexploiting wild species and habitats, and concludes that a key driver of biodiversity loss is the failure of national Governments to include nature and wildlife as a consideration in their decision making. It also found that where nature has been considered, it has been primarily for its economically productive aspects, such as food production. That is why it is such a disappointment to see the UK Government’s recent abandonment of wildlife protection conditions for farm subsidies in England in favour of sheer food production capacity. We all recognise, of course, the food security issues we face globally, but in addressing those we cannot ignore the pressing need for action on these matters.
Whoever the UK Prime Minister is in December, they must attend the conference and fully commit the UK Government to addressing this biodiversity emergency. The fight against climate change and the biodiversity crisis cannot be abandoned to placate uninformed naysayers, and we fully support the call by a range of non-governmental organisations for the new Prime Minister to convene a meeting of leaders in advance to help foster international consensus. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to that suggestion.
If the UK Government need an example of how to demonstrate global leadership on this issue, they do not need to look far. The Scottish Government were among the first globally to declare a climate and biodiversity emergency. Scotland was also the first country in the world to complete and submit a full report on all 20 Aichi targets, doing so in 2016. Scotland’s national economy and its marine economy will be vital to securing a net zero future, with nature-based solutions accounting for about 30% of the emissions reductions needed. But in turn, we must ensure it is protected and enhanced.
Deidre Brock
I had not noticed the right hon. Gentleman coming in, but of course I will give way to him.
Mr Carmichael
I have been here for quite a while now—I am just a quiet presence, so I would not be noticed.
With all that the hon. Lady has set out being the case, does she agree that it remains incomprehensible that the Scottish and UK Governments both continue to allow industrial-scale fishing with gillnets, which not only leaves a massive amount of plastic pollution but is an utterly unsustainable way of catching fish?
Deidre Brock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Absolutely, these are things that the Scottish Government are of course looking at—I am not sure about the UK Government’s position. He will know that Marine Scotland and its partners have developed a Scottish marine protected area monitoring strategy, which will look at issues such as he has raised. It also intends to add to the existing marine protected areas network, which will cover at least 10% of Scotland’s seas, and is introducing a strengthened framework to help address situations such as the one he describes. I am well aware of the issues associated with gillnet fishing and the accumulated debris that it results in. We should certainly continue to press all Governments on that matter, at all times. I am very much aware of that.
I know that Members here quite often roll their eyes about these sorts of things, but I have to say that Scotland is pressing ahead on this matter. It is taking action, and it would be useful if we all shared best practice rather than rolling our eyes and thinking, “Here’s Scotland talking about itself again.” We can all learn from each other at all times.
Barry Gardiner
I certainly would not roll my eyes, and I pay tribute to the Scottish Government for setting up the natural capital convention. It must be almost 10 years ago now that the first natural capital convention in the world took place, so Scotland has shown leadership on these matters. The point is that we must all try to learn from each other and make sure that we get the best out of it.
Deidre Brock
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Further to that, a global partnership led by the Scottish Government produced a statement of intent known as the Edinburgh declaration, calling for transformative action to be taken at all levels to halt biodiversity loss. With signatories from every continent, the declaration called for greater prominence to be given to the role that regional Governments, cities and local authorities play in delivering a new global framework of targets. The Scottish Government are backing this up by enshrining nature protection in law and prioritising biodiversity across a range of policy areas.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who is no longer in her place, and other Members who have spoken in this debate, will be pleased to hear that, since 2012, the Scottish Government have funded the restoration of more than 25,000 hectares of degraded Scottish peatland, with further plans for the next 10 years, backed by £250 million of funding. Peat stores more carbon than all other vegetation types in the world combined and is a vital nature-based solution to protecting biodiversity.
In Scotland, we are also revitalising our woodlands and forests. In 2019 alone, 22 million trees were planted in Scotland, comprising nearly 84% of the UK’s mainland tree planting. The Government are supporting the restoration and expansion of Scotland’s rainforest and establishing a national register of ancient woodlands.
The preservation of marine habitats, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion mentioned, is equally crucial. That is why the Scottish Government plan to designate a suite of highly protected marine areas covering at least 10% of Scotland’s seas. That will provide additional environmental preservation over and above the existing MPA network by establishing sites that will be protected against extractive, destructive or depositional activities.
We have talked about biodiversity spreading across a range of sectors, but it is also one of the main principles of the new Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, under which Ministers, relevant authorities and organisations must have regard to halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity when preparing national food plans, as planned under the Bill. One of the everyday ways that we can halt biodiversity loss is by reducing food waste. Currently, about 30% of all food produced globally goes uneaten.
Last month, Scotland also became the first part of the UK to implement a ban on many of the most problematic single-use plastics. Plastics and waste, as we know, can wreak havoc on our natural environments, as Everyday Plastic and Greenpeace highlighted just yesterday as they launched the results of their big plastics count.
By the end of 2022, the Scottish Government will publish a new biodiversity strategy for the next 25 years, which will propose to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and reverse it by 2045. That will help guide the way that Scots use and manage land and Scotland’s approach to protecting habitats and ecosystems, which will mean a substantial restoration and regeneration of biodiversity across our land, freshwater and sea. Vitally, a series of outcomes will be developed across rural, marine, freshwater, coastal and urban environments. The plans to introduce a natural environment Bill will put in place a robust statutory enforcing, target setting, monitoring and reporting framework. Those targets will be based on an overarching goal of preventing any further extinctions of wildlife, halting declines by 2030 and making real progress in restoring Scotland’s natural environment by 2045. The Scottish Government will also ensure that a review of environmental justice and the case for an environmental court takes place during this parliamentary Session.
At COP15, we need to see similar transformational action targets from all the world’s Governments. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) notes, it is important that we address the task with optimism. That is where we need the UK Government to step up, raise the political profile of biodiversity to the highest level, show global leadership and press hard for international commitments to halt and start to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. Ministers should listen to their chief scientific adviser on this. At COP15 we must see a commitment to sustainable solutions that offer real results.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I rise today in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who is on an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Kosovo and hence is not able to be in the Chamber today. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), the shadow Secretary of State, is visiting Yorkshire, so I am afraid the House is stuck with me. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate and for her speech. I have enjoyed listening to all the powerful, interesting, educational and unifying calls for action among the speeches we have heard here.
When we were notified last week that this motion would be considered by the House, many of us were concerned that we would be Minister-less, but our fears have thankfully been calmed, because the people’s business must go on despite a caretaker Government and its outgoing Prime Minister. We are also relieved to find the Secretary of State safe in his caretaker position at DEFRA. I welcome the Minister formally to his place; I look forward to his completing his eight-week job interview, and I hope he will be able to stay on.
I place on record my genuine thanks to the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) following their resignations from the Front Bench last week. We did not always agree, but we developed a respectful working relationship, and more than once we joked that we saw more of each other than we did of our spouses, children and loved ones, due to the constant flow of DEFRA-related business in the House.
It has been a very quiet week here in Westminster, with not a lot going on at all. As such, I was grateful to be able to use this time to reflect on the critical work required to preserve our planet and protect our environment. I am very clear that we need the upcoming COP15 summit to do more than just contribute to global warming through lots of hot air; we need it to deliver for the planet’s wildlife and for its people. It will be no surprise to the House that I am here to reiterate Labour’s approach to the environment, which has always been driven by those twin priorities. We on the Labour Benches believe that those priorities are even more important now, because in a time of such cost of living desperation, both internationally and here at home, we cannot deliver for one without the other. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for his stark example of GDP versus biodiversity with Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Delivering for the natural world requires social and economic justice. That is something that the Leader of Opposition recognises, and I hope the Minister will recognise it too. The approach of protecting a few isolated green spaces and relying on markets is failing and gets us nowhere near far enough, and certainly not fast enough, as the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) highlighted earlier.
In any case, we are seeing protections eroded because commercial demands for land are insatiable and some in this House have the wrong spending priorities. Time and again, across the world and at home, we see the most disadvantaged communities suffering the worst impacts of environmental degradation: their homes flooded and swept away in deadly landslides, their fields and livestock left parched by drought, their homes left draughty, cold and damp through lack of insulation while fossil fuel-dependent energy bills soar, their children’s health blighted by fossil fuel-generated air pollution, sewage pumped into their local rivers and over playing fields, and their neighbourhoods devoid of the green space and nature that lockdown surely taught us are so essential for human mental and physical wellbeing.
The United Kingdom has been among the most nature-depleted countries for decades. The Natural History Museum’s biodiversity intactness index revealed that the world has crashed through the “safe limit for humanity” level of for biodiversity loss, and saw the UK’s 53% score place it in the bottom 10% of countries.
That is well below China, and humiliatingly we are last in the G7—so much for global Britain. In practice it means that even some of our most iconic and much loved animals are being added to the growing list of endangered species. Eleven of the 47 mammals native to Great Britain are at imminent risk of extinction, including the red squirrel, wildcat, water vole, dormouse and hedgehog. I pay tribute to the Members who have declared their animal championing pedigrees, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). A further five native mammals have a realistic possibility of becoming threatened with extension in the near future, including the mountain hare.
Kerry McCarthy
I was under instruction, had I been able to make a speech, to mention that I am parliamentary species champion for the swift and to make a plea for us to protect and to increase their habitats by ensuring that there are swift bricks in every new building. I have got that on the record.
Ruth Jones
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the great work she does on biodiversity and as a swift champion. I will add that to my list of champions in the House. We know that puffins are projected to decline across Britain and Ireland by up to 90% within 30 years, and they are among 14 seabird species regarded as being at risk of negative climate change impacts. The shadow Minister for the natural environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West recently visited RSPB Bempton Cliffs, renowned for its puffins, but was not able to find a single one.
Ministers, notably Lord Goldsmith, often pat themselves on the back claiming they are doing all they can to advance the environmental agenda, but the fact of the matter is that our nature teeters on a cliff edge. I hope when the new Prime Minister takes office on 6 September that she or he will set out clearly how they will pull nature back from the brink. Under this caretaker Prime Minister, we all see a Tory Government consistently making the wrong choices, failing to engage with stake- holders properly, delaying action and ducking the urgent challenges facing us all.
Rather than setting the international agenda on biodiversity and leading the debate, the Budget last year—delivered as world leaders began to arrive for COP26—did not even mention climate change. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) found time to give a tax break for domestic flights and fell woefully short on the investment needed to deliver green jobs and a fair transition. It does not bode well for how he would approach the top job.
The Conservatives’ Environment Act 2021, which was well known as the “missing in action” Bill as it worked its way through the House, set a target on species abundance, and the Minister will recall that DEFRA Ministers were forced to concede that action was needed. Sadly, they only went as far as promising to halt the decline in species by 2030. Just halting the decline is not good enough—our ambition should be nature-positive here at home and in our work with colleagues on the world stage through COP15.
In 2020, the Government managed to deliver less than half their target of 5,000 hectares of new trees in England, and we had empty words from Lord Goldsmith that they would do better. The planned spending on tree planting is dwarfed by subsidies to Drax to ship and burn wood pellets from around the world, particularly from the US, with a lack of due diligence to make sure it is not from virgin forest. Meanwhile, the Government are doing far too little to protect the trees we do have. Deforestation is increasing across the planet and our consumption in Britain is driving deforestation abroad, which impacts here and across the world. Here, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central for his dogged tree-planting over the past 30 years.
In the Environment Act 2021, the Government’s due diligence measures cover only illegal deforestation. Why are we agreeing trade deals with countries such as Brazil, Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia while they continue to destroy rainforests? Just yesterday, we saw reports that deforestation of the Amazon is at its highest level for six years. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell highlighted that in his speech earlier. We must remember that human rights are always threatened when rainforest deforestation happens, and the best stewards of those rainforests are the indigenous people who have cared for them for thousands of years and for whom they are home. Funding men with guns to guard empty rainforest is not a sustainable or ethical policy, but sadly it appears to be one that this Prime Minister and DEFRA have pursued up until now.
Action has been inadequate across DEFRA policy for far too long. Water companies have continued to be allowed to pump sewage into rivers, and that has only hastened the decline of endangered species. After the Government finally got an ivory ban on the statute book in 2018, their dither and delay meant that it did not actually come into force until years after many other countries had acted. They have failed to deliver promised wildlife protection legislation to ban trophy hunting and fur imports. Last week I had a very good meeting with former President of Botswana Ian Khama, who, although out of office, is a really doughty and dogged campaigner for the rights of animals. Obviously he backs a global ban on trophy hunting.
Meanwhile at home, thousands and thousands of badgers continue to be killed. The Government have also authorised bee-killing neonic pesticides and have failed to act to stop illegal hunting or effectively limit peat extraction and moorland burning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) outlined in her speech. Of course, I cannot forget foxhunting. The killing of any animal will have an impact on our natural world and biodiversity, and hunting is no different. We have so many more priorities; I urge the Government to clean our waters, clean our air and protect our green spaces as a starter for 10.
Labour will deliver the change that we all want to see. Action at home must showcase for the world how a positive nature policy can practically be delivered across Government. The shadow Chancellor has committed a Labour Government to a robust net zero and nature-positive test for every policy. That will be backed with a £28 billion a year investment to meet the challenge of the climate and nature emergency, create certainty for business, and provide leadership as we seize all the opportunities before our United Kingdom.
Earlier this week I attended the online meeting with Patrick Vallance. Nobody who was there could have failed to leave fired up and ready to do whatever is necessary to protect our planet and preserve our environment. We can address both the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis. I say to the Government: if they cannot do both, they should get out of the way because we will. The truth is that, when we want them to, Government can and do make real change to the lives of people and our environment, too. The clock is ticking on the Prime Minister’s time in office, and it is ticking on our mission to save our planet, too. Now is the time for transformational change for our people and our planet. I wish COP15 well and hope that all those round the table will heed the warnings, wake up and smell the coffee, and get back to work.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I welcome the new Minister to his position.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Double)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling this debate to take place and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for the way she opened it. It is truly an honour to respond to this my first major debate in the Chamber since I took up this post. It has been great to see such widespread agreement across the House on the importance of COP15 ahead of the conference. This is a vital moment for nature around the world and a real call to action.
We are reaching the culmination of a three-year-long nature campaign, and we are not taking our foot off the pedal now. In fact, just last week my hon. Friend Lord Goldsmith was in Gabon discussing the actions needed to halt forest loss and seeing the remarkable work being doing in the Congo basin.
All the evidence shows us how rapidly nature is in decline. Between 1990 and 2015, we lost 290 million hectares of native forest cover globally. That is more than 10 times the size of the UK. Live coral cover of reefs has nearly halved in the past 150 years, with dramatically accelerated decline in the past 20 to 30 years, and a million species face extinction. We know that so many things are reliant on nature, from food to security, clean air to water, and our health and wellbeing to our very economies, so reversing these trends is vital.
That is why this Government have committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it in, and the good news is that we know we can turn things around. There is someone, somewhere in Government, who is leading the way on all the changes that we need to see. It is this innovation that we need to champion, and global platforms such as CBD give us the opportunity to share these ideas and build momentum behind them. This is a colossal challenge. Even as we confront the impacts of conflict and the ongoing effects of the pandemic, we know that we need to deliver an ambitious global biodiversity framework at CBD COP15 that will help us to bend the curve of biodiversity loss globally by 2030.
COP15 should, and indeed needs to be, the Paris moment for nature. If we can agree, and we must agree, an ambitious post-2020 global diversity framework in Montreal in December—with a clear mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss globally by 2030, including targets to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and at least 30% of global oceans by 2030, and to see ecosystems restored, species’ population sizes recovering and extinctions halted by 2050, with mechanisms to enable us to hold countries to account—then we will be in a strong position to make this the decade we put nature on the road to recovery. This is why the global biodiversity framework is so important, and we are leading from the front to ensure that we have the policies and finance in place so that this ambition is realised.
Olivia Blake
Given the significance of COP15, will the Prime Minister—whoever that may be—be attending it on behalf of the UK?
Steve Double
I was going to come to that later, but I will respond to it now. I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to be able to speak for whoever may win the election to be leader of our party and the next Prime Minister. However, I can assure her that I know that our party is committed to this issue, and that is not going to change suddenly. The Conservative party is very aware of its importance, and I am sure that, whoever takes over as Prime Minister in a few weeks’ time, we will continue to champion nature recovery globally and that there will be a senior level presence at COP15. I would not dare to say whether that will be the future Prime Minister, but I join her in saying that I would certainly like that to be the case.
Deidre Brock
The Minister is obviously not able to give an indication yet of whether the Prime Minister will be attending COP15, but can he indicate whether a role equivalent to that of the COP26 President will be created to reflect the importance of that summit?
Steve Double
I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Member does not think that is me, because it is very clearly part of my new role as a Minister to take up this cause. To be serious, I take her point. We do need to take this issue seriously, as this is a critical moment for nature globally. The UK is proud to be playing a leading role, and I am sure that, whoever attends and whatever title they have, we will continue to play a global leadership role in ensuring that we set the world back on the road to nature recovery. We recognise the importance of COP15 as a key moment in that.
Barry Gardiner
Will the Minister confirm that, even though COP15 is taking place in Montreal, the presidency is still with China and the Chinese Minister will be the president of the COP?
Steve Double
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right about the presidency, which goes with the host nation, but I think the SNP spokesperson was talking about someone in the Government having that prominent role. I think that is correct.
Steve Double
As I was saying, we are leading from the front to ensure that we have the policies and finance in place so that these ambitions are realised. As leader of the Global Ocean Alliance and ocean co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, we have worked closely with Costa Rica and France to bring together over 100 countries in support of the 30 by ’30 target. I am very proud, and I believe we should all be very proud, of the UK’s leadership to date in bringing parties together and building consensus through partnerships such as the leaders’ pledge for nature, which has now been endorsed by more than 90 political leaders.
We are determined to work with fellow countries to translate our joint ambitions into action on the ground, by building consensus and finding solutions to help agree a strong global biodiversity framework. To secure not just 30 by 30, but all the targets that are so necessary to protect nature, we need urgently to demonstrate our collective seriousness about closing the large funding gap over the course of the next decade. The UK brought nature from the margins of the global climate debate into the heart of our response at COP26. Ensuring that promises made in Glasgow are honoured in full, that we build on them, and that they are translated into effective action as soon as possible are huge priorities for the UK in the year of our presidency and beyond.
Making sure that aid is aligned with our goals is also hugely important. Indeed, we are leading by example, by doubling our international climate finance, investing at least £3 billion of that in nature, including nature-based solutions, urging other donor countries to do the same, and launching a pipeline of new programmes that will help people to protect and restore biodiversity on land and sea. We are calling on multilateral development banks to mainstream nature across their entire portfolios, as well as supporting countries when fulfilling their commitments to the Leaders Pledge for Nature. We are also pulling every lever we have to get private finance flowing in the right direction, from reducing risk to increasing investment.
Adopting a new framework at COP15 will not be sufficient if we do not also put in place mechanisms to ensure that countries can implement it. Frameworks need to result in action on the ground. The global failure to achieve the Aichi targets was driven by partial and insufficient implementation. That was arguably because parties found it challenging to translate international targets into effective national action that could be delivered at the scale and pace needed. The post-2020 global diversity framework must be underpinned by enhanced planning, reporting and review mechanisms that will hold parties to account for their commitments and support implementation—that was the point about data raised by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). It is so important that we help countries to develop those capabilities.
The UK, in partnership with Norway and the UN environment programme world conservation monitoring centre, has led a programme of workshops to support discussions between parties to enhance mechanisms for planning, reporting and review, with the aim of strengthening the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and achieving the ambitious 2050 goals and 2030 targets. To summarise, the UK remains committed to securing an ambitious outcome at COP15—one that sets the direction and leads to action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss globally by 2030. We will work closely with China as the presidency, and support Canada as host in achieving those outcomes.
Many excellent contributions from across the House have raised many important points, and I will try quickly to respond to some of them. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked about the UK’s goals, and I tried to outline those in my response. We are clear about the goals that we need from COP15, and we must ensure that they are actionable. We need to see action. We do not need just more targets set or policies agreed; we need them to be put into action on the ground. She asked whether I would commit to keep Parliament updated, and as long as I am in post, I will be more than happy to do that. She also asked about the next Prime Minister attending COP15, and I have already addressed that issue.
The hon. Lady also raised the important matter of the maritime environment. As an MP who represents a coastal constituency—one of only three constituencies that has two separate coastlines—I am absolutely aware of just how important that issue is. We have made great progress on protecting our maritime environment, with over 100 maritime protection areas now in place, but I accept that we need to do more, and that we need to improve enforcement of the protection of those areas. I am more than happy to look into what more we can do to make sure those conservation areas are protected effectively—that it is not just a paper exercise. I would also point to the work we have already done in banning microplastics and the other measures we have taken to prevent maritime pollution, so I take the hon. Lady’s point, but she can be assured that the maritime environment is something I take very seriously.
Barry Gardiner
I think the whole House understands why the Minister is unable or reluctant to commit the Prime Minister to attending COP15, but is it possible for him to commit that either the Secretary of State will attend it, or he or his successor will do so as the Minister responsible for biodiversity?
Steve Double
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, I cannot do so, for the very same reason that I cannot commit the future Prime Minister: none of us knows what is going to happen in the coming weeks. What I can say is that if I am still in post, I would be more than happy to attend, but that decision is for another day. We will see what happens.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made an excellent contribution to the debate. He made the point—with which I wholeheartedly agree—that we understand why China is not able to host the COP this time; it is a shame, though, because it would have been excellent if China had been able to do so. He also made an excellent point about farmers; I am dismayed that comments are sometimes made casting farmers as the enemy of biodiversity and nature. My experience is completely the opposite, and I would say the same about the vast majority of our fishermen, including the small under-10-metre fleet. They all understand the importance of producing food for us in a sustainable way, and protecting and enhancing the natural environment. It is right that we say that more often, and work with our farmers and fishermen to enable them to achieve that end.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is absolutely right: the two fishing organisations in Northern Ireland, the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation, all want a policy that gives sustainability for the fishing sector. If that sector is not sustainable, the people who work in it will not have jobs for the future. My constituents who work in the fishing sector I represent want a deal that works for them and for the environment.
Steve Double
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: most farms and fishing businesses are passed down from generation to generation. That is how they operate, and they understand that if they do not operate sustainably, they will have nothing left to pass on to future generations, so I welcome his comments.
I was delighted to hear that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is a fan of “The Wind in the Willows”. I do not know whether he knows this, but “The Wind in the Willows” was written by a great Cornishman, Kenneth Grahame. He based the story on the River Fowey, which I am delighted to represent, as it is in my constituency. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to visit Fowey and see that river for himself, and just maybe, he will see his first ever water vole. There is much more I could say—
Jeremy Corbyn
Has the Minister had a chance to look at the comments made yesterday by Emma Howard Boyd, the chair of the Environment Agency, concerning the behaviour of water companies and the pollution in rivers, and her recommendation that instead of fining the chairs of the water companies that grievously pollute our rivers, consideration ought to be given to putting those people in jail for the damage they are doing to our environment? Is he going to respond directly to the Environment Agency and wish it well in that endeavour?
Steve Double
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for raising that very important point. I am, of course, absolutely aware of the Ofwat report and the comments of the Environment Agency. It is a matter that deeply concerns me as a representative of a coastal constituency. I regret to say that one of the worst offenders is my local water authority. This morning, I asked my office for a meeting with it, and to speak to the Environment Agency, because we need to do better. The Government have put measures in place to better hold water authorities to account. I am determined that we find a way of doing that and that we bring to an end the unacceptable level of untreated sewage being discharged into our rivers and seas. I can assure him that I take it very seriously.
I thank all Members who contributed to this excellent debate. As I said, it was great to hear such agreement across House on the importance of COP15, and on protecting and restoring our environment. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, and as the shadow Minister said, I do feel like I am on an eight-week job interview. However, I assure Members that I am determined, however long I am in office, to take these matters very seriously and ensure that the UK does all it can and continues to lead the world in bringing together real action to protect and enhance our natural environment for the future.
Caroline Lucas
I am hugely grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. What we have not had in quantity of contributions, we have certainly more than made up for in quality. One theme that has come out is individuals’ love for nature. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) talked about how it is central to our souls—nothing less. That, to me, is hugely important. I am struck by the words of the US writer Richard Louv, who said:
“We cannot protect something we do not love, we cannot love what we do not know”.
Therefore, getting more access for young people and all of us to nature, the kind of young people the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke about, is absolutely crucial to protecting it.
While we talked about our love for nature, we had some hard economics, too. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for reminding us that we will not have the transformative change we need unless we change our economic system.
I am very grateful for the Minister’s response and for his commitment to work for the success of COP15 and, in particular, the funding necessary to make it a success. He explained why he cannot commit future Ministers to future actions, which I completely understand. What I hope he can do is undertake to urge his Conservative leadership colleagues not to step away from net zero. There have been some deeply worrying statements in the last few days around that. I hope he will play a role in trying to urge them not to put net zero in question.
A number of questions still remain unanswered about the detail of the UK’s negotiating objectives, for example its position on the global ratchet when it comes to policy ambition and on increasing our domestic environmental targets in the Environment Act 2021. We need to be more ambitious at home if we are to have credible leadership abroad. I look forward to the opportunity for further conversations with the Minister over the coming weeks and months to ensure we can make a success of COP15. All of us have said, from every angle of this House, how important that is. It has been underlined by today’s debate and I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to hold it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered protecting and restoring nature at COP15 and beyond.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Health Service Journal is reporting that the Minister of State, Department for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) incorrectly told the House yesterday that a contract was in place to provide surge capacity for ambulance services, despite the contract not having been awarded yet. Have you, Mr Deputy Speaker, had any notification from the Minister that she plans to come to the House to clarify the record?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for forward notice of it. I have not been given any notification of any statements likely to be made by any Ministers. As he knows, the Chair is not responsible for the content of any statements that have been made. If inaccuracies happen, I expect them to be corrected as soon as possible. However, if the Minister’s interpretation of what has happened is not quite the same as the hon. Member’s, then clearly that is a matter for debate. The Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order and I am sure they will pass it on to the Minister.
British Glass Industry
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I am delighted to have secured this important debate on the British glass industry and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for facilitating it. Glass is synonymous with St Helens, the town I represent. I am also very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) here—she may represent a constituency in the north-east, but she is a St Helens lass through and through, born and bred.
Glass made here in Britain is renowned across the globe and much of our daily lives depends on products that use it. From energy-efficient glazing in our windows to optical technologies that make internet communication and barcode scanning possible, this ever-evolving, innovating industry has—past and present—truly been a catalyst for progress in this country.
We should make no mistake: glass in Britain is giant. With 3.5 million tonnes of glass melted a year, the industry contributes some £1.3 billion to our economy annually. The industry employs 6,000 people directly and supports around 150,000 additional jobs—many located in my region of the north-west—across a diverse, dynamic supply chain. It remains a world leader, with UK manufacturers at the cutting edge of global efforts to develop sustainable glass for use in fields as wide as medicine, navigation, energy and power generation. I will use my remarks to celebrate some of the successes and to highlight, on the industry’s behalf, some of the urgent challenges that it faces.
The rise of glass as a powerhouse is a rich story and one that St Helens and the north of England is fiercely proud to be at the heart of. In 1773, the British Cast Plate Glass Company was established at Ravenhead. In 1826, the St Helens Crown Glass Company was founded by the Pilkington and Greenall families and, in 1845, its name was changed to Pilkington Brothers. Fondly known as Pilks, it remains a byword for excellence and innovation to this day. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), on whose behalf I am also speaking, worked for many years at Pilks and feels, like so many families in our town, a very special affinity for and connection to it.
In this country, 2022 marks a milestone year for glass. For one, it is the UN International Year of Glass—a celebration of the essential role of glass in society around the world. Along with other hon. Members, Ministers and industry representatives, I was very proud to celebrate that occasion at a special reception here in Parliament at the end of March. I know that more is planned with the Government and with us in Parliament before the end of the year.
This year also marks the 70th anniversary of the revolutionary float glass process, pioneered by Sir Alastair Pilkington. The method quickly became the worldwide staple for manufacturing high-quality flat glass and remains one of the most important post-war innovations not just in Britain, but globally. If any Member would like to know more about glass, its history and its role in Britain, they can visit the excellent World of Glass in St Helens. We have plans, too, for the historic Cannington Shaw No.7 bottle shop—a place of history for our town and the whole country, which is right at the forefront of what we are doing on regeneration.
The glass industry in Britain today is using that spirit of innovation—that rich heritage and history—to adapt to and shape the modern world and to address the challenges that we face as a country and planet, many of which we heard about in the previous debate. Nowhere is that clearer than in the industry’s imperative to reach net zero carbon emissions. As a product, glass will be critical to the national effort on that, whether we are talking about double or triple glazing for household insulation; glass for use in our solar products; or continuous filament glass fibres used in wind turbine blades and in lightweighting vehicles.
As an industry, too, glass is leading the way, supported by the industry body British Glass, to which I pay tribute for its work, and underpinned by its own ambitious net zero strategy, which was released just a year ago. That work is building on the industry’s recent success in reducing combustion and process emissions and in improving efficiency. Over the past 40 years, the energy efficiency of glass furnaces has increased by 50% and firms have significantly invested in technology to increase efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. Recycling has also been key: each time 1 tonne of glass is recycled, about 580 kg of carbon dioxide is saved through the chain.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On recycling glass, does he agree that the deposit return schemes that are being planned could be problematic for the glass industry if we have such schemes in Wales and Scotland, say, but not in Northern Ireland and England? Does he think that could be a problem for the industry?
Conor McGinn
My hon. Friend demonstrates the unity of purpose and message discipline on the Opposition Benches, because she anticipates the very point that I was just coming to. In 2020, 76% of container glass was recycled, and the industry has set an ambitious target of a 90% glass collection rate by 2030. To help those efforts, British Glass has called for glass bottles to be excluded from the scope of the UK’s deposit return scheme, which my hon. Friend alluded to, and to be collected instead through an improved system of extended producer responsibility.
Independent evidence has shown that kerbside collections are the most effective route to achieving closed-loop bottle-to-bottle recycling in the UK. The sector was pleased by the recent decision to exclude glass from the upcoming England scheme, but the industry remains concerned about the prospect of multiple diverging schemes across the UK, which would increase complexity, cost and confusion for the public and businesses alike. I wonder whether the Minister might address that point and say what work the Government are doing, alongside regional and devolved authorities, to address those concerns.
The challenge of ensuring that glass making can be built on high-value and sustainable zero-carbon products requires new solutions that fuse elements of research, design, collaboration, innovation and partnership between industry, academic life and political leaders. Not for the first time, we in St Helens are leading the way. A beacon for that is the cutting-edge project that we are working on with Glass Futures, Liverpool city region and our partners in industry to deliver a £54 million centre of excellence, in the heart of the town and our borough, for the sustainable manufacture of glass globally.
Having turned the first sod on that project in February, we are already making huge progress on delivering the 165,000 square foot state-of-the art facility, which will be capable of producing up to 30 tonnes of glass a day and will include the world’s first ever openly accessible multi-disciplinary glass-melting factory. It will give researchers and industry leaders from across the world a unique space to collaborate and experiment with different energy sources, including electricity, biofuels and hydrogen, raw materials and other emerging technologies to demonstrate solutions leading to sustainable energy usage in glass making.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I spoke to him beforehand, Mr Deputy Speaker.
At a time when prices are soaring across the world for deliveries, containers and the movement of products, it is good to hear that St Helens is doing so well. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that now is the time to emphasise the best of British produce and manufacturing? For that to happen, the Government—perhaps particularly the Minister, who is always amenable to such ideas—should be funding the relocation of factories and firms back to our shores, as he refers to. That would give local people jobs and give consumers what they want, which is superior British goods.
Conor McGinn
I entirely agree. When the Labour party is in government, we are committed to putting at the heart of everything we do the idea that we make, we buy and we sell British. That is hugely important to our economy, not just at a national level and not just for asserting our new place in the world, but for bringing jobs to cities, towns and villages across the whole United Kingdom. I know that that is a sentiment that the hon. Gentleman very much shares.
We are very proud that these ambitious efforts locally put St Helens and the Liverpool city region front and centre at the recent COP26 summit in Glasgow, where we showcased the product not only for its environmental benefits but its social and economic ones. The boost that this will bring to St Helens and our wider region is clear, with, initially, 80 new permanent jobs, over 700 apprenticeship hours, and 100 volunteer hours committed to local green projects. In addition, 50% of project spend will be local, alluding to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and 50% of those working on it will come from our city region. So we are thinking globally and acting locally, benefiting our area and its economy, and the environment.
Our efforts do not stop there because, in August last year, working alongside HyNet North West, we carried out a world-first trial with hydrogen on Pilkington’s famous float line that demonstrated that hydrogen, and other low and no-carbon fuels, could be used to fire a float glass furnace safely and effectively. The industry is ambitious to blaze a trail towards the future and those are just a couple of examples of how it is successfully cutting that path.
However, there are some urgent challenges in the present that risk putting the brakes on that and need to be addressed if the British glass industry is to continue to thrive. First, as the Minister will not be surprised to hear, the issue of spiralling energy costs is of significant concern. Like all other energy-intensive sectors, glass manufacturers have seen energy prices skyrocket at an alarming pace, experiencing gas and electricity costs as high as quadruple and triple their usual amount respectively, with prices remaining volatile. Energy already accounts for about a third of overall glass manufacturing costs, and in some cases production costs are now exceeding the price of goods themselves. Put simply, this is not sustainable and the risk to the financial viability of the sector is grave.
Yet little support has been made available by the Government to help firms crying out for short-term assistance, with, for example, the decision not to include flat or container glass in updated eligibility criteria for the compensation scheme to deal with indirect carbon costs. British Glass, on behalf of the whole industry, has written to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for clarity on that decision, as the assessment was based on data from 2016 to 2018, which represents a time before significant changes to imports. British Glass believes that the container sector should also be eligible. I ask the Minister to address that—if not today, then to come back to me on it and to look into the response that the Department has given to the industry. The industry is also awaiting the publication of the renewables exemption scheme consultation, which has been delayed. That is hugely important to the glass sector, which believes that increasing the relief from 85% to 100% would help to reduce electricity prices.
Secondly, energy security and supply, in and of itself, is critical. Glass production remains energy intensive and always will. Glass furnaces must fire continuously to make product in order, essentially, for the industry to survive. Indeed, with the UK’s furnace asset value estimated at in excess of £1.4 billion, closures would be devastating for the industry and wider society. Due to the shortage of refractories and workers, it could take over two years to rebuild a furnace if it lost gas supply. Labour Members have called for a £600 million contingency fund that would boost energy-intensive firms in glass, but also steel, manufacturing and other industries at the same time. I urge the Government to look at this again, as they did with our plans for a windfall tax to help domestic customers with energy costs. In the absence of any forthcoming policies of their own, we are always happy to provide some for them to take. Glass manufacturers need to be protected from shortages in fuel, and the industry has called on the Government to help to ensure this, especially over the coming winter, which is predicted to be a real crunch point. The industry strongly encourages the publication of the National Grid’s “Winter Outlook” without delay to help with preparations.
Finally, there is the challenge of competitiveness. The glass industry is recognised as being at risk of carbon leakage, which means that imposing full UK carbon costs could make manufacturing in the UK globally uncompetitive. We already have higher allowance prices than the European Union, for example. I ask the Government to look into that, and to ensure that the industry is able to remain competitive.
Past and present, glass has always been ingrained in the very fabric of our country. It is part of what makes Britain great, especially in proud communities such as mine in St Helens, where it remains a source of—indeed, a catalyst for—jobs, opportunities and economic growth. It is a symbol of this country’s manufacturing excellence and our rich past, and it remains part of the change and progress that we want to see Britain achieving. That is evident in the way in which this ever-evolving industry is using technology to address the defining issues—for instance, the climate emergency—faced by us as a society, and indeed by the world as a whole. We need concerted support from the Government to tackle the huge challenges that the industry faces, while taking the opportunities that are available.
St Helens glass is the best in Britain. British glass is the best in the world. Let us keep it that way, and let us shout it from the rooftops.
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for securing the debate and for outlining so comprehensively the importance of glass to the UK. I welcome the opportunity to address the priorities and challenges faced by the UK glass sector, and to explain what the Government have done, and will do in the future, to support it. As the Energy Minister, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department recognises the value of glass manufacturers, and takes their concerns very seriously.
In his excellent speech, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that British-made glass is renowned around the world. I always love a good bit of history, and he took us back to 1773 and the foundation of the British glass industry—indeed, probably the world glass industry—at Ravenhead. Glass has of course been around for centuries, but that was when it was turned into an industry. The hon. Gentleman told us about the 3.5 million tonnes that are produced each year and the 6,000 people employed directly in the industry, but he also talked about the much wider impact of the sector. As a former Exports Minister and a former Investment Minister, I know that it is industries of this kind that will enable global Britain to compete on the world stage and will continue to attract foreign direct investment, which plays such an important role in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Let me now deal with a few of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs leads on glass recycling and direct deposit schemes, but I will pass his comments on. DEFRA has undertaken extensive engagement with the glass sector, and will do so in the future. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government want to make recycling as easy and efficient as possible, but we need to ensure that that does not include any perverse incentives, or any element that is likely to damage some of our key industries.
The subject of energy-intensive industries will constitute the main part of my response, but I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman report that energy efficiency is up 50% in glass furnaces. That is an encouraging sign as we move towards net zero. Obviously some industries will be harder to decarbonise than others, but it is good to hear that glass has made significant progress in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned HyNet North West. I was delighted to visit some of the participants in the HyNet North West carbon capture, utilisation and storage cluster last autumn. I circled near the hon. Gentleman’s constituency: I was in Runcorn and Warrington. We are moving forward with HyNet in a very good place.
Conor McGinn
It was remiss of me not to invite the Minister to St Helens, and I apologise for my rudeness. He should not be afraid to visit us, and perhaps he will visit Glass Futures before the project is completed or come when we open it.
Greg Hands
Gosh, I am getting multiple invitations—was that an intervention on an intervention? In any case, I will happily have a look at the forthcoming visits schedule. It is obviously an important part of the world for our overall energy policy and energy future.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to be drawn on the energy profits levy, but I think I will avoid that for the moment. Not only is it part of a Treasury lead, but I feel that we want to concentrate on glass and energy-intensive industries. He mentioned carbon leakage, and obviously the UK is an important participant in the debate on carbon border adjustment mechanisms, which I also know about from my days at International Trade.
I shall deal in my response mainly with energy-intensive industries, particularly in relation to glass. The Government recognise the wider importance of all EIIs to this country, and their particular significance to local economies and communities, which all of us here today represent. I agree that strong and sustainable EIIs are hugely important to our national economy, particularly as we secure new global opportunities and continue our drive towards a green economic recovery. From offshore wind farms to building electric cars, we know that steel, ceramics and glass are three important EIIs that will play a big part in our low-carbon future and low-carbon industries.
In my time as a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I have witnessed at first hand the skills and dedication of workers, and through my and colleagues’ engagement with the various business and trade associations, we have seen their drive to work with the Government to find a sustainable solution for EIIs that works for us all. I am sure we can all agree that the last two years or so have been particularly difficult for everybody, and EIIs have been no exception. Many workers in those industries have been engaged in activities that could clearly only be carried out on site, and in some cases they were operating equipment designed specifically for continuous use without shutdown. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record the Government’s appreciation of all those who work in those sectors in what can be challenging environments ordinarily, let alone in the middle of a pandemic. I would like to thank the essential workers who continued going to work on site and kept production going and sites safe during the pandemic.
The energy price rises that we have seen internationally in 2021 and 2022 have not helped business, particularly those with high energy usage. Increased energy demand globally as lockdown and restrictions lifted, increased demand for liquefied natural gas in Asia, upstream maintenance last year and increased demand for gas for electricity generation on the continent have all contributed to those high prices. Many large energy users will have hedging strategies in place that help to shield them from some of the effects of gas and electricity price rises, while others may be more reliant on spot market prices. We will continue to engage with businesses while higher pricing continues, and thereafter. My ministerial colleagues have regularly met the Energy Intensive Users Group, and we will continue to engage with the impacted sectors.
The energy price rises that have been seen internationally have not helped recovery from the problems caused by the pandemic, and global events in the last year have added yet more pressure—most obviously the barbaric Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, as well as facing these challenges, we are also now in a place where new global opportunities are presenting themselves, and we need to ensure that the UK is at the front of the queue with innovative ideas and solutions. Our energy-intensive industries—and notably glass—are well placed to be part of this.
This Government are determined to secure a competitive future for our EIIs. In recent years we have provided extensive support, including more than £2 billion to help with the costs of electricity and to protect jobs. This support includes electricity price relief schemes for eligible energy-intensive industries such as paper and pulp, glass fibre, iron and steel manufacture and batteries. The energy security strategy, published in April this year, set out how we will accelerate homegrown power for greater energy independence. Among the many proposals in that strategy, we committed to increasing the support we provide for EIIs over the next three years and effectively doubled the financial support that we provide. We will consider other measures to support businesses facing high energy costs, including increasing the renewables obligation exemption for eligible EIIs to up to 100%.
Furthermore, there are several other funds in place to support businesses with high energy use to increase efficiencies and reduce emissions, including the £315 million industrial energy transformation fund. Examples of sectors that have seen benefits have included the ceramics sector, which last year secured £18.3 million for the Midlands Industrial Ceramics Group from the Government’s strength in places fund to help establish a global centre for advanced technical ceramics. That will ultimately lead to the creation of 4,200 new jobs by 2030. The glass sector has also been awarded £15 million from our transforming foundation industries fund to establish Glass Futures, a state-of-the-art glass facility in St Helens, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The co-operative work being done by Glass Futures and NSG Pilkington is already bearing fruit.
Recent trials using 100% biofuel in the production of float glass has created a product with a reduced carbon footprint of 80%—the lowest-carbon float glass ever made. This is truly innovative and exciting work, which I know the hon. Gentleman celebrates in his constituency. The Government will continue to work with Glass Futures to further support and deliver on our important objectives, and to foster an innovative, cross-sectoral working relationship. We will also continue to engage with the various councils, businesses and the Energy Intensive Users Group to ensure that their priorities are understood. The industrial decarbonisation strategy and the net zero strategy that we published last year outlined existing and new support for industrial decarbonisation that companies would be eligible for.
The Government and my Department are taking a number of steps to address the challenge of ensuring we have a secure supply of energy. We are in constant dialogue with business, National Grid and Ofgem to ensure that we get our approach right. I have outlined the energy intensive industries offering from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. However, many more initiatives across Government aimed at addressing these challenges are set out in the British energy security strategy, which was launched by the Prime Minister in April.
In my capacity as an advocate for British business, I am happy to use my platform to promote the exciting opportunities that are now presenting themselves to UK companies, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I remain committed to working with stakeholders to understand more about what can be done. I thank the hon. Gentleman and everyone here for participating in the debate, and for providing an opportunity for us to celebrate the contribution made by the British glass industry. We look forward to dealing with some of the energy and other challenges facing the industry, and to ensuring that the industry thrives, exports more and plays its proper part in our global Britain branding.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
An Adjournment debate that we can all raise a glass to.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-use Plastics) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
As it is so warm, it is quite in order for people to remove their jackets if they so wish.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee has considered the draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-use Plastics) Regulations 2022.—(David T.C. Davies.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Double)
It is an honour to make my first appearance in Committee as a Minister with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. The draft instrument was laid before the House on 9 June. It makes an exclusion to the market access principles of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 for legislation prohibiting the sale of single-use plastic straws, stemmed cotton buds, drink stirrers, plates, cutlery, chopsticks or balloon sticks, and of single-use food containers, drink containers, or cups made wholly or partly from expanded or extruded polystyrene. I will cover both the reasons for and the impact of the instrument, starting with the former.
The instrument is being brought forward following an agreement under the provisional resources and waste common framework. The exclusion is necessary because all four nations share an ambition to tackle plastic pollution. The instrument furthers that ambition while recognising the need to protect the UK internal market against unforeseen future barriers to trade. Legislation banning the sale of single-use plastic items covered by the exclusion has been or will be—or has been consulted on being—introduced in all four nations. However, there is a difference in the timing of those bans, which means that the UKIM Act has an impact on the ability to implement such legislation.
The UKIM Act contains two market access principles: mutual recognition and non-discrimination. The principle of mutual recognition means that goods that can be lawfully sold in the part of the UK in which they were produced, or into which they have been imported, may be sold in any other part of the UK without needing to comply with any relevant requirements applying to the sale in that other part of the UK. The principle of non-discrimination means that the sale of goods in one part of the UK should not be affected by directly or indirectly discriminatory relevant requirements towards goods that have a relevant connection with another part of the UK.
I will now briefly outline the impact of the statutory instrument. The exclusion from the market access principles means that those principles will not apply to legislation so far as it prohibits the sale of the single-use items that I previously listed. Taking the example of Scotland, the exclusion will mean that single-use plastic plates produced in, or imported into, other parts of the UK cannot be sold in Scotland, regardless of whether an equivalent ban is in place in the other parts of the UK.
The requirement, in section 10(7) of the UKIM Act, for the Secretary of State to
“have regard to the importance of facilitating the access to the market within Great Britain of qualifying Northern Ireland goods”
has been considered. The supply of the items covered by the exclusion is banned in Scotland, and the Welsh and UK Governments have consulted on banning the supply of those items where they are not already banned. The relevant EU directive—article 5 of the EU single-use plastics directive, under annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol—once implemented, will have equivalent effect to the proposed and existing legislation in Scotland, England and Wales, with the exception that the legislation in Scotland, England and Wales will not encompass items made from oxo-degradable plastic. As such, it is not thought that an additional or separate provision to maintain access to the market within Great Britain is needed for those single-use plastic items.
A full impact assessment has not been prepared for the instrument because it does not impose any new requirements. The SI will affect the application of the Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 and any forthcoming regulations in England and Wales that ban the supply of items covered by the exclusion. The impact of those regulations has been considered in the case of the Scotland regulations, and will be considered in the case of forthcoming regulations in England and Wales. Ministers from the Welsh and Scottish Governments have consented to the making of the regulations.
In accordance with section 10(11) of the UKIM Act, the Secretary of State will publish a statement explaining why the regulations will be made without consent from the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. As the SI is of a cross-cutting nature, it would normally require a referral to the Northern Ireland Executive, as per Northern Ireland’s ministerial code. That has not been possible due to the ongoing absence of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, meaning that the Executive cannot meet. However, my officials have continued to engage at official level with the relevant Northern Ireland Departments in the development of the legislation, and there has been engagement with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Minister for the Economy in the devolved Administration, who have not raised any objections to the proposal.
The exclusion introduced by the SI recognises our shared ambition across the UK to tackle plastic pollution, while recognising the need to protect the UK internal market against unforeseen future barriers to trade. I believe this shows that the process of considering United Kingdom Internal Market Act exclusions in common framework areas is working as intended, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray—I think for the first time—and it is good to see you in the Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I say to the Minister that I am very glad to see that someone turned up today. When we were notified last week that legislation was being considered by the House, we were concerned that we would be Minister-less, but our fears have thankfully been abated, because the people’s business must go on despite the caretaker Government and outgoing Prime Minister.
I welcome the Minister to his new caretaker position in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I gently say that, with the clock ticking, his time in the post may be more about quality than quantity, but that is okay. I want to be helpful—that is how I approach every day—so I urge the Minister to use the days and weeks that he has in his role to be bold, to be strong and to work with Opposition Members to protect our environment and preserve our planet, because we stand ready to serve.
Before I go into the body of the SI, I place on record my genuine thanks to the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) after their resignations from the Government last week. We did not always agree, but we developed a respectful working relationship, and we more than once joked that we saw more of each other than we did of our spouses, children and loved ones due to the constant flow of DEFRA-related business before the House. However, I am sure that the next Prime Minister will speedily return them both to Government positions between now and the imminent general election.
Today, we consider the draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-use Plastics) Regulations 2022. I have spoken to a range of stakeholders in advance of this sitting, and I particularly thank Sarah Williams and the indefatigable Ruth Chambers of the Green Alliance for their continuing campaign work. As we consider the SI, it is important to understand the background. In our exchange, Sarah noted that a major concern of the 2020 Act was that individual Governments would be disincentivised from improving standards. The mutual recognition principle in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act means that goods that have been produced in, or imported into, one part of the UK must be able to be sold to any other part of the UK, regardless of any restrictions that apply in that part. That risks rendering any new environmental requirements for goods ineffective, and creating a chilling effect on their creation in the first place.
In another case of being late to the party, the Government did agree that a specific divergence from the operation of the market access principles could be agreed through the common frameworks process where all parties are in agreement, and so we find ourselves here today for the first time. Labour will not oppose the legislation today, but we will continue to be a critical friend and look at how we can make sure Ministers are as bold and effective as possible. That is the only way we will make progress in the battle to protect our environment and clean up our planet.
As the explanatory note published with the legislation helpfully highlighted, the regulations before us
“amend Schedule 1 to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020…to insert a further exclusion from the market access principles in Part 1 of the 2020 Act, in respect of certain specified single-use plastic items.”
As the Minister said, these items are
“straws, plastic stemmed cotton buds, drink stirrers, plates, cutlery and chopsticks, balloon sticks, and expanded or extruded polystyrene food and drink containers and cups. In consequence of the amendment, the market access principles will not apply to, or affect the operation of, any legislation so far as it prohibits the sale of the specified items in any part of the United Kingdom.”
I acknowledge the work that the Welsh Labour Government have done on tackling plastic waste. Under Welsh Labour, Wales introduced a fully comprehensive charge on single-use bags back in 2010, and it took another five years before the UK Government introduced a half-measure ban applying only to larger retailers. The Welsh Labour Government are also committed to introducing legislation to ban the supply of said articles, and I note the UK Government have consulted on proposals to ban the supply of single-use plastic plates, balloon sticks and expanded or extruded polystyrene food and drink containers, including cups, in England in 2023. Will the Minister update hon. Members on that consultation and say how many people have responded to it?
The Northern Ireland protocol requires the supply of single-use plastic plates, cutlery, balloon sticks, drink stirrers, cotton bud sticks and expanded polystyrene food and drink containers, including cups, to be banned. Will that be affected by the promises made by many candidates for the Tory party leadership? Will it be on the table when they seek to renegotiate the protocol, as could happen? I would hope not, but I have come to realise that anything is possible at the moment, which is why I ask that question today.
Yesterday, Greenpeace launched its report “The Big Plastic Count Results”. Can the Minister confirm that he has read that report? Will he be meeting Greenpeace to discuss it? The need to act on plastics is obvious to us all; we will support Ministers when they act and hold them to account when they fail to get themselves into gear.
I note that the resources and waste common framework is still referred to as “provisional”. Will the Minister give us a progress check on when it will be permanent? Will he outline what engagement he has had with small and medium-sized businesses across the UK to ensure that they have the support they need to implement the changes? What discussions has he had with colleagues across Government to make sure the funding and support for providing reusable items is there and accessible to businesses and customers?
The resources and waste strategy set out a plan for resource sufficiency and a circular economy, which included an ambition for all plastics to be biodegradable. What steps does the Minister plan to take to remove from circulation plastics that are not biodegradable?
As the Member for Newport West, I am naturally very interested in and totally committed to ensuring that the voices of all the nations of our United Kingdom are part of what we do here and how we do it.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really good speech. I have been impressed by the enthusiasm of schoolchildren in my constituency of Wirral West, where they are learning about plastic pollution and the importance of looking after the environment. I pay tribute to all their teachers for giving them such inspirational education. The children are going home and educating their parents, which is absolutely what needs to happen because it is the children’s future more than any of ours. Does my hon. Friend agree that education on plastics pollution is incredibly important for the future of our planet?
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is all about the children educating the parents. Pester-power is so important. Although my own children are older, they definitely pester and ask the question, “What are you doing to save the planet, Mum?”, which is why I ask the Minister the same question.
The Minister stated that consent was sought from Scotland and Wales. Will he give us an idea of what those discussions touched on? Did they extend to the wider fight against plastics? I was concerned that consent from the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland was not provided in the timeline set out. That highlights the impact of the lack of any functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland. We need an Executive in Stormont, and we need one now. I urge Ministers to redouble their efforts to get all the parties around the table, because the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have their views, thoughts and needs factored into what happens on plastics, waste and recycling.
I note that no full impact assessment has been produced for this instrument because, as the Minister said, in his view no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen. However, we cannot take the view that there is no impact without making an assessment. It is a bit of a chicken and egg situation: how can we know the impact if an assessment has not been done first?
In many ways, this legislation is a formality and brings things in order, so we will not be pressing for a vote today. That said, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to raise several issues and to pose questions to the new Minister on the impact of the tidying up, this Government’s approach to plastics and plastic usage, and the need to do all we can to protect and preserve our planet.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mrs Murray, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today for the first time since I was elected. I welcome the Minister to his new role and thank him for laying out the Government’s position. As he alluded to, the Scottish Parliament has consented to this SI, at the suggestion of the Scottish Government.
The exclusion relates to certain categories of single-use plastics and will facilitate the effective operation of the Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Scotland) Regulations 2021. That means that a current Scottish law prohibiting single-use plastics will be able to operate and will not be undermined by the UK Internal Market Act, so the SNP Group in Westminster is content for this SI to pass.
However, the situation should never have reached this point. It is utterly wrong that laws passed in Holyrood, especially those designed to protect the environment and fight climate change, should be undermined by laws passed here in Westminster. The shadow Minister asked how the negotiations with the devolved Administrations went, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that, because while the UK Government allowed this specific exemption, they refused to agree to a wider exemption from the UK Internal Market Act for all Scottish environmental laws and bans. The Scottish Government have to come here to Westminster to ask the Government to provide exemptions on a case-by-case basis whenever environmental laws are passed by Scotland’s Parliament, meaning that the acts of Scotland’s lawmakers may be frustrated at any time, leaving them with no way to implement the will of the Scottish electorate.
The UK Internal Market Act was rejected by the devolved Governments, rejected by the electorate of Scotland and rejected by Scotland’s lawmakers and representatives. The need for this SI is a symptom of the Tory party’s muscular Unionism, which is intent on forcing Scotland to bow to the will of Westminster, often against its people’s wishes.
Steve Double
I thank the Opposition spokespeople for their contributions, and the shadow Minister in particular for her kind words. I view this position as an eight-week job interview, and perhaps I will be in post for a little longer. However, no matter how long I am in post, I can assure her that I am determined to continue the excellent work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, and to achieve as much as I can.
Quite a few points have been raised, and I will try to cover them all, but if I miss any, Members should feel free to remind me. Generally, the fact that we are passing this legislation today shows that the system is working, and that the UKIM Act is there to protect, rightly, the internal market of the United Kingdom, which is vital to every nation within it and plays an integral role in their economies. It also shows that we can respond to requests, such as that from the Scottish Government, to make exemptions. That shows that the current Act works and that we can be flexible, when deemed appropriate, by passing secondary legislation like this to respond to situations on a case-by-case basis.
I assure Opposition Members that the UK Government are determined to continue to be a world leader on all matters that protect our environment and we will continue to work with the devolved Administrations, where appropriate, to achieve our shared ambitions. Where there are grounds for divergence, which in this case are primarily about matters of timing, we will work together to ensure that we can all achieve our ambitions; and where we can be flexible, we will be.
I agree with the comments about the need for a Northern Ireland Executive and I am sure the shadow Minister will be aware that we are doing all we can to secure that, as it is important that that happens.
I also agree with the comments made about children. I have taken a keen interest in plastic pollution since I was first elected and I have spent a lot of time visiting schools to talk about it. I am always inspired both by the level of understanding that there is now among school pupils and their determination. It gives me great hope for the future that they understand these issues far better than I did at their age. There is often pester-pressure by children to amend their parents’ behaviour; we all welcome that and recognise its importance.
I was asked about the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative party. The shadow Minister will understand that I cannot speak for them, but I assure her that I am pressing candidates on these issues, which I would have been doing even if I did not have my ministerial role. It is important that any future Prime Minister continues to lead a Government who are committed to addressing issues such as plastic pollution and ensure that we continue to be a world leader on that.
The shadow Minister asked about the “The Big Plastic Count Results” report. I admit that I have not yet had time to read it, but it is in my in-tray and I will make sure I get to grips with it, perhaps over the summer recess, and respond accordingly. I recognise the importance of the issues it raises and of the many different organisations that play a part in raising awareness of them.
We will, of course, consult businesses about any future changes we make on packaging and single-use plastics, to make sure that the impact is understood, and we will continue to work with businesses to bring forward measures that are workable and deliver the change we want in a way that works for them.
The shadow Minister asked when we would publish the common framework. We are aiming to publish it in due course—of course—and she also asked about the impact of the UKIM Act on environmental protection. That Act was introduced to protect livelihoods, jobs and businesses by ensuring that no new barriers to trade arose within the UK. The Act does not prevent devolved legislatures from continuing to make rules about the goods and services produced in their parts of the UK. The fact that we are making these regulations today shows our commitment to that. If devolved Governments want to diverge, then we are willing to consider that and we will take action when appropriate.
The shadow Minister asked about the single-use plastics consultation. We had around 50,000 responses and we hope to publish a response to the consultation this summer, although I make no commitment about how long summer will be this year. I believe that covers all the points that were raised.
To conclude, I trust that hon. Members understand and accept the need for this instrument. It makes an exclusion to the UKIM Act for legislation as far as it prohibits the sale of a number of single-use plastic items. The exclusion introduced by this instrument will mean that the single-use plastic items it encompasses that are produced in or imported into other parts of the UK cannot be sold in a country that has banned them, regardless of whether an equivalent ban is in place in the originating part.
Once again, I thank hon. Members for their contributions and commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
When David Cameron was Prime Minister, he visited Sri Lanka in 2013. After that, the UK, with Sri Lanka, jointly moved a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council setting out a mechanism for resolving the legacy of the issues that we have heard about. Sri Lanka has largely ignored its obligations under that resolution since then, and it has not even paid lip service to them in the past three years. Will it be a requirement of the medium-term support that will be needed for Sri Lanka that it comes back into compliance with its obligations under the decisions of the UNHRC?
Amanda Milling
Through our leadership in the UN Human Rights Council process, we have been encouraging Sri Lanka to respect democratic and international human rights standards as it makes its political transition. In March this year, the UK Government and our core group of partners led an ambitious new resolution on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC.
[Official Report, 13 July 2022, Vol. 718, c. 350.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Asia and the Middle East:
An error has been identified in my response to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms).
The correct response should have been:
Amanda Milling
Through our leadership in the UN Human Rights Council process, we have been encouraging Sri Lanka to respect democratic and international human rights standards as it makes its political transition. In March last year, the UK Government and our core group of partners led an ambitious new resolution on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC.
Work and Pensions
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I know what the Government have said they are doing to increase the uptake of pension credit, and that is good; I do not want to hear it again, though. I also know that people can backdate their claims for pension credit, so anyone who makes a successful application by 24 August this year will receive the £650. However, I have been campaigning for the deadline to be extended to the end of the fiscal year, because I think that as we go into the winter, that is what will concentrate people’s minds when they have to make the very real choice between heating and eating. I am not asking the Minister to commit himself to doing this today, but will he commit himself to at least considering extending the deadline to 31 March next year?
Guy Opperman
The uptake of pension credit is clearly to be applauded, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady was behind the pension credit day of action and is behind the messages that we are all trying to put out. That is not all, however. On Thursday we will make the £326 cost of living payment, which will drop £1 million in payments every single working day, and there will be a further £324 payment in the autumn. We are also providing the energy support grant of £400, which will go to every individual in the country, as well as the £300 winter fuel payment, the council tax rebate, and various other household support grants. All those are available to individuals up and down the country, and will also support pensioners.
[Official Report, 11 July 2022, Vol. 718, c. 20.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin).
The correct response should have been:
Guy Opperman
The uptake of pension credit is clearly to be applauded, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady was behind the pension credit day of action and is behind the messages that we are all trying to put out. That is not all, however. On Thursday we will make the £326 cost of living payment, which will drop £1 million in payments every single working day, and there will be a further £324 payment in the autumn. We are also providing the energy support grant of £400, which will go to every individual registered household in the country, as well as the £300 winter fuel payment, the council tax rebate, and various other household support grants. All those are available to individuals up and down the country, and will also support pensioners.
Petitions
Schools Bill
National Security Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 14th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 July 2022 - (14 Jul 2022)
The Minister for Security (Stephen McPartland)
Although the Bill provides a range of offences specifically targeted at state threats activity, it will not always be appropriate or possible for harmful activity to be prosecuted under the Bill. Where offences already exist on the statute book that deal effectively with the relevant state threats activity, there is no need to create a similar offence in the Bill. For example, the offence of murder deals effectively with state-sponsored assassinations.
While the Bill provides a suite of offences and accompanying tools and powers, there remain cases in which it will be difficult to secure prosecution due to the covert nature of the activities and the difficulties involved in presenting admissible evidence to a court to illustrate all the components of an offence beyond reasonable doubt. In some cases, however, it might be possible or more appropriate to charge the individual with another offence on the statute book.
The aim of the aggravating factor in clauses 16 to 18 is to ensure that in such scenarios the state threats element is acknowledged in court and offenders are sentenced accordingly. The state threats aggravating factor will apply in cases where the foreign power condition—to which I have referred a number of times in Committee—is satisfied. Currently, if someone is convicted of an offence and it is known that the offence was linked to state threats activity, the judge may take that into account, but there is no formal mechanism to require the judge to factor that in when making a sentencing decision, and there are no clear definitions to enable the court to apply that consistently. This is in contrast to terrorism, where there is already a statutory requirement to acknowledge a terrorist connection when considering the seriousness of certain offences. That has been effective in cases such as those of the murder of Jo Cox MP, and Lee Rigby, where the seriousness of the offences was aggravated by the sentencing judge because of the terrorist connection, so a higher sentence was imposed.
The Government believe that the state threats aggravating factor should be available in relation to any offence. A state threat is a unique national security threat that can take a wide range of forms. We must ensure that our justice system is able to acknowledge all forms that such activity might take, and be able to penalise it accordingly.
Clause 19 ensures that the aggravating factor can apply to those who are convicted of offences in service courts. The service courts system applies to those who are bound by the Armed Forces Act 2006—for example, serving members of the armed forces. The state threats aggravating factor will apply in the same way in service courts as it does in civilian courts, in that if an offender pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offence—for example, theft—and the foreign power condition is met, the offender’s sentence will be aggravated accordingly.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I support the proposals. My concern, which is one I will express throughout the passage of the Bill, is the Bill’s relationship with the Official Secrets Act 1989, under which the maximum penalty is two years. The Minister or his officials might not know the answer now, but I am happy for him to write to me. How will the two Acts intersect? Clearly, if someone has committed an offence, they will want to be found guilty under the Official Secrets Act, under which the sentencing powers are limited, as opposed to under the Act that this Bill will become. That will be the problem with the Bill—I still cannot understand why the Government did not do both: what they promised, which was the full reform, and a Bill for a new Official Secrets Act.
Stephen McPartland
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are reforming the first three Official Secrets Acts, but not the 1989 Act, with the Bill. We will write to him with the information to explain how that is going to work.
In summary, the aggravating factor provides another tool for prosecutors to deploy, and helps to future-proof the Bill by ensuring that our judicial system can respond to any evolving state threats and activity in the future.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I very much welcome your early judgment call on jacket wearing; we are all eternally grateful.
Clause 16, as the Minister outlined, inserts new section 69A into the sentencing code to provide a new aggravating factor for sentencing when the foreign power condition is met in relation to an offence. The court will make its determination on the basis of the usual information before it for the purposes of sentencing, which may include the evidence heard at trial or evidence heard at a Newton hearing following a guilty plea. If the court determines that the foreign power condition is met in relation to conduct that constitutes the offence, it must treat that as an aggravating factor when sentencing the offender and must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
We are introducing a measure that will mean that, if an individual is found guilty of an offence that is not outlined in the Bill, but the foreign power condition can be proven, a judge may aggravate their sentence. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary provided a serious recent example to highlight why she felt the measure was needed, and we very much recognise the merit in that.
However, I note that a sentence would be aggravated only up to the maximum available for the original offence. I have sought a legal opinion about whether there is a precedent for aggravating an offence beyond the maximum sentence where deemed appropriate. Although the judge ultimately has discretion to sentence beyond the sentencing guidelines, it is far from common practice and will be subject to appeal.
I want to work through the application of the measure. For example, if someone acting on behalf of a foreign state were to commit a section 18 assault against someone who was going to speak at an event against that Government as a means of preventing them from honouring that commitment, it might be possible to prosecute them under some of the new offences in the Bill. If that is not the case and they are prosecuted for the section 18 assault, the foreign power condition having been met and the sentence aggravated, it is still subject only to the maximum sentence for a section 18 assault. I feel that the weight of the very serious sentences in this Bill will not be felt by the perpetrator in that instance.
Will the Minister outline why we are not able to push the sentences under clauses 16, 17 and 18 further? Will he comment on whether the usual so-called early plea discount will be ruled out in cases where the foreign power condition is met?
Clause 17 introduces the measure for offences in Northern Ireland, and clause 18 makes a corresponding provision to the one in clause 16 for sentences to be aggravated where the foreign power condition is met for offences in Scotland. Clause 19 amends the Armed Forces Act 2006 to make corresponding provision for service courts considering the seriousness of a serious offence for the purposes of sentencing. The case for tougher sentencing is even stronger in those circumstances, given that people serving in the armed forces and acting on behalf of our nation potentially have a level of access to the UK security apparatus that others do not have. We recognise the seriousness and necessity of these measures, and fully support them, but will the Minister address the points I have raised?
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I have one very short point. I am very supportive of these measures. Clause 18, as we have heard, relates to Scotland. As I understand it, it operates and is drafted similarly to other aggravations in Scottish criminal law. I just want to be absolutely sure that the Government are collaborating closely with the Scottish Government to ensure it fits with the schemes in Scottish criminal law. What discussions has he had with compatriots up there?
Stephen McPartland
I am very grateful for hon. Members’ responses and support for these clauses, and I will try to provide clarity on the points made by the hon. Member for Halifax.
Serious offences that have a state threat component, such as murder and violent offences, already have significant penalties, as the hon. Lady said, and the aggravating factor will therefore allow for those sentences. However, she is right that for lower-level offences such as harassment, stalking or common assault, this would be a useful example of how these powers can be used if someone is not able to use some of the other clauses, so that they can identify that this person is part of the problem, and the person can at least be prosecuted for something, whereas at the moment it would not really be possible to prosecute them.
Also, the aggravating factor allows for an increase in the sentence, but within the sentencing code. The hon. Lady is correct that if it was a one-year sentence under the guidelines, the aggravating factor would be a maximum sentence of one year.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 17 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Powers of search etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendment 12.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Stephen McPartland
Robust investigative tools are crucial to enable the police effectively to counter threats by state actors, which operate using highly sophisticated means and often have access to significant resources and are skilled in tradecraft.
Clause 20 introduces schedule 2, which provides the police with powers of search and seizure when investigating threats posed by state actors to the UK and its interests. These powers replace the power of search in section 9 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
Under the existing powers and those provided in schedule 2, the police can act on a reasonable suspicion that a relevant act has been, or is about to be, committed. This threshold is a crucial element within the provisions to enable the police to act with the necessary speed to counter state threats activity.
Mr Jones
Can the Minister clarify what he means by “reasonable”? I know what it means in law, but I also know that there is a reasonableness test in the existing section 7 of the Act, which the security services say is not enough? So why is it okay here and it is not okay when it comes to clause 23?
Stephen McPartland
The difference is that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or PACE, the police need to be able to identify in this situation that a crime has been committed, whereas for this measure the police are trying to intervene earlier, so that they can stop a crime from being committed. Effectively, that is what the difference is.
We will debate clause 23 when we get to it—
Stephen McPartland
No, no—we will debate clause 23 when we get to it. I will be very happy to talk about clause 23 then.
Stephen McPartland
No. [Laughter.]
As I was saying, clause 20 introduces schedule 2 to the Bill. Under the existing powers and those provided by schedule 2, the police can act on a reasonable suspicion that a relevant act has been, or is about to be, committed.
The threshold is a crucial element within the provisions to enable the police to act with the necessary speed to counter state threats activity. General search and seizure powers, such as those provided under PACE, are comparatively restrictive because they do not allow the police to act pre-emptively when there is intelligence to indicate that an offence is about to be committed. So, both the Ministry of Justice in 2014 and the Law Commission in 2020 reviewed the existing power, concluding that it was necessary and that reliance on PACE powers alone would limit the ability of the police to disrupt and investigate state threats.
These powers may only be used to deal with the most serious offences covered by this Bill, as well as where state threats activity involves violence or constitutes a serious threat to life or public safety.
Turning to the powers themselves, part 1 of schedule 2 legislates for powers of search and seizure as they apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They provide for the police to gain access to material likely to be evidence of a relevant act, which covers specific offences or certain acts or threats under the Bill.
Where the relevant act has been, or is about to be, committed the powers in part 1 of this schedule are different, depending on the nature of the material sought to reflect the enhanced safeguards that are required to protect confidential material.
Under paragraph 2, for non-confidential material, the police can obtain a warrant to enter and search premises and to seize and retain material. There are two key conditions that a court must be satisfied are met for such a warrant to be granted: first, that a relevant act has been, or is about to be, committed and, secondly, that the material sought on a premises is likely to be evidence of that act and is not confidential material. Should the police apply for an all-premises warrant, an additional condition applies: it must not be reasonably practicable to set out all the premises that the person of interest occupies or controls, but that may need to be searched. To access confidential material, a production order must be obtained, should this course fail or be unavailable through a warrant.
Holly Lynch
I thank the Minister for his explanation. Clause 20 and schedule 2 deal with the power of entry, search and seizure in relation to the new offences created by part 1 of the Bill. There are a number of powers here that seem largely appropriate and proportionate for the reasons outlined by the Minister.
However, I will press the Minister on paragraphs 3 and 4 of part 1 in schedule 2, on the production orders relating to confidential material. These provisions set out the conditions that must be met in order for a constable to apply to a judge for a confidential material production order. I was listening carefully to what the Minister said on that. The person specified in that order then has to produce, within a specified period, any material that they have in their possession, custody or control.
The specified period is seven days. The clause says that it is seven days unless it appears to the judge that a different period would be appropriate in the particular circumstances of the application. Why is it seven days? Given the seriousness of some of the offences and the consequences of confidential material being in the hands of someone who should not have it—potentially to the benefit of a hostile state—that feels like quite a long period for such material to be able to be used against us. I would be grateful if the Minister explained the rationale for specifying the period as seven days.
My second point is that there is a lot going on in schedule 2, much as there is in schedule 3. While there are provisions for an ongoing review of the powers created by part 2 of the Bill, at clause 49, I think that part 1 should be reviewed by an independent reviewer to safeguard against any unintended consequences once the legislation is enacted. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 2; we will make the case for that provision when we reach the appropriate point.
Stuart C. McDonald
I broadly welcome the provisions. As the hon. Member for Halifax said, they are extensive powers, so I am very sympathetic to her suggestion that they should be subject to review in the same way that other parts of the Bill are. I appreciate that those extensive powers are modelled on the equivalent provisions in terrorism legislation. I have no problem with those provisions being borrowed from such legislation, but they need to be justified in their own context. The Minister has usefully set out why exactly they are needed here. The SNP is broadly supportive of that.
I have a couple of questions. I am not familiar with the idea of allowing police officers or sheriffs to order a person to explain material that is seized. I see that is borrowed from terrorism legislation. However, I wonder how that works alongside the right not to require someone to self-incriminate, particularly when there is an emergency power for police officers to require an explanation—if that is not complied with, it can be a criminal offence. I am interested in how that works; I assume it works in the context of the terrorism legislation, but it would be interesting to hear a bit more about that. I am also interested in the idea of what a “great emergency” amounts to. That is not a concept that I have seen before. Are we talking about threat to life and limb, essentially? I am not sure about that.
My only other point is that how the provisions on search and seizure apply depends largely on how the foreign power condition operates. I said at the outset of our debates on clause 1 that I have some difficulties with how broadly some aspects of the term were drawn. For example, the non-governmental organisations I referred to during that debate and journalists working for a foreign state broadcaster can be brought within the foreign power condition, meaning that they are subject to the search-and-seizure powers. We can probably come back to that in the context of clause 1, but it is relevant to our discussion. It could be those people who are searched or who have documents seized under the schedule, including confidential journalistic material.
Those are a couple of points to emphasise, but we broadly support what is in the clause and the schedule.
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful for Members’ support. To sum up, the important thing is to recognise that between 2017 and 2022, the powers relating to great emergency have been used seven times in England and Wales and once in Scotland, and they have never once been used by a senior police officer during that five-year period. This will not happen weekly or monthly; it will be a very rare event. We are trying to mirror the legislation that has proven to be successful in the Terrorism Act 2000. The seven days figure also mirrors the legislation in that Act. I totally accept the point made by the hon. Member for Halifax: if the judge has the evidence in front of him and wants to make it a different time period, that is then a judicial decision as opposed to any other kind of decision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Powers of entry, search and seizure
Amendment made: 12, in schedule 2, page 62, line 9, after “rules” insert “and magistrates’ courts rules”.—(Stephen McPartland.)
This amendment enables Northern Ireland magistrates’ courts rules to make provision about proceedings under Schedule 2.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21
Arrest without warrant
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen McPartland
Currently, the police must rely on the powers of arrest and detention available under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as we discussed earlier, when tackling state threats activity. In contrast, under the Terrorism Act 2000 the police have enhanced powers to facilitate early disruption and the investigation of acts of terrorism and terrorism-related activity.
The enhanced police powers are available for terrorism investigations and have proven very effective at tackling the threat. We consider the risks posed by state threats to be similar and to require enhanced powers and tools. Clause 21 creates a new arrest power whereby a constable can arrest without a warrant anyone who they reasonably suspect is or has been involved in foreign power threat activity. If an individual is arrested under clause 21, the further provisions in the clause and in schedule 3 will apply. We will debate the latter powers shortly.
The police must currently arrest an individual for a state threats offence under the arrest power in PACE. On arrest under PACE, the constable must specify the offence that the person is suspected of committing or being about to commit. For example, that could be foreign interference under clause 13 or obtaining or disclosing protected information under clause 1. As we all know, state threats actors are highly trained operatives, with police often needing to rely on sensitive intelligence to build their case and understand the threat that the suspect might pose to UK national security.
In some circumstances, police might have evidence to suspect an individual’s involvement in state threats activity but might not yet have the full picture to determine the intended offence. In such circumstances, where police have the intelligence to indicate that state threats activity is imminent, police can deploy the arrest power in order to prevent that person from committing the activity. That early disruption by the police is critical in saving time and ensuring that the activity is not allowed to occur. That prevents harm to UK national security and potentially prevents harm to people’s lives.
The clause is modelled on the similar arrest power that operates under the 2000 Act, which has been shown to be effective in providing the police with an early disruption tool. I ask the Committee to support the clause.
Holly Lynch
The clause provides a power of arrest without warrant and includes provisions about subsequent detention. The explanatory note explains that the provisions are modelled on those in section 41 of and schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, as the Minister said, which give police officers the power to arrest persons suspected of terrorism-related offences without a warrant.
We recognise the importance of granting law enforcement officers this power. The sense within policing is that it will provide the police a window in which to work, in order to undertake the necessary analysis and investigative work needed to confirm if an act of espionage or sabotage has been committed. Once a more substantive offence is established, the person in question must then be arrested for that offence, which would trigger the further relevant detention powers.
I have a query from within law enforcement, which relates to subsection (9). If the warrant for further detention is refused, a person can still be detained in hospital or if they are removed to hospital because they needed medical treatment. I am not aware that any such provision to continue to detain someone on the basis they need medical treatment when the application has been refused exists within any other detention powers. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.
Stuart C. McDonald
The provisions are for very significant powers of arrest and people can remain under arrest for a quite striking period of time, so we should be cautious. The key issue for me is subsection (1), because arrest without a warrant is justified not by the suspicion of a specific event set out in the Bill, but by involvement in foreign power threat activity. Will the Minister say a little more about why that decision has been made?
We will obviously get to clause 26 and the definition of “foreign power threat activity” soon, but it is a much broader concept than being under suspicion of one of the particular offences in the Bill. It could be somebody providing assistance or support to individuals, or known to be involved in certain types of conduct. Why have these powers of arrest without warrant been drafted differently compared with the powers on search and seizure? The search-and-seizure powers relate to specific offences under the Bill. The power of arrest without warrant applies to a much broader category of people. Given the significance of the powers, and how long people can be detained for, it is important that we push the Minister a little bit further on why the Bill has been drafted in this way.
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful for the contributions and the general support. On safeguards, the powers mirror the powers in the Terrorism Act 2000, which are very important and have proven to be very disruptive, as well as useful and effective in keeping the country safe. It is critical that the police have strong powers of arrest and I outlined the reasons for that. Currently, a person can be detained for 24 hours. These provisions allow a detention for 48 hours, which would have to be reviewed periodically after 12 hours, so there are safeguards. The provisions mirror the 2000 Act, which has proven very effective and very disruptive.
On the question asked by the hon. Member for Halifax, the detention clock stops if the individual goes to hospital. If a warrant is refused, they can only be detained for 48 hours. These may appear to be very significant powers, but a person is not going to be held for a huge number of days.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Detention Under Section 21
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 45, in schedule 3, page 70, line 27, at end insert—
“(1A) A place designated by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1) must be subject to an independent inspection by—
(a) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, or
(b) a different person or body appointed by the Secretary of State.”
I will speak to amendment 45, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley and the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I will also address the wider schedule 3 powers.
The amendment reflects the place of detention powers at the start of schedule 3, which gives the Secretary of State the power to designate places at which persons may be detained under section 21. The Minister’s predecessor was asked repeatedly whether he could clarify what types of buildings could be designated places of detention beyond police stations on Second Reading. In response, he said:
“I do not think that this is an appropriate forum in which to discuss the detail of such measures, but I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend on that particular point. As I have said, this is to allow for cases in which such capacity is required owing to operational need, and it cannot be outside the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 636.]
I am still not convinced about the provisions based on that response.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The provisions in paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 give the Secretary of State the power to designate places at which persons may be detained under section 21. However, sub-paragraph (2) states that in the entire schedule a reference to a police station includes a reference to any place that the Secretary of State has designated. That means that as long as the Secretary of State says, “I designate this place”, any building in the UK—it does not even say “building”—or any place can be a police station. Can that possibly be adequate and correct?
Holly Lynch
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I was just about to say that operational need provided a reason for the appalling asylum accommodation provided by the Home Office during the pandemic, and we now know that the official guidance was ignored. That leads to a great deal of concern about the ability to designate any type of building as a place suitable to detain somebody.
To introduce some safeguards, we propose an amendment whereby any such place designated as a place of detention must be subject to an inspection regime. We have given the Government some discretion to determine who the most appropriate body to do that would be, given the absence of any steer at all, as my hon. Friend has just said, about what type of buildings might be used. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue might be the most obvious choice. I hope the Minister will reflect on that and adopt our sensible and measured proposal.
Schedule 3 is massive—32 pages of powers. To consider the implications of it all once enacted is an enormous undertaking. That is why I come back to this principle when making the case for new clause 2.
Mr Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. I have some sympathy with the amendment as I am always against things that give Ministers or the Executive broad powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has already said, the powers seem to be unlimited. We are talking about national security and the confidence that we should have in our agencies to act in our interests, with the best of intentions and proper oversight, so the amendment is important. What does “any site in the UK” mean? My hon. Friend said that that was quite a broad power, and I want to ask about sites in the UK that are not under the control of the UK Government, such as US sites. Could Mildenhall airbase, a US airbase in the UK, be designated as one of these sites? I raise that because it limits UK authorities’ oversight and jurisdiction.
People may ask why that is important, but I am very conscious that we should always ensure that civil servants, Ministers and others have historical knowledge and take into account what happened in the past. I served on the Intelligence and Security Committee when we did our inquiry into detainee mistreatment and rendition in 2018. I have to say, it did not make for pretty reading. We did not shy away from the facts, and the actions of our agencies and certain Ministers—including some Ministers in the Government I served in—did not come out of that report very well. Guidance and regulations were put in place to ensure that did not happen again. I would like some clarity about whether such bases could be designated under this measure? Some of those sites could potentially have been used for what the ISC report on rendition highlights. They certainly were abroad, but this is about sites that are actually in the UK.
Stephen McPartland
I looked at the amendment in a lot of detail, and I discussed it with my officials and challenged them. I think the hon. Member for Halifax makes a very, very important point and has a strong case, and she will be delighted to know that, although I will resist the amendment today, I will commit to consider it and whether the Bill should clarify that only sites located in the UK can be designated as places of detention. I share her concerns about the possibility of rendition and stuff outside the UK. I will go into a bit more detail for her, and hopefully that will help the right hon. Member for North West Durham—
Stephen McPartland
Sorry—North Durham.
I am grateful for the way the hon. Member for Halifax has tried to help us improve the Bill. She has been constructive throughout.
Paragraph 1 provides a delegated power for the Secretary of State to designate places where someone may be detained after arrest for foreign power threat activity under clause 21. If arrested under PACE, suspects are taken to a designated police station and held in a custody cell, unless they are being questioned, when they will be in an interview room. When arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, suspects are taken to a TACT custody suite. If a TACT suite is not available—for example, because the nearest one is located too far away—as an alternative a police station can be used.
There are five TACT suites in England and Wales, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland. Currently, they are all located inside police stations. Police use TACT suites in the first instance because they are designed to hold suspects for longer periods and address their specific personal needs. They are also designed to take into account the operational requirements for handling those suspects. For example, they are bigger and they ensure that, when multiple arrests have been made, suspects cannot communicate with other. The staff are also specially trained to deal with those types of suspects.
Under the designation power in paragraph 1, the Secretary of State will issue a certificate to the chief officer in charge of a facility to affirm its accreditation. The designation will be published through the routine Home Office circular update, so it will be publicly available to view. In order for a facility to be designated, it must meet the technical standards of custody suites set by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. The power means that a bespoke custody suite or other suitable facilities built or identified in the future outside a police station, where they meet the standards above, can be designated as a place of detention by the Secretary of State. That is just future-proofing.
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services already independently assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of police forces. It already regularly inspects police custody conditions and, in 2019, published a joint inspection with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons of TACT custody suites in England and Wales.
Maria Eagle
The Minister has just given a great deal more information than is written in the Bill. Paragraph 1(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may designate places”,
and, at sub-paragraph (2), that
“a reference to a police station includes a reference to any place”
so designated. That could be a square in the middle of a field. Will the Minister consider inserting into the legislation some of the detail that he has just put on the record to make it clear that a specific power is being taken to designate more custody suites?
Stephen McPartland
As I have said, I am very interested in the amendment and am looking at possibly doing something along similar lines. I am trying to get the facts out. I heard what was said about the response on Second Reading so I am trying to be open and transparent and to put stuff on the record, in the official record of the sitting. I am doing the best that I can to be open, so that people are not concerned about rendition or people being taken overseas.
Maria Eagle
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am glad to hear about the amendment, but that is of course about inspecting such places. As he is doing more work, does he mind also taking away the suggestion that I have just made? He might like to make it clearer in the legislation that we are talking about custody suites and not about squares of ground in the middle of a field or any other such place.
Stephen McPartland
I am always happy to take away the hon. Lady’s suggestions.
My initial concern with the amendment is that, as drafted, it adds little value, just a statutory requirement for Her Majesty’s inspectorate to fulfil a role it is doing already. I note all the concerns of hon. Members, however—
Stephen McPartland
I have given the right hon. Gentleman the blink and he still wants to intervene.
Mr Jones
It takes a lot to get that in a Bill Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood is right—this needs clarifying in the Bill. When the Minister goes away to think about it, will he look at and ask officials about the issue of those sites that are in the UK, but outside the control of Her Majesty’s Government? I will not say too much, but we occasionally work with organisations and countries in certain places in the UK, but do not control what goes on there. Will he reflect that when doing his work?
Stephen McPartland
I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman on that. As I have said, we will be designating sites and that information will be publicly available. I am not sure that he would want to make the information about the sites he mentions publicly available.
Mr Jones
But that is not what the Bill says at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said. It gives sweeping powers to designate things, and I am always against giving such sweeping powers to the Executive—whether it is the present Government or the Government I was a member of—or to anyone. When the Minister comes back, clarification would be welcome, even if that is for the Bill to require publication.
Stephen McPartland
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. If the hon. Member for Halifax is kind enough to withdraw the amendment, I commit to considering it further. I will look to provide further clarity in the legislation.
Holly Lynch
I am very grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which he has responded, taking our concerns about this element of the Bill seriously. I am reassured by his commitment, that he understands what we are trying to achieve with the amendment and that he will seek the best way to deliver that in the Bill.
Slightly separately, the clarity and detail that he has been able to provide about the minimum standards for the places of detention were welcome. In addition to putting that on the record today, however, I think that he has understood the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood on the need for it to be put on the face of the Bill and that he will continue to have a positive personal impact on some of the detail of the provisions. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephen McPartland
I beg to move amendment 13, in schedule 3, page 81, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
“(3) In any other case, paragraph 19 material must be destroyed unless it is retained under any power conferred by paragraphs 20 or 21.”
This amendment and Amendments 15, 18 and 22 make provision for the indefinite retention of fingerprints, data and other samples taken from a person who is or previously has been convicted of a specified offence.
Stephen McPartland
As we have discussed, clause 21 provides for a state threats power of arrest. If an individual is arrested under that power, the further provisions in schedule 3 will apply. As part of that, schedule 3 provides for a new regime whereby biometric data, such as fingerprints and DNA profiles, that are collected on arrest for foreign power threat activity may be retained for an initial period of three years, with the option to extend the retention period for a further two years where considered necessary. A similar provision is made in schedule 9 for those subject to state threats prevention and investigation measures, or STPIMS. These are the same timeframes and procedures that operate for arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000—once again, we are trying to mirror the terrorism legislation.
The group covers a number of technical Government amendments to the biometric regimes in schedules 3 and 9. I turn first to amendments 13, 15, 18, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 36, which relate to the indefinite retention of biometric data in certain circumstances. Again, the amendments put the new retention regime in line with what already operates for arrests made under PACE and the Terrorism Act. The law rightly sets strict limits on how long biometric data, such as fingerprints and DNA, can be retained where a person is investigated but ultimately not convicted of an offence. In certain circumstances, including under the Bill, biometric data taken in the course of an investigation can be retained for longer periods, and further retention of that data can be authorised, but the principle is that the data will be deleted unless further retention is specifically provided for. Where a person has been previously convicted of an offence, their biometric data can be retained indefinitely, subject to the requirement for ongoing review that is set out in the Data Protection Act 2018.
Both the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Terrorism Act 2000 allow for the indefinite retention of biometric data taken during an investigation, if it is found that an individual has previously been convicted of a recordable offence. This means that if an individual has previously been convicted of any offence that could carry a term of imprisonment, their biometric data taken during any new investigation can be held on the police national database indefinitely, irrespective of the outcome of that new investigation.
Maria Eagle
Generally, these are very sensible measures. There has obviously been some major redrafting of the schedule for the Government amendments to be necessary, and it would be interesting to hear why that is. I am looking at Government amendment 18, which says:
“For the purposes of paragraph 20, a person is to be treated as having been convicted of an offence if…the person has been found not guilty of the offence by reason of insanity”.
Why is that instance included here? The person has been found not guilty by reason of insanity. They have not admitted the offence, unlike in the situation described in proposed new paragraph 20A(1)(a)(i), whereby a person has received a caution and admitted the offence. By contrast, this person has been found not guilty.
Stephen McPartland
I know, and I will write to the hon. Lady, because I do not know the answer.
As we have already discussed in Committee, state threats activity poses a serious and enduring risk to UK security, and the Bill must provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to combat hostile activity. Indefinite retention of biometric data enables the police and the security services to use the data to support investigations into state threats offences and other criminal activity. That mirrors the approach taken in PACE and the Terrorism Acts.
Given that threat, it is right that where an individual with a previous conviction for a recordable offence is arrested under the state threats arrest power in clause 21, or is subject to a STPIMs notice, biometric data taken under those regimes should be retained indefinitely. Accordingly, the amendments provide for indefinite retention of biometric data in these circumstances in schedules 3 and 9 respectively.
Out of an abundance of caution, the provisions were not included when the Bill was introduced while we considered the questions raised by the Gaughran judgment. Based on the UK response to that judgment, I am pleased to confirm to the Committee that these provisions are indeed compatible with the European convention on human rights and, therefore, should be included in the Bill.
As highlighted, state threats investigations can be complex and resource-intensive. By bringing forward the amendments, we are strengthening the ability of the police to use biometric data to support criminal investigations. Not agreeing to the amendments would create a position where the police’s ability to retain biometric data of a person with a previous recordable conviction would be more restricted than in other cases.
Aligning our approach with that of TACT and PACE ensures consistency in respect of biometric regimes. The requirement for ongoing review of retention, in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018, ensures that interference with the right to respect the private and family life of persons to whom the data belongs is necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law. I will now speak briefly to the remaining amendments in the group, which are comparatively minor and technical.
Stuart C. McDonald
Before the Minister moves on, I get the general thrust of why those amendments have been tabled but my concern is the inclusion of people who have accepted a caution or even a youth caution. It seems quite extreme to make them subject to lifelong retention of significant information on them. They have not been tried and the fact that they have had a caution means that, presumably, the circumstances were not the most serious. Does he have anything to say about those circumstances?
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful for the intervention. What we are trying to do is to mirror what is in TACT and PACE to keep the regimes identical so there are not different ones for different areas. Obviously, if someone has accepted a caution, they have in essence accepted that they were guilty of an offence—they have just not proceeded to court.
Maria Eagle
Would not an additional safeguard in those circumstances be to ensure that before a youth caution is offered and accepted in any given case, it is made clear to the individual concerned that if they were to accept it, it would mean the retention of their data for their entire life? In those circumstances, the individual concerned could consider whether they really wanted to accept the caution or go for a trial.
Stephen McPartland
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I would add that it is “may” be held indefinitely not “will”. There is still an element of choice and discretion.
Maria Eagle
The Minister is correct about that, but perhaps the individual who may be considering accepting a youth caution and their adviser ought to be advised, before they do so, that there “may” be a consequence of biometric data and so on being kept for that person’s entire life, so they can make a proper decision about whether they want to accept the caution in full knowledge of the potential consequences.
Stephen McPartland
My understanding is that that what happens under TACT and PACE, and that would be the intention for what would happen under this legislation, so the regimes mirror each other.
Amendments 16 and 17 to schedule 3 separate the reference to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland from those in England and Wales in the list of chief officers who can extend the period of biometric retention. They make no practical change to the provisions.
Amendments 14, 25 and 27 address some unnecessary duplication in the list of databases against which biometric data obtained under the powers in schedules 3 and 9 can be searched. Amendment 26 provides that data obtained under the powers in schedule 9 can be searched against data taken under the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
Holly Lynch
Having heard the Minister’s detailed explanation for this group of Government amendments, I will come back to the issues in the slightly wider discussion on schedule 3, which is the next proceeding.
Stuart C. McDonald
I do not need to say much more. The Minister understands from my intervention that I have some reservations about the lifelong retention of the materials. I shall give that further thought. Other parts of the relevant amendment are perfectly sensible, so I will not oppose the amendment at this stage. Further thought should be given to it, though. The Government have explained a number of times how they are copying what is in the counter-terrorism legislation, which is fine and understandable but does not in of it itself justify the measures in this sphere of behaviour. I will look at the matter again. I want to put on the record that I am slightly uneasy about that type of provision.
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful for the support for the amendments.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendments made: 14, in schedule 3, page 82, line 22, leave out “or 42”.
This amendment removes reference to paragraph 42 of Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 from a list of provisions under which fingerprints, data and other samples may be taken. Reference to paragraph 42 is not needed because its contents are already covered by paragraph (e).
Amendment 15, in schedule 3, page 82, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
“(2) Paragraph 19 material may be retained indefinitely if—
(a) the person has previously been convicted—
(i) of a recordable offence (other than a single exempt conviction), or
(ii) in Scotland, of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment, or
(b) the person is so convicted before the end of the period within which the material may be retained by virtue of this paragraph.
(2A) In sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) the reference to a recordable offence includes an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom where the act constituting the offence would constitute—
(i) a recordable offence under the law of England and Wales if done there, or
(ii) a recordable offence under the law of Northern Ireland if done there,
(and, in the application of sub-paragraph (2) where a person has previously been convicted, this applies whether or not the act constituted such an offence when the person was convicted);
(b) the reference to an offence in Scotland which is punishable by imprisonment includes an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom where the act constituting the offence would constitute an offence under the law of Scotland which is punishable by imprisonment if done there (and, in the application of sub-paragraph (2) where a person has previously been convicted, this applies whether or not the act constituted such an offence when the person was convicted).
(2B) Paragraph 19 material may be retained until the end of the retention period specified in sub-paragraph (3) if—
(a) the person has no previous convictions, or
(b) the person has only one exempt conviction.”
See Amendment 13.
Amendment 16, in schedule 3, page 83, line 37, leave out “and Northern Ireland”.
This amendment and Amendment 17 clarify the identity of the specified chief officer of police in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 17, in schedule 3, page 84, line 5, at end insert “, and
(c) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, where—
(i) the person from whom the material was taken resides in Northern Ireland, or
(ii) the chief constable believes that the person is in, or is intending to come to, Northern Ireland.”
See Amendment 16.
Amendment 18 in schedule 3, page 84, line 5, at end insert—
“20A (1) For the purposes of paragraph 20, a person is to be treated as having been convicted of an offence if—
(a) in relation to a recordable offence in England and Wales or Northern Ireland—
(i) the person has been given a caution or youth caution in respect of the offence which, at the time of the caution, the person has admitted,
(ii) the person has been found not guilty of the offence by reason of insanity, or
(iii) the person has been found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged in respect of the offence,
(b) the person, in relation to an offence in Scotland punishable by imprisonment, has accepted or has been deemed to accept—
(i) a conditional offer under section 302 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995,
(ii) a compensation offer under section 302A of that Act,
(iii) a combined offer under section 302B of that Act, or
(iv) a work offer under section 303ZA of that Act,
(c) the person, in relation to an offence in Scotland punishable by imprisonment, has been acquitted on account of the person’s insanity at the time of the offence or (as the case may be) by virtue of section 51A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995,
(d) a finding in respect of the person has been made under section 55(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to an offence in Scotland punishable by imprisonment,
(e) the person, having been given a fixed penalty notice under section 129(1) of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 in connection with an offence in Scotland punishable by imprisonment, has paid—
(i) the fixed penalty, or
(ii) (as the case may be) the sum which the person is liable to pay by virtue of section 131(5) of that Act, or
(f) the person, in relation to an offence in Scotland punishable by imprisonment, has been discharged absolutely by order under section 246(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
(2) Paragraph 20 and this paragraph, so far as they relate to persons convicted of an offence, have effect despite anything in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 or the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1908 (N.I. 27)).
(3) But a person is not to be treated as having been convicted of an offence if that conviction is a disregarded conviction or caution by virtue of section 92 or 101A of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
(4) For the purposes of paragraph 20—
(a) a person has no previous convictions if the person has not previously been convicted—
(i) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland of a recordable offence, or
(ii) in Scotland of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment, and
(b) if the person has previously been convicted of a recordable offence in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the conviction is exempt if it is in respect of a recordable offence, other than a qualifying offence, committed when the person was under 18 years of age.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4) ‘qualifying offence’—
(a) in relation to a conviction in respect of a recordable offence committed in England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 65A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and
(b) in relation to a conviction in respect of a recordable offence committed in Northern Ireland, has the meaning given by Article 53A of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)).
(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)—
(a) a person is to be treated as having previously been convicted in England and Wales of a recordable offence if—
(i) the person has previously been convicted of an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the act constituting the offence would constitute a recordable offence under the law of England and Wales if done there (whether or not it constituted such an offence when the person was convicted);
(b) a person is to be treated as having previously been convicted in Northern Ireland of a recordable offence if—
(i) the person has previously been convicted of an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the act constituting the offence would constitute a recordable offence under the law of Northern Ireland if done there (whether or not it constituted such an offence when the person was convicted);
(c) a person is to be treated as having previously been convicted in Scotland of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment if—
(i) the person has previously been convicted of an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the act constituting the offence would constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment under the law of Scotland if done there (whether or not it constituted such an offence when the person was convicted);
(d) the reference in sub-paragraph (4)(b) to a qualifying offence includes a reference to an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom where the act constituting the offence would constitute a qualifying offence under the law of England and Wales if done there or (as the case may be) under the law of Northern Ireland if done there (whether or not it constituted such an offence when the person was convicted).
(7) For the purposes of paragraph 20 and this paragraph—
(a) ‘offence’, in relation to any country or territory outside the United Kingdom, includes an act punishable under the law of that country or territory, however it is described;
(b) a person has in particular been convicted of an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom if—
(i) a court exercising jurisdiction under the law of that country or territory has made in respect of such an offence a finding equivalent to a finding that the person is not guilty by reason of insanity, or
(ii) such a court has made in respect of such an offence a finding equivalent to a finding that the person is under a disability and did the act charged against the person in respect of the offence.
(8) If a person is convicted of more than one offence arising out of a single course of action, those convictions are to be treated as a single conviction for the purposes of calculating under paragraph 20 whether the person has been convicted of only one offence.”
See Amendment 13.
Amendment 19, in schedule 3, page 84, line 21, at end insert—
“(ca) the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police,
(cb) the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force, or”.
This amendment enables the Chief Constables of the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police Force to make a national security determination in relation to fingerprints, data and other samples.
Amendment 20, in schedule 3, page 89, line 36, leave out paragraphs (j) to (l).
This amendment removes reference to the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police from the definition of “police force”. Those forces should not be included in that definition because members of those forces do not have the power to obtain fingerprints, data or other samples under Schedule 3.
Amendment 21, in schedule 3, page 90, leave out lines 1 to 3.
This amendment removes reference to the tri-service serious crime unit from the definition of “police force”. Members of that unit should not be included in that definition because they do not have the power to obtain fingerprints, data or other samples under Schedule 3.
Amendment 22, in schedule 3, page 90, line 3, at end insert—
“‘recordable offence’ —
(a) in relation to a conviction in England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 118(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and
(b) in relation to a conviction in Northern Ireland, has the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12));”
See Amendment 13.
Amendment 23, in schedule 3, page 90, leave out lines 6 to 24 and insert—
“‘responsible chief officer of police’ means—
(a) in relation to fingerprints or samples taken by a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police, or a DNA profile derived from a sample so taken, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;
(b) in relation to fingerprints or samples taken by a constable of the British Transport Police Force, or a DNA profile derived from a sample so taken, the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force;
(c) otherwise—
(i) in relation to fingerprints or samples taken in England or Wales, or a DNA profile derived from a sample so taken, the chief officer of police for the relevant police area;
(ii) in relation to relevant physical data or samples taken or provided in Scotland, or a DNA profile derived from a sample so taken, the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland;
(iii) in relation to fingerprints or samples taken in Northern Ireland, or a DNA profile derived from a sample so taken, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.”
This amendment and Amendment 24 make provision identifying the responsible chief officer of police in relation to fingerprints or samples taken by a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police or the British Transport Police Force.
Amendment 24, in schedule 3, page 90, line 24, at end insert—
“(2) In the definition of ‘responsible chief officer of police’ in sub-paragraph (1), in paragraph (c)(i), ‘relevant police area’ means the police area—
(a) in which the material concerned was taken, or
(b) in the case of a DNA profile, in which the sample from which the DNA profile was derived was taken.”—(Stephen McPartland.)
See Amendment 23.
Question proposed, That schedule 3, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I want to conclude some earlier remarks that I made as part of the discussion on amendment 45 and the discussion on some of the Government amendments. There is an awful lot going on in schedule 3. I repeat the point: it is massive—it is 32 pages of powers. An ongoing consideration of the implications of all those powers is quite a significant undertaking. That is why I come back to making the case for new clause 2, which would ensure that part 1 of the Bill is subject to the same ongoing scrutiny as part 2, under clause 49, and as counter-terrorism legislation, which a great deal of this Bill is already based on.
We have talked about part 1 of the schedule; the delay in the exercise of rights under part 2 should also be kept under review, alongside the points about the retention of biometrics that were made by right hon. and hon. Members. Even if the Minister cannot share with the Committee some justification for all the measures today, I very much hope he will discuss that further with the Intelligence and Security Committee in the deliberations on the Bill that he has promised to have with the ISC.
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support. I know that we will debate things later on. As I have said, we are currently in discussions about how we can securely provide further information to help to provide further clarity. I cannot say more than that.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 22
Border security
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen McPartland
Under schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, counter-terrorism police have the power to stop, question and, if necessary, detain and search individuals travelling through the UK border. As part of a schedule 3 examination, counter-terrorism police are able to retain protected materials by following a lengthy authorisation process. Protected materials include confidential business and journalistic material, as well as legally privileged material. The powers are a vital tool for counter-terrorism police and form part of a range of national security checks that enable the determination of whether a person at a UK port or border area has current or previous involvement in hostile state activity.
The use of protected materials in investigations, particularly confidential business material, can be a helpful insight into a person’s involvement in hostile state activity, whether it be espionage or a disinformation campaign. To use protected materials seized during a schedule 3 examination, an examining officer must currently seek authorisation from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is a serving or retired High Court judge. In most cases, the material must not be examined or used for investigations until authorisation has been granted. Currently, that can take up to six weeks.
Clause 22 will remove the definition of confidential business material—material defined as acquired in the course of trade—from the definition of protected material under schedule 3. This will remove the requirement for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to authorise the retention of copies of confidential business material. The Bill will replace that authorisation process with a new safeguard: the requirement for a counter-terrorism police officer of at least the rank of superintendent to authorise access to such material.
The clause will bring the schedule 3 safeguards for confidential material into line with those that apply to schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. It will mean that police do not face lengthy and unnecessary delays to examining material in a schedule 3 stop.
Mr Jones
I have some sympathy with this clause; the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has a big job on their hands anyway. I wonder whether the Minister could say whether he has given any thought to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner not just looking at the material and giving it authorisation but having retrospective powers to dip in and see whether things have been done correctly.
Stephen McPartland
I will take that idea away and consider it. We do not want to enable somebody at the border to say that something is confidential material so that the police cannot look at it for up to six weeks. That would just be the easiest defence. We are dealing with incredibly sophisticated experts and they will know what to say to ensure that the material will be held in abeyance.
The Government are only amending the safeguards for confidential business material and will not change the authorisation safeguard for other material within the definition of protected material or confidential journalistic material, for which judicial authorisation is a proportionate safeguard. I am sure Members agree that it is only right that the security services should be able to use critical information in real time during a schedule 3 examination to address live national security risks posed to the UK. I assure Members that this essential amendment to schedule 3 to the 2019 Act will strengthen and streamline state threats investigations to disrupt and deter hostile state activity.
Holly Lynch
The drafting of clause 22 is complicated and I have had to speak to a number of experts to try to unravel it. It amends schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, as the Minister outlined. In essence, it allows examining officers a right to confidential material that would currently require the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. I am grateful to the commissioner, Sir Brian Leveson, in his capacity as the independent reviewer of schedule 3, and his office for their insight on the clause.
If I have understood it correctly—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I have not—the clause amends schedule 3 to the 2019 Act to reflect the position of schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Schedule 3 subjects are far more likely to possess confidential business records than those stopped under schedule 7. That means the requirement for judicial approval is engaged in the majority of schedule 3 stops. It is therefore important to assess whether the requirement for a judicial authorisation in such cases is necessary and proportionate, taking into account both the sensitivity of the category of protected material and the purpose of the statute specifically to counter hostile state activity.
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office said
“We are not aware of any other statute that requires judicial authorisation for the retention of confidential business records acquired direct from a person in a public setting such as a port”.
The closest is perhaps schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, commonly known as PACE, although this is restricted to material on private premises. There is no requirement in PACE to seek judicial authorisation to seize or retain confidential business material found during the search of a person in a public place, or if such material is unexpectedly encountered on private premises.
Confidential business records are protected in PACE as “special procedure material” because they have a degree of special sensitivity that Parliament has decided merits certain access requirements in the context of criminal investigations. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 does not include any similar requirement for judicial authorisation to acquire confidential business records using covert investigatory powers. The sensitivity of this category of material is not the same as that of legally privileged or journalistic material, the safeguards for which will not be affected by the proposed amendment to schedule 3—I hope the Minister can confirm that that is the case.
The statutory purposes in schedule 3 go well beyond criminal investigations and include national security or protecting life and limb. On that basis, it seems unlikely that the interests of the business, trade or profession would outweigh the interests of national security in any circumstances, or that judicial authorisation should be necessary for the retention and use of confidential business records in circumstances that might prevent death or serious injury.
Having considered those points in the round, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has concluded that the Home Office’s proposals to replace judicial authorisation for confidential business records with one of internal authorisation from a senior officer strike the right balance and align the definition of confidential material with that of the 2016 Act. Inevitably, that view has very much shaped our judgement on clause 22, but I suggest that it is another area where keeping the provisions under review to mitigate any unintended consequences is the responsible thing to do.
Let me turn to who has the powers to make and retain copies of confidential material. Page 35 of the explanatory notes outline that “examining officers” have that power. However, schedule 7 to the 2000 Act defines an examining officer as a constable, immigration officer or a customs officer. In paragraph (j) of the policy background section of the explanatory notes, it states that part 1 amends schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019
“to allow counter-terrorism police officers to retain copies of confidential business material…without the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. This will allow counter-terrorism police to progress operations and investigations into state threats…at the required pace and reflects the position in schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000”.
Paragraph 17 of schedule 3 to the 2019 Act, on the power to make and retain copies, confirms that the examining officer, only when they are “a constable”, can retain copies when necessary and potentially needed as evidence in criminal proceedings. The references to various different roles in the different supporting documents to the Bill make it a bit of a mess. I was listening carefully to the Minister, but I would like further clarity about who has the powers. Given that we have references to examining officers—who can have different roles—to counter-terrorism police specifically and to an examining officer who can be a constable, I wonder whether the Minister can tidy it up for us on the record and be explicit about who has the powers at the border.
Stephen McPartland
My understanding is that the amendment of the authorisation safeguards to access confidential business material in schedule 3 brings it completely into line with other policing powers. It is not likely that access to confidential business material would be subject to a higher level of safeguarding where there is already consistent precedent set by PACE 1984, the IPA 2016 and schedule 7 to the 2000 Act. As we have said, it does not affect legal, profession or journalistic material, and the provisions are reviewed by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as part of their statutory function. Only trained counter-terrorism officers will be able to use the powers. I hope that provides the clarity that the hon. Lady requires.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
National Security Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 14th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 July 2022 - (14 Jul 2022)
The Minister for Security (Stephen McPartland)
This is the clause that many of us have been looking forward to. I am not going to take interventions during my speech; I will set out the reasons why I believe the clause is correct, then I will listen carefully to speeches from hon. Members and then sum up.
Collaboration with key international partners is a vital part of intelligence and national security work. We cannot maximise our national security capabilities and keep people safe without sharing intelligence and benefiting from the capabilities and expertise of our close and trusted allies. Those individuals who work on behalf of the UK are highly skilled and experienced in ensuring that UK activity is necessary and proportionate. Domestic and international law is applied to all activities and there are robust safeguards in place.
The Serious Crime Act 2007 creates offences when an act is done that is
“capable of encouraging or assisting”
an offence and the person “intends” or believes that their act may encourage or assist an offence. Those offences, which were predominantly introduced to ensure that law enforcement had the tools to tackle those orchestrating serious organised crime, are complex and create an incredibly low threshold for liability. There is no minimum level of contribution to the offence that may be encouraged or assisted. The contribution can be small, it can be indirect, and there is no need for an offence to be ultimately committed.
At present, the UK intelligence community and armed forces are required to apply those complex offences to the many and varied scenarios in which they work with our international partners to help protect the UK. They exercise significant caution in their engagement with partners to prevent SCA thresholds being met and the risk of liability for individuals being realised. The impact of that approach is that vital and otherwise legal intelligence opportunities are currently being delayed or missed as the SCA risks are worked through.
There is also an important point of principle here. The Serious Crime Act offences mean that it is the individuals working within intelligence, security and military organisations who carry the risk of liability, despite operating within all authorisations and in the interests of UK national security.
The Committee heard oral evidence from both Sir Alex Younger, the former head of MI6, and Sir David Omand, the former head of GCHQ, on the fairness and appropriateness of individual officers carrying this risk. They believe that the liability risk sitting with individuals is “not right”, and is “morally wrong”. The Government agree with them and do not think it is right or fair to expect the risk of liability to sit with individuals who are acting on behalf of our intelligence services or armed forces for their authorised purposes. Instead, responsibility should sit with the UK intelligence community and the armed forces at an institutional level, where they are subject to executive, judicial and parliamentary oversight.
The clause removes criminal liability for offences of encouraging or assisting crime, but only where the activity is necessary for the proper exercise of the functions of the security and intelligence services or the armed forces in support of activity taking place overseas. This is not a broad general immunity from prosecution; rather we are amending a targeted piece of legislation in response to specific operational issues that are impacting the ability to keep us safe today.
The clause means that in instances where an individual has operated in good faith and in compliance with proper processes they would not face the risk of liability for the offences under the SCA. The risk I have outlined would be removed for activity that we ask of individuals in the course of their roles in keeping us safe.
I am confident that the SCA amendment is appropriate and proportionate, because the UK has one of the most rigorous intelligence oversight regimes in the world. There are myriad safeguards and processes in place that manage the way that UKIC and the MOD work with and exchange information with international partners to prevent potential wrongdoing.
I also have confidence in those we are providing protection to. They are expert and highly trained men and women undertaking intelligence and security work, whose judgment and skill we should respect and have faith in. Of course, those working with our international partners will still need to comply with all other domestic and international law and be beholden to the statutory frameworks and policies that govern the UK intelligence community and armed forces activity.
The policies include the overseas security and justice assistance guidance and the Fulford principles, the implementation of which is assessed by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner annually and reported to the Prime Minister. That means that clause 23 does not in any way make torture legal, for example. UKIC’s activities also remain under the regular inspection of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office—
Stephen McPartland
I am not giving way. And they are regularly scrutinised by the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Stephen McPartland
The right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his own speech, and I will listen.
Let me also be clear that clause 23 will not enable activity by individuals who, acting outside the proper functions of their organisations, contribute to criminal activity by others or commit criminal offences themselves. We will retain the ability to prosecute anyone for other offences should their behaviour in support of international partners amount to a criminal offence. Further, it will not remove the ability to challenge the UK intelligence community or armed forces on their activities through judicial review, civil damages claims, or a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in relation to the use of intrusive powers.
To conclude, clause 23 is really about supporting UKIC and armed forces officers, who we ask to undertake vital work on our behalf, by ensuring that when they work with our partners in good faith, according to wider domestic and international law, and in support of vital national security aims to keep this country safe, they do not risk personal criminal liability for any actions of that partner state. Responsibility for any action that we cannot support should surely sit at an institutional level, which is what will be the case under clause 23.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It will come as no surprise to the Minister—we have had the opportunity to discuss this—that we are extremely concerned about clause 23, which amends the Serious Crime Act 2007. We have had the opportunity to discuss this privately with the Minister and his predecessor, and with the UK intelligence community directly, and I am minded of just how much detail of those conversations we might want to put on the record. The clause was a big focus for Members from across the House on Second Reading. As the Minister knows, crucially, it did not have the support of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has statutory responsibility for oversight of the UK intelligence community.
The Labour Party will always work with the intelligence services to find solutions to any barriers that they face in undertaking their invaluable work and keeping the UK safe. As things stand, we have been unable to get an operational understanding of exactly what is broken and requires fixing. I have heard directly from the security services about why they believe they need clause 23—the Minister has sought to outline that again in his contribution. Schedule 4 to the Serious Crime Act allows for a risk of liability to individuals conducting their proper functions on behalf of the UK intelligence community. An offence can arise where support—for example, intelligence sharing—provided in good faith later makes a small or indirect contribution to unlawful activity by an international partner. The security services are keen to convey that their caution in this regard is having an operational impact that requires a resolution.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is outlining the protections. SIS and GCHQ staff also have protection under section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, where there is ministerial authorisation. Like her, I struggle to understand what incidents there could be of an individual being liable, if they were covered by these authorisations and the Act that she refers to.
Holly Lynch
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will explore in more detail in a second. I go back to the point that the security services have conveyed to us that their caution is having an operational impact, which requires a resolution. We are sympathetic to that. We recognise that a junior member of staff facing that burden of potential liability when carrying out their proper functions under instruction does not feel right. However, I look to the Minister to find a way through the matter that does not involve what can feel somewhat like a gold-plating of exemptions for the security services, which stands to entirely erode appropriate safeguards and due diligence when considering the risks and consequences of sharing information with partners. As the Minister knows, there is an existing reasonableness defence in section 50 of the Serious Crime Act, which recognises that there may be occasions when it could be shown that an individual’s actions were justified in the circumstances.
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is right to refer to the defences that already exist because to agree with the clause, we would need to see that the existing offences and defences are not working. There does not seem to be much evidence of that. Section 53 of the Serious Crime Act sets out the factors to be considered in determining whether it is reasonable for a person to act as he did. That includes any purpose or authority he claims to have been acting under. An individual working for our intelligence service has clearly got extensive protection under that existing provision. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As a lawyer, she has a great deal of experience navigating some of this legislation, and she makes a powerful point about the reasonableness defence. In addition, a prosecution would have to be deemed to be in the public interest.
Mr Jones
This morning we saw the Minister use reasonableness in clause 20, but he is not prepared to use it here. Does my hon. Friend agree that reasonableness in law is a well-established notion? Does she find it odd that the Minister relies on it in one clause, but in this one he prefers to say that it will somehow not work?
Holly Lynch
My hon. Friend makes the point that, while we will get into the detail of reasonableness and the concern that it is potentially untested in these circumstances, it is a well-established principle across British law. Again, that certainly supports the robustness of the existing defences around reasonableness. On further probing of these defences, and this is exactly his point, it seems that it is not the case that the reasonableness defence is not strong enough, rather that it is untested in these specific circumstances, as no such case has been brought against the intelligence community. We do not believe that that is a strong enough case for the proposals in clause 23. We hope that properly authorised activity to protect national security would and should be interpreted as being reasonable.
I am not currently satisfied, and neither are members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who we will hear from shortly, that there are grounds to support clause 23 as drafted. I have taken further legal advice, including from a QC with a great deal of experience of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Can the Minister answer the following questions? First, as has been said by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, given that we already have section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act—this relates to the serious end of some of what we are talking about here—which allows the Secretary of State to give immunity from civil and criminal liability for pre-authorised crimes abroad, why do we need these changes?
Importantly, the existing scheme requires the UK intelligence community to secure permission from the Secretary of State in advance, requiring their personal approval, with safeguards within the decision-making process and oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is a senior judge.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I understand that clause 23 seeks to address a specific operational challenge currently faced by the UK intelligence community and the armed forces. The clause removes criminal liability for the offences of encouraging or assisting crime, but only where that activity is
“necessary for—
(a) the proper exercise of any function of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ, or…the armed forces”
and only in support of activity taking place overseas. That is because in a specific scenario legislation is affecting the ability to collaborate with key partners and achieve legitimate shared national security objectives.
Essentially, we are trying to avoid there being a disincentive to sharing information that makes us safe. Looking at it the other way, we are trying to remove the liability from a brave young officer who is doing their job and keeping us safe.
Ben Everitt
That is probably beyond what I can say here, and indeed beyond what I am aware of. It is one of those situations in which, were I a Minister, I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman—but I am not. Far from gold-plating, as referred to by the hon. Member for Halifax, clause 23 does not create a blanket criminal law immunity for our intelligence officers. It does not change the application of other criminal law offences that overlap with those underneath the Serious Crime Act 2007. It provides no change to the UK’s international law obligations.
I assume that the Minister agrees that the approach undertaken in the Bill is more limited and targeted than the approach other key allies have deemed necessary to protect those working on their behalf. Indeed, last week we heard from Alex Younger, the former chief of the Secret Intelligence Service. During his oral evidence he noted that there is an international precedent for such measures. He was referring to Australia; I understand that it was section 41 of the Australian Intelligence Services Act 2001, where there is a much broader immunity. That Act states:
“A staff member or agent of an agency is not subject to any civil or criminal liability for any act done outside Australia if the act is done in the proper performance of a function of the agency.”
Clause 23 is much more limited than that example. Rather than a proposal for wholesale immunity, it will just remove the legal risk for individuals’ actions that are done in good faith and following all authorised processes. That risk should not be underestimated given the chilling effect that we have discussed over the past couple of weeks. That effect can prevent or even delay the sharing of critical intelligence with international partners. Thus, the line of argument that the provision is too broad does not really hold when considered in the context of what our key allies are doing in relation to sharing information.
I express my support for clause 23, and the core principle that this is the right thing to do. We do not expect the current criminal liability of the Serious Crime Act offences to sit with trusted individuals who are conducting authorised, highly sensitive and vital national security work to keep our country safe.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I rise to support a lot of what the hon. Member for Halifax has said already. Nobody on the Committee doubts the importance of collaboration; we all recognise how crucial that is. I do not think that any of us doubt that the services have approached the Government having identified what they perceive to be a problem, and that the Government are genuinely engaged in trying to resolve that. One of the challenges that we face as parliamentarians is the degree of confidentiality and secrecy that surrounds their operations, which sometimes makes it difficult for us—particularly if we are not members of the Intelligence and Security Committee—to properly understand the nature of the problem and how it can be resolved.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the ISC, for clarifying that. For that reason, I am not dead set in my opposition to the clause by any stretch of the imagination—I am open to persuasion. However, we need evidence through the ISC that there is a problem and that clause 23 is the best way to solve it. As matters stand, I cannot say that I have been persuaded of either of those things.
First and foremost, it remains difficult to see how officers of the services in question can commit an offence under the 2007 Act unless they intend an offence to be committed, or, secondly, unless they have a belief that their action will assist an offence. That is a high threshold, even before defences kick in.
We have heard already that the section 50 defence of acting reasonably applies. Given the “purpose” and “authority” under which any action of information sharing would take place, it surely seems very likely that that defence could easily be made out. That point has already been made by a member of the ISC this afternoon. It almost looks like that defence, in section 50(3) of the 2007 Act, was designed with employees of the agencies in mind. The Minister has asserted that the defence is vague, but they seem to be a perfect fit for some of the circumstances that we are considering.
Even if the Minister is correct, perhaps the better response would be to amend the defence, rather than disapplying schedule 4 altogether. It is not clear why it can be argued that the reasonable defence is any more vague than the concept in this clause of
“the proper exercise of any function”.
It is not clear to me what conduct that concept is and is not supposed to cover. We need clear explanations and I do not think we have been given them.
Will the Minister give an example of conduct that is a proper exercise of any function of the services, but that is currently subject to the chilling effect of the 2007 Act and would therefore be saved by the Bill? Why is such conduct not able to get over the threshold of the reasonable defence already? Why, as has been asked, is such conduct not able to be authorised under section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994? What type of data sharing is subject to this chilling effect and what causes that effect? Is it the remote possibility of data being used for a very serious crime or the significant chance it could be used for a less serious crime? Is it both? Is it neither? It is very hard to get a handle on what precisely the provisions are aimed at.
The Minister knows that concerns were raised on Second Reading about the potential for the clause to have a much more significant effect on actions that could, for example, support rendition or torture. He has set out today and in correspondence that domestic and international law means that such action would not be protected by clause 23. We will give that further consideration, but, in my view, the Government have much more to do to persuade us that there is a real problem here, and one that requires legislative intervention.
Even if a problem does have to be addressed, I am still to be convinced that this is the right response. Are there other options we could look at? Of course there are. For example, in last week’s evidence there appeared to be the suggestion that it was not so much the risk of conviction that was feared, but the risk of an investigation and being dragged to the courts and having to establish a defence of reasonableness. That was one of the problems.
Different things could be done. The clause could be moved around so that it is not a defence, where the burden lies on the person accused. We could make it an intrinsic part of the offence in the first place, so that nobody is dragged to court and has to establish the defence. There are other things that could be done—for example, requiring certain authorisations for prosecutions and so on.
Let us have that discussion, assuming that we can be persuaded that there is a problem here. Are there different ways to address it? For the moment, we remain a little bit in the dark on what precisely the nature of the problem is, and are unconvinced that the provisions in the clause are the best way to resolve any problem that does exist.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Our intelligence and security services are this country’s frontline of defence, and we need to ensure that they remain the best and most professional in the world. To do that, they need to know that if an individual makes a decision in good faith and in accordance with all relevant procedures, to keep us safe, that individual should not be at risk of criminal liability. That responsibility must lie with the organisation.
Sally-Ann Hart
In a moment.
Last week, Sir Alex Younger, former chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, said the issue was a point of principle. Contrary to some alarmist news reports and those opposed to clause 23, Ministers and spies will not be given immunity from committing crimes overseas. Clause 23 does not have any effect on any other criminal offences that might apply to an individual’s actions.
Mr Jones
I thank the Minister for reading his speech very well, but I take issue with the implication of what he said at the end, and I feel a bit annoyed about it.
The implication is that if someone ask questions about clause 23, somehow they are not supportive of our security services. I am the longest serving member on the Intelligence and Security Committee and a former Defence Minister, and I think most people who know me in the House know that if I am anything, I am a supporter of our security services and defence forces. It is therefore a bit churlish for people to argue that asking questions somehow means that I want to inhibit the work of our defence and security services; I certainly do not.
Having been on the ISC since 2017, I am aware of the bravery involved in the difficult jobs of our security services. I never cease to be amazed when I hear about some of the things they do. The general public would have no idea of the difficult judgment calls they sometimes have to make.
However, I am also a big supporter of proper oversight of our security services. We have the ISC, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and that is the web we have in our democracy to ensure that the security services operate legally and that they are supported in what they do. In fact, the director general of MI5 often says in front of the ISC that those three organisations give it the legitimacy to operate. That is a good thing in a democracy, and I agree with him.
What worries me is the justification for why clause 23 is needed. We have heard it before, but we just heard the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North use the phrase “a chilling effect”. In their evidence, Sir Alex Younger and Sir David Omand also supported this provision. I have huge respect for those two gentlemen: they are good public servants whose service has done this country a huge amount of good. However, from reading the transcript—I was abroad when they were here last week; I apologise—I do not quite get the point that they were getting at. They used words, which have just been used again, such as principles and morals, and the idea that the onus somehow lies on the individual officer.
If that was the case, I would totally agree that the onus should not be on the individual officer because, having seen what they do, I know they have to make key judgment calls. In their evidence, I do not think that Alex Younger or David Omand gave us any examples of why this measure is needed.
Ben Everitt
I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He mentioned oversight as a key part of the functions of our security services. I waited for him to develop the point further into liability, which is what we are discussing here. Will he elaborate on what he means in relation to oversight when, I think, clause 23 specifically refers to liability?
Mr Jones
It is about both. I will come to liability, because I do not think that individual officers are liable due to existing legislation. As for what I mean by oversight, I am clear that the structures we have for the authorisation of things that are not pleasant should include oversight—whether from the ISC, the tribunal or the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. We do not live in a society—thank God—where Ministers and the Executive can just say to the security services, “Do x, y and z.” That would be wrong. That is why it is important to have oversight and checks and balances in the system, which were not always there. This morning, I referred to a very sad time in our history—I was a Minister at the time. It was not a good time for our security services, and we should have been ashamed of some of the things that were done.
I want to see an example of what Sir Alex Younger and Sir David Omand were talking about last week. If there is a specific problem, I would be sympathetic and say, “Right, we need to get that sorted.” It may be a broad notion. We are talking about principles and morals, and it is very difficult to legislate on morals—certainly the Conservative party gets into difficulty when we talk about morals—but I would like to know specific examples that would lead to a liability.
Let me turn to the existing protections. Schedule 4 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 includes the offence of encouraging, assisting or commissioning an offence abroad. Clause 23 amends schedule 4 of the Serious Crime Act to disapply that offence when the activity is deemed necessary for the proper exercise of a function of an intelligence agency or the armed forces. The Government are basically asking for a carve-out, which I find extremely rare.
Maria Eagle
Does my right hon. Friend agree that putting in legislation a carve-out from an entire class of offences—in this case, the inchoate offences of crimes committed abroad—engenders more suspicion among those who worry about the intelligence services than would be the case if the law applied properly to them with appropriate defences?
Mr Jones
I do. Since I have been on the ISC, I have always been amazed when I read accusations made in this place or in public about what the security services get up to. Frankly, if they did, good—but, given the scope of their ability to do things, we should bear in mind the difference between fact and fiction.
The important point is that what the security services do must be proportionate, legal and in the interests of this country’s national security. As I say, they have to take some difficult decisions, and there is a difference between a ministerial authorisation to do something and what happens on the ground. The Minister is not sat there with a pen, saying, “No, you can’t do that. You can do that.” It is down to the individual officer, and I accept that there are huge issues around that. That is why we had the consolidated guidance, which then developed into the Fulford principles. That came out of that dark time.
I was on the ISC when we did our very long inquiry into detention, mistreatment and rendition in 2018, and it was not pretty reading. Ministers—in some cases, we named them—took decisions that were not legal. I have been assured by the agencies in evidence that I and the ISC have received that the consolidated guidance has since been updated to the Fulford principles, and a large exercise has been undertaken to ensure that all officers at all levels understand the principles and how to enact them.
That gives us that legal protection. There are people who want to attack our security services. That large exercise gives me huge assurance, and it means that parliamentarians are in a strong position, when people start accusing the security services, to stand up and say, “Well, actually, that is rubbish. These are the rules that we follow, and they are of the highest standard.” They protect not just the work that the security services do, but us as a country.
Carving this out worries me, as it does my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood. The Government want to disapply the measure, but there is already a reasonableness protection. We discussed reasonableness this morning. Section 50(3) of the Serious Crime Act 2007 sets out that:
“Factors to be considered in determining whether it was reasonable for a person to act as he did include…any purpose for which he claims to have been acting”
and
“any authority by which he claims to have been acting.”
I think that is very clear.
If we now have a situation whereby the agencies and armed forces are concerned that the conduct may not be reasonable, it is difficult to see how it would be deemed necessary for the proper exercise of the functions of the intelligence services or military. The reasonableness test is there and, as I have already said, we have other protections whereby the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ also protect their staff from liabilities in relation to offences committed abroad through ministerial authorisation under section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The important thing about all that is whether the Investigatory Powers Commissioner can ensure that it is done properly.
To get back to the point, what is the problem? I do not see it. Call me old-fashioned, but if there is a problem, I am up for solving it. However, I do not think that we should try to change things if there is not a problem, and none of the agencies has yet come forward to explain in detail what the problem is.
I accept what was said earlier about the ISC. The individual examples, if there are any, will cover highly classified information—that is why the ISC is there: we can take evidence and look at that information—but there has been no attempt at all by Government Ministers or the security services to give us the examples. One of my colleagues will speak in a minute, but I speak on behalf of the ISC, because we have discussed this issue. We cannot give clause 23 a nod through at this point until we have been convinced that there is a need for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax made a point about scrutiny. The great thing about having the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is that they can look at warrants and ensure that they are not just legal but proportionate. If we have this provision, who will oversee the individual cases? I get the point that the two former heads of security services made in their evidence about the onus being on the individual. Yes, it is, but those individuals rightly have a huge degree of protection. I would not want to see that in any way diminished because they have the law behind them. In some cases, they also have ministerial warrants, which add to the judicial process.
For those who say that if someone ask questions about this provision, they are against the security services, let me put it the other way. If it is not justified, it will be used as a way to say that the security services now want to go back to the bad old days when things happened that were not under the scrutiny of either Parliament or the judiciary. That would be a retrograde step and would give opponents—as I say, they are against whatever the security services do—a stick to beat them with. I am certainly not in favour of giving those people anything with which to beat the security services.
We could vote against the clause, but I do not think that is the right way forward. I and other members of the ISC would like the Government to provide us with examples of where the chilling effect has been a problem for intelligence sharing, so that we can at least have a look. I accept that other members of the Committee might wonder why they cannot see it—trust me when I say, “You can’t.” I think most people would understand the reasons why that is.
Stephen McPartland
I wanted to be very clear earlier—I wanted to make a point. I agree that the Government will give the ISC examples.
Mr Jones
That is very welcome, but we do not just want that in writing—we want to have the agency heads actually come and speak. I think we have a meeting with them scheduled for some time in October. We would like to get them to come and argue why they need these changes. We need that as well.
The Minister might need to give it a bit more thought, too. I accept that he is new to his post, and he obviously has time to look at this over the summer—depending on what happens at the beginning of September. I know that I have poked fun at the Minister, but we get on well, we have worked closely on other Committees and I even got him promoted on a Committee once, which he was eternally grateful for. Can he just look at the oversight, too? If the Bill does go through, what are the oversight mechanisms for it?
Maria Eagle
I will not go through all the points that have already been made, although I do feel quite strongly about some of this. I generally endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham—my fellow member of the ISC. Like him, I do not think it is true to say that anybody on this Committee or any of our parliamentary colleagues are intent on trying to stop the intelligence and security services doing their job. They do a very important job and they do it very well. It is dangerous work and we want to support them as much as we can.
But we are a democracy. One of the things that concerns me about clause 23 is its wholesale disapplication of an area of the law that applies to all the rest of us. If we are going to do that for the intelligence services, it is important that we are very clear that it is necessary. It applies only for a certain type of offence in a certain place—overseas—but it is a wholesale carve-out. The clause says that an entire schedule to the Serious Crime Act 2007, which sets out inchoate offences abroad, does not apply if “any relevant behaviour” was necessary for
“the proper exercise of any function”
of the relevant services. That is a wholesale carve-out. I cannot think of too many other examples of that. I do not know if the Minister has a list of examples of other wholesale carve-outs from liability from the criminal law for particular officers of state organisations, but I think it is quite rare.
In those circumstances, I could tell from the evidence we were given that the Government have been asked for this by the relevant services. It did not seem to me that it was coming from the Government—that the Government were saying, “You must have these extra powers.” I accept that they are responding to requests, but because this is a wholesale carve-out from liability for criminal acts, it is important that it is properly justified. We all know about the difficulties of properly justifying it, because a lot cannot be brought into the public domain, but what we have had in the public domain has not been very convincing.
I expect that many people in their day-to-day life would like to have impunity from criminal liability for something that they might do, but it is not something we should be granting easily. The arguments for it need to be very strong. There are already defences that make it harder for people working in the intelligence community to be found guilty of some offences. They have defences that others do not. By the way, it is probably philosophically right that the law should apply to those people but that they should have extra defences. In legislative terms and for the good of society as a whole, it is probably better to do it that way round than to disapply the law to a particular type of person.
I would expect to hear why the current arrangements do not work, but I have not heard that. I did not hear it in the evidence we took from Sir Alex Younger and Sir David Omand. If I can characterise the issue in this way, they both said, “We would rather have this. We feel very strongly that we would rather have this,” but they were unable to give us any examples of why the current arrangements did not work. In fact, I asked Sir Alex whether some of the current arrangements worked. I asked him about the ministerial authorisation, and he just told me that he was not a lawyer, which is not a convincing answer when someone is asking for a whole area of the criminal law to be disapplied. Sir Alex obviously felt strongly about the matter—I could see that. That is perfectly legitimate, but as a scrutiny Committee and as parliamentarians, we need to hear a little bit more.
I hope the Minister will understand—I do not particularly like the fact that he refused to take interventions, but that is his choice—that everybody on this Committee is seeking to do the right thing. We do not want to make a change to the law that opens up our intelligence and security services and our armed forces to accusations that they can act with impunity abroad. Based on some of the evidence that has been sent to the Committee from those who campaign on these issues, some people think that the clause does precisely that. I do not agree with some of what is in the submission from Reprieve that we received recently, but that submission contains quite a representative sample of what people in our society would probably think if they were to take a look at this clause.
A wholesale carve-out from liability under an area of the criminal law is a very serious step to take. I am not saying it is not the right thing to do, because we should take requests from the agencies and armed forces seriously—as the Minister is clearly doing—but I remain unconvinced. Such a carve-out could have unintended consequences, such as making it much less likely that thoughts will be focused on making sure that activity is lawful. We need to make sure these proposals are the right way forward, and that their advantages outweigh their disadvantages. We have been told that reasonableness is a vague concept, but it is vague only in the sense that it is very flexible and can, and does, apply in many areas of the law; its meaning is relatively well known. To my mind, if the agencies and armed forces are concerned that their conduct might not be considered reasonable, it is difficult to see how it could be necessary for the proper exercise of their functions.
Maria Eagle
It would be a very high bar to get over. If we are being told—there was an element of this in the evidence we heard—that there is a chilling effect on individuals trying to do their jobs, those individuals may need to be a bit better trained in what the law says, what it means and what they are able to do. In any event, whatever the law ends up being—whether it is this Bill, or what we already have—it is not a bad thing for those who operate at its margins to know precisely what they can and cannot do. I worry slightly that having a complete carve-out from liability might swing activities a bit too far in the other direction.
There are pros and cons to any way of doing this. I do not want the Minister to think I am being hostile; I am certainly not. I just want us, as the House of Commons, to be sure, when we consider this further, that this way is right and will work better than what we already have. I, for one, cannot see how this will be better than what we already have; I think that in many ways it will be worse.
Stephen McPartland
It has been a great pleasure to listen to the debate and Members’ speeches. I can feel the frustration in the room. I share that frustration, because I have been told by the intelligence services that we need clause 23 because the schedule it amends is having a damaging impact on critical operational activity aimed at keeping the UK safe. That is the reason why we need clause 23. I wish that we could tell the Committee everything, and that we could just all agree to it, but that is what I am told by the intelligence services, so I have frustration too.
I will try to answer some of the questions, and then sum up. We have been asked about section 7 authorisations. Some of the Committee have been in their roles a little longer than I have been in mine, so they will be aware that section 7 authorisations can be sought only by SIS and GCHQ—not by the MOD or MI5—so this is about trying to create reassurance across all the UK intelligence community.
On section 50 and the reasonableness defence, the defence has never been tested in the context of activity of the intelligence services and the armed forces, so we feel it is more appropriate for them to demonstrate that their actions were carried out as necessary in the proper exercise of their functions.
Maria Eagle
If what the Minister says is accurate—that the defence has never been tested—how can he say that it does not work?
Stephen McPartland
What I am trying to say is that we want our UK intelligence services to be focused on keeping us safe and not to worry about whether or not they will be able to deal with a long court case on their actions. As things currently stand, the UK is—
Sally-Ann Hart
Let me give an illustration of the issue. If my hon. Friend saw someone in need of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the floor, would he give them mouth-to-mouth and pump their chest? Is that something he would do? Would he do it if he thought he could be prosecuted for causing grievous bodily harm if he broke a rib? That would be his defence. That is a simplistic example to illustrate the issue.
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I do not think I would be any good at giving anybody CPR. However, I understand the spirit in which she made the intervention and am grateful for that.
Stephen McPartland
I do not want to get distracted, because this is very serious. I will give way to you in a minute, Kevin; I want to get this point across. [Interruption.] Sorry—I will give way to the right hon. Member for North Durham in a moment.
As the law stands, a member of staff acting in the proper exercise of their organisation’s functions would bear the burden of proving that they had acted reasonably when there is no precedence as to what “reasonably” means in those circumstances. The provision would change that position so that the prosecution would need to prove that a member of staff’s actions were not necessary for the proper exercise or function of their organisation, taking into consideration all the information about the legitimate ways in which those functions could be exercised.
Mr Jones
The Minister has just said that the reasonableness test has not been used. The Attorney General would also have to get over that bar. Alongside that sits the old consolidated guidance—now the Fulford principles—which is quite clear about what actions officers should take in certain circumstances to avoid what we had before. If it has not been tested, I cannot see what the problem is.
Stephen McPartland
The problem is that the UK’s intelligence services are telling us that, every single day, their operatives are second-guessing themselves on operations to keep this nation safe. I believe what they are telling me.
The provisions in section 47 of the Serious Crime Act mean that a person need only believe their activity will encourage or assist such an act, but they might also be reckless as to whether the act is done, with all the necessary elements required for that particular offence to be committed—the offence does not have to be committed. We are talking about the intelligence operative’s state of mind at the time of sharing intelligence. That is what is relevant.
Mr Jones
If that is the justification, why do we not just bin the consolidated guidance and the Fulford principles, on which such judgments are based? The rendition inquiry has great examples of where we passed on information knowing that it would be used for rendition and torture. I have been assured by the agencies, and I have no reason to doubt them, that there has been a huge training programme to ensure all officers fully understand the consolidated guidance and the new Fulford principles. This is clutching at straws, frankly.
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s point of view.
Clause 23 is primarily aimed at removing the risk and fear of prosecution from individuals within these organisations when undertaking their necessary authorised duties. Sir Alex Younger said:
“Through this legislation and other measures, we can make sure that these risks are attached to the appropriate person or people or entity. I am much less comfortable as a leader about the idea that we therefore ask individual men and women in the UK intelligence community to suck it up. I do not think that is right.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 14, Q26.]
We have already had a conversation about the difference between theory and practice, and the reality is there is a risk that individual UK IC officers will face criminal sanctions for doing their job. I agree with Sir Alex Younger that that risk should not exist.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
The foreign power condition
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 24, page 19, line 5, at end insert—
“(2A) The conduct in question, or a course of conduct of which it forms part, is not to be treated as carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power if financial or other assistance of a foreign power under subsection (2)(c) is provided otherwise than specifically for the conduct or course of conduct.”
This amendment ensures that organisations that receive funding from foreign powers are not guilty of offences if that funding was not for the conduct or course of conduct that would otherwise amount to the offence.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 25 stand part.
Stuart C. McDonald
We now come to two of the most important concepts in the Bill: the foreign power condition and the meaning of “foreign power.” Proving that the foreign power condition has been met is crucial to establishing many of the serious criminal offences for which we are legislating in this Bill, and all sorts of consequences flow from it in the powers to seize and search. It is vital that we get clauses 24 and 25 absolutely correct.
On the whole, the concepts are broadly in the right area, particularly in clause 24. The concept includes an agent acting on behalf of a foreign power, and with knowledge, or reasonable knowledge, that that is the case. The idea of “ought reasonably to know” being sufficient to make out a connection is perhaps a concern, but I understand why it is required for the legislation to work. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on the thinking behind it.
To cut to the chase, the Committee will recall that, thanks to a briefing from Article 19 on clause 1, I raised the potential problem that the foreign power condition could be attached to certain unintended groups, and I highlighted two groups in particular: non-governmental organisations that receive some funding from foreign powers for perfectly good and positive reasons, and I gave an example of NGOs that fall within that bracket; and journalists who work for state broadcasters, including in countries that are our very close allies. These two groups are at risk of being caught up in the Bill because the foreign power condition is expressly met when conduct is
“carried out with the financial or other assistance of a foreign power”.
The Minister set out three protections during our consideration of clause 1: the foreign power condition itself; the discretion of the Attorney General; and the public interest test applied by the Crown Prosecution Service. Several members of the Committee spoke about why the AG’s oversight and the CPS’s discretion are insufficient. We had a debate about the chilling effect, a concept that we have just been discussing, and the fact that that would essentially leave NGOs and journalists to make decisions about whether to publish information or not based only on the very vaguest of ideas that the CPS or the AG might come to their rescue. That is not really protection at all.
As for the third protection—the foreign power condition —as far as I recall, the Minister did not dispute or expressly accept that the foreign power condition would be met in these cases. Does the Minister accept that the conduct of those NGOs and journalists could meet the foreign power condition, simply because of what they do? That is the most important question I will ask him in this debate.
Our amendment tries to stop groups being caught up in the provisions of the Bill as a result of simply receiving funding from a foreign power, when that funding has been put to perfectly legitimate and reasonable uses. The amendment requires there to be a connection between the funding and the conduct that is being complained about. For example, if the US State Department funds an NGO for human rights research, completely unrelated conduct, in particular the publication of “protected information”, would not be treated as a foreign power activity or espionage unless it was specifically linked to that funding. I accept that my amendment may not be perfect, and I can see there would be problems with it, but I think there has to be an acceptance that the clause as it stands is not perfect and there has to be protection for NGOs and journalists.
I have another concern about clause 24, particularly subsection (5) and the interaction between subsection (5) and (6). The idea of someone being brought within the ambit of espionage legislation on the basis that their act is motivated by an attempt to benefit a foreign power, even an unknown foreign power, and that is all—none of the other factors in clause 24(2)—seems dangerously liable to be able to attach itself to behaviour to which it should not be attached. Behaviour that is motivated by trying to help people in a foreign country could suddenly take on a new angle and be seen as helping a foreign power.
I will give a final example of what I am trying to get at here, which is basically whistleblowing. What if a person working for an international company here discloses a trade secret of that company to a regulator in an allied country, because the product that that company supplies there is a dangerous breach of that other country’s regulations? It seems to me that the drafting of the foreign power condition confuses whistleblowing with some of the espionage offences. Have we drawn the foreign power condition too broadly?
In relation to clause 25, on Second Reading I wondered whether the definition of foreign power was too narrow and might not cover enough of the damaging actors who engage in some of the behaviours we are so concerned about. However, the key point is that an actor can form part of an indirect relationship between the conduct of the foreign power under clause 26.
I will close my remarks there. Does the Minister accept that some of these examples are caught by the foreign power condition, in particular NGOs, journalists working for a foreign state broadcaster and whistleblowers who reveal a trade secret to a regulator working overseas? Are they caught by the foreign power condition? If so, surely we must change the drafting of the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I will speak to clauses 24 and 25 and, having heard the contribution from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, about his amendment 54.
Clause 24 provides for the foreign power condition that is fundamental to almost all the new offences created by the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister has confirmed that we will see the detail of a foreign interference registration scheme before we return to Committee in September, but it will be particularly interesting to see how the provisions in clause 24 interact with a registration scheme, and what an asset that stands to be if it is done properly.
Clause 24(1) provides that the condition is met if a person’s conduct or a course of conduct is carried out for or on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit, a foreign power. In addition, for the condition to be met, the person must know, or reasonably ought to know, that the conduct has that relationship to the foreign power, which I think is clear enough.
Subsection (2) sets out a welcome but non-exhaustive list of different types of relationship between the foreign power and the person engaging in the conduct that would result in a person being considered to be acting for or on behalf of the foreign power.
Under this clause, conduct is deemed to be carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power if it is instigated by a foreign power, it is directed or controlled by a foreign power, it is carried out with financial or other assistance from a foreign power, or it is carried out in collaboration with or with the agreement of a foreign power. It strikes me that thousands of people in the UK could meet all the foreign power stipulations in subsection (2) without ever engaging in any criminality—for example, if they work for a legitimate state-owned company, such as an airline operating out of the UK, or in a foreign embassy. I am keen to see the detail of the registration scheme, so that we have transparency and clear lines about what is welcome and entirely appropriate conduct on behalf of a foreign power and what is not.
Subsection (6) states that is not necessary to identify the particular foreign power that the person intends to benefit. That provision is intended to cover when a person attempts to help a foreign power, but has not yet determined the particular foreign power. I can see how this part of the clause rightly captures the conduct of someone motivated by financial gain, who seeks to sell information or intellectual property to the highest bidder, or perhaps by a desire to cause harm to the UK as a result of a grievance.
For the reasons I have outlined, I imagine that we will come back to clause 24 when debating further parts of the Bill. It would have been advantageous to consider the clause alongside the detail of the foreign influence registration scheme. We will have to undertake that separately, but we recognise that clause 24 is fundamental to this legislation.
Clause 25 defines a foreign power for the purpose of clause 24 and sets out the persons and bodies that comprise a foreign power. We welcome the much-needed update and clarity of what constitutes a foreign power for the functioning of clause 24 and the new offences created by the Bill. I note that the Law Commission’s report, “Protection of Official Data”, made a clear case for replacing “enemy” with “foreign power” and looked to the Canadian Security of Information Act 2001 and the US Congress’s Espionage Statutes Modernisation Bill, which was introduced in 2010, as starting points.
The Official Secrets Act 1911 provides that it is an offence for a person to make or obtain
“any sketch, plan, model, or note”
or
“any secret official code word, or pass word…or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy”.
The Law Commission felt that as the term had been drafted with enemy states in mind, it was unclear whether a court would construe “enemy” broadly enough to encompass non-state actors, such as an international terrorist group. It was further concerned that the inclusion of the term “enemy” had the potential to inhibit the ability to prosecute those who commit espionage. We have already heard quotes from Sir Alex Younger’s testimony last Thursday. In response to a question about how threats to the UK have changed, he said:
“What I would call grey threats…often presented us with real challenges, particularly when actors or states felt themselves at war with us and we did not feel ourselves at war with them.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 11, Q21.]
I therefore welcome the change from enemy to foreign power to ensure that we can secure prosecutions against the right people.
That said, concerns were raised in submissions to the Law Commission’s consultation and I wonder if the Minister can respond to those. Guardian News and Media gave the following example:
“If a journalist obtains information that a nuclear defence installation is unsafe, that concerns have been reported to the appropriate authorities, but have been discounted, and the journalist then proceeds to investigate whether the information is true, they should not be placed at risk of prosecution. Under the existing wording of section 1 OSA, the ‘of use to the enemy’ requirement would it is submitted make such a prosecution unlikely, however if that wording were changed to a foreign power, and a foreign state-owned institution was thinking of bidding to decommission the plant, this could catch the journalist. Such activity by a journalist should not be considered to be espionage.”
Again, it would have been advantageous to consider this clause alongside the foreign influence registration scheme, which will presumably be clear about who needs to register and why, aligned with subsections (1) and (2) of clause 25, but I hope that the Minister can respond to the concerns raised in that example.
Stephen McPartland
We have already spoken in some detail about the foreign power condition, but I will now specifically address that condition and the meaning of “foreign power”. In doing so, I hope to cover some residual concerns from our first day in Committee and some concerns that I have heard today.
Throughout the Committee’s sittings so far, I have tried to demonstrate that I am listening and am trying to work with colleagues across party lines to get to a position in which we are providing what the United Kingdom’s intelligence community needs and are comfortable that we have scrutinised the Bill. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East may be reassured when I get to the end of my speech, just as the hon. Member for Halifax was reassured about her amendment earlier.
Stuart C. McDonald
I just want to repeat that I find that potentially worryingly broad. If somebody does something motivated by the interests of the people of country Z, I worry very much that they could suddenly be treated as if they were benefiting the Government of Z. The foreign power condition would therefore be met and they could be guilty of espionage for whatever act they had undertaken. It just seems incredibly broadly worded. Someone who is simply doing something for the benefit of a people could be caught up in this legislation.
Stephen McPartland
I think the intention that we are trying to get across is clear. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a concern about how broad the scope is, so if he gives me a few moments, I will try to move on to that point.
My view is that clause 24 forms a key concept that will determine the circumstances in which activities will come within the scope of the Bill or beyond it. Amendment 54 seeks to make it explicit that those who receive funding from a foreign power legitimately will not be guilty of an offence under the Bill where that funding is entirely unrelated to the harmful conduct. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that this reflects the intention of the provision. The provisions are designed to provide that the funding of an organisation must have a sufficient link to the offence in order for the foreign power condition to be met and an offence to be made out; a tangential link will not suffice. To help contextualise that, and reflecting on Tuesday’s debate, I thought it would help to provide a bit more detail on how the foreign power condition interacts with the offences.
Using the offence of obtaining and disclosing protected information as an example, the offence will be made out only if all the limbs of the relevant test are satisfied. This means that a person would commit an offence only if they obtain, disclose or carry out other specified conduct in relation to protected information. That conduct is for a purpose they know, or reasonably ought to know, is for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, and the foreign power condition is met in relation to that conduct.
I want to be really clear that a person who engages in the harmful conduct above would commit the offence only if they have a purpose prejudiced in relation to that specific conduct. So it is not sufficient to prove that a person has a genuinely prejudicial position against the UK; the conduct has to be carried out with that prejudicial purpose.
The same is true of the foreign power condition. The foreign power condition has been designed to apply in relation to the conduct that is caught within the offence. So where the foreign power is satisfied because the conduct in question, or a course of conduct of which it forms part, is for or on behalf of the foreign power, the defendant must also either actually know or should know that to be the case.
The hon. Member cited the example of an NGO that receives funding from a foreign power. My and the Government’s interpretation is that there would have to be a link between the funding they receive and any activity that they carry out that could meet the offence for that activity to be for or on behalf of the foreign power. So the NGO would also have to know the conduct was linked to this funding, or they should know that it is. They should not be convicted of an offence unless that link was demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
I want to be really clear. The foreign power condition, as a standalone concept, is not a statement of wrongdoing. So a person can meet the foreign power condition while carrying out wholly legitimate activities. It is an issue only if the foreign power condition is met in relation to harmful conduct specified in the Bill. In the case of a person who obtains or discloses protected information, the offence is designed so that a person would commit the offence only if they had a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK and then either knew or ought reasonably to have known that they were acting for or on behalf of the foreign power in relation to that conduct. For example, they had an arrangement with the foreign power under which they would obtain or disclose that protected data, or they intended the foreign power to benefit from obtaining or disclosing of protected data.
So the foreign power condition would not cover a case where a foreign power incidentally benefits from activity. Nor has it been designed to apply in cases where a person receives general funding from a foreign power not linked to the relevant conduct. But clearly it is right that a person can be prosecuted for an offence where all the relevant conditions, including the foreign power condition, are satisfied and can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I hope the Committee is reassured that the intention behind our provisions and the hon. Member’s amendments align, but I recognise the importance of ensuring that the legislation clearly gives effect to that intention, and while I do not think the hon. Member’s amendments are the answer, I will consider further whether there is any more that we can do to ensure that this intention is properly reflected in the legislation.
Having set out the conditions under which acts in the Bill will be considered as linked to a foreign power, I now turn to clause 25, which gives meaning to the term “foreign power”. The Bill follows the Law Commission’s recommendation to replace the existing link of “an enemy”, as set out in the Official Secrets Act 1911, with a definition of a foreign power. As we have already debated, the concept of an enemy no longer serves to reflect the modern age. The change from “enemy” to “foreign power” is accompanied by a wider set of changes in the structure of the Bill, such as the foreign power condition itself, which ensures that the Bill’s provisions are appropriately targeted at the harmful activity that we need to combat.
It is important that the legislation captures the various components of a state that could seek to influence or direct harmful activities in or against the UK. As such, a foreign power will include a Head of State acting in his or her public capacity, a foreign Government or parts of the Government, or person exercising such functions, a local government organisation, an agency or authority of a foreign government, part of Government or local government, and a political party that is a governing political party of a foreign Government.
Clause 24, and indeed the Bill as a whole, recognises and respects the unique circumstances and nature of politics in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, clause 25 excludes a political party that is both a governing political party in the Republic of Ireland and a political party registered in Great Britain or Northern Ireland from the definition of a “foreign power”. This reflects the fact that there are political parties that contest elections in the Republic of Ireland and in the United Kingdom, and ensures that the provisions in the Bill do not inadvertently impact cross-border politics. The foreign power definition provides the parameters within which persons and bodies will comprise a foreign power for the purposes of the Bill and is a critical part of ensuring that the provisions in the Bill address the right harmful activity.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out. It is particularly helpful to hear his views on the NGO scenario and his explanation of the requirement for some sort of link between the financial arrangements and the specific conduct being complained of. The reason for tabling the amendment is that we did not think that that was necessarily clear enough on the face of the Bill. We will give further thought to whether this aspect needs to be tidied up, so that it is absolutely clear, and I am grateful for his undertaking to look at that as well. I will have to work through some of the other scenarios as well, but it has been helpful to get quite a lot of that on the record. We shall give it some further thought, but in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Thursday 14th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 July 2022 - (14 Jul 2022)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 84
National development management policies: meaning
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 84, page 92, line 9, leave out lines 9 to 16 and insert—
“(2) Before designating a policy as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of that policy.
(3) A policy may be designated as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act only if the consultation and publicity requirements set out in clause 38ZB, and the parliamentary requirements set out in clause 38ZC, have been complied with in relation to it, and—
(a) the consideration period for the policy has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the statement should not be proceeded with, or
(b) the policy has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—
(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZC, and
(ii) before the end of the consideration period.
(4) In subsection (3) ‘the consideration period’, in relation to a policy, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the statement is laid before Parliament under section 38ZC, and here ‘sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons sits.
(5) A policy may not be designated a national development management policy unless—
(a) it contains explanations of the reasons for the policy, and
(b) in particular, includes an explanation of how the policy set out takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
(6) The Secretary of State must arrange for the publication of a national policy statement.
38ZB Consultation and publicity
(1) This section sets out the consultation and publicity requirements referred to in sections 38ZA(3) and 38ZD(7).
(2) The Secretary of State must carry out such consultation, and arrange for such publicity, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in relation to the proposal. This is subject to subsections (4) and (5).
(3) In this section ‘the proposal’ means—
(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act or
(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment (see section 38ZD).
(4) The Secretary of State must consult such persons, and such descriptions of persons, as may be prescribed.
(5) If the policy set out in the proposal identifies one or more locations as suitable (or potentially suitable) for a specified description of development, the Secretary of State must ensure that appropriate steps are taken to publicise the proposal.
(6) The Secretary of State must have regard to the responses to the consultation and publicity in deciding whether to proceed with the proposal.
38ZC Parliamentary requirements
(1) This section sets out the parliamentary requirements referred to in sections 38ZA(3) and 38ZD(7).
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.
(3) In this section ‘the proposal’ means—
(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act or
(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment (see section 38ZD).
(4) Subsection (5) applies if, during the relevant period—
(a) either House of Parliament makes a resolution with regard to the proposal, or
(b) a committee of either House of Parliament makes recommendations with regard to the proposal.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State's response to the resolution or recommendations.
(6) The relevant period is the period specified by the Secretary of State in relation to the proposal.
(7) The Secretary of State must specify the relevant period in relation to the proposal on or before the day on which the proposal is laid before Parliament under subsection (2).
(8) After the end of the relevant period, but not before the Secretary of State complies with subsection (5) if it applies, the Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.
38ZD Review of national development management policies
(1) The Secretary of State must review a national development management policy whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.
(2) A review may relate to all or part of a national development management policy.
(3) In deciding when to review a national development management policy the Secretary of State must consider whether—
(a) since the time when the policy was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the statement was decided,
(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and
(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out would have been materially different.
(4) In deciding when to review part of a national development management policy (‘the relevant part’) the Secretary of State must consider whether—
(a) since the time when the relevant part was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the relevant part was decided,
(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and
(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out in the relevant part would have been materially different.
(5) After completing a review of all or part of a national development management policy the Secretary of State must do one of the following—
(a) amend the policy;
(b) withdraw the policy's designation as a national development management policy;
(c) leave the policy as it is.
(6) Before amending a national development management policy the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the policy set out in the proposed amendment.
(7) The Secretary of State may amend a national development management policy only if the consultation and publicity requirements set out in section 38ZB, and the parliamentary requirements set out in section 38ZC, have been complied with in relation to the proposed amendment, and—
(a) the consideration period for the amendment has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the amendment should not be proceeded with, or
(b) the amendment has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—
(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZA, and
(ii) before the end of the consideration period.
(8) In subsection (7) ‘the consideration period’, in relation to an amendment, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the amendment is laid before Parliament, and here ‘sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons sits.
(9) If the Secretary of State amends a national development management policy, the Secretary of State must—
(a) arrange for the amendment, or the policy as amended, to be published, and
(b) lay the amendment, or the policy as amended, before Parliament.”
This amendment stipulates the process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny based on processes set out in the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) for designating National Policy Statements.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We had an extensive debate on Tuesday about the powers provided by clause 83 and the fact that they represent, in our view, an unacceptable centralisation of development management policy and a downgrading of the status and remit of local planning. Clause 84 is important, and the provisions in it relate directly to the previous debate, because it sets out what constitutes a national development management policy and provides the statutory basis for such policies and their operation.
As hon Members will note, the clause provides an extremely broad definition of what a national development management policy is, with proposed new subsection 38ZA(1) clarifying that an NDMP can be anything relating to development or use of land in England that the Secretary of State, by direction, designates as such a policy. Proposed new subsection 38ZA(2) provides for powers that allow the Secretary of State to modify or revoke a national development management policy, and proposed new subsection 38ZA(3) makes it clear that they have to consult about any modification or revocation only if they believe it is appropriate to do so. Given the fact that, as we spent a lengthy period of time considering in the last sitting, it is the Government’s intention that national development management policies will override local development plans in the event of any conflict between the two, we are strongly of the view that the powers clause 84 provides the Secretary of State with are unacceptably broad.
I ask Government Members to look up from their digital devices for a moment and to consider precisely what the Government are proposing here and the future implications of that for their constituencies and the individual communities they represent. These powers would allow a future Minister, of whatever political allegiance, to develop an NDMP that could encompass literally any policy designated by them as relating to development or use of land in England; to determine not to consult on the development of that policy or its modification if they saw fit; and then to use that policy to overrule any local or neighbourhood plan in conflict with it at the stroke of a pen. No one who values localism and the role of effective local and neighbourhood plans in enabling communities to develop a shared vision for their area should feel comfortable with the provisions in the clause.
Amendment 87 simply seeks to impose a degree of transparency and accountability when it comes to the use of the powers, by clarifying the process by which the Secretary of State must designate and review a national development management policy, stipulating, first, that it must include minimum public consultation requirements, just as there are intensive consultation requirements for local plan policies, and secondly, that it must be subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as is currently the case for designating national policy statements, as set out in the Planning Act 2008. It cannot be right that national policies that will have a far greater impact on local communities than any existing national policy statement and that the Government intend will trump local development plans in the event of a conflict can be developed without any public consultation or parliamentary approval process.
If the clause is left unamended, the danger is twofold. First, we fear that the use of the powers will be viewed by the public as yet another means of disempowering communities and hoarding more control at the centre, with all the implications that has for public engagement in a planning system that already suffers from low levels of trust and confidence, with people feeling that their concerns are overlooked and their interests subordinated to other priorities.
Secondly, without a minimum of public consultation or parliamentary oversight in designing NDMPs the Government are far more likely to get it wrong, because they will be developing and designating national policy without appropriate input from communities and their representatives about how the needs and aspirations of their areas are best served. If the Government are determined to force through a suite of NDMPs covering the broad range of policies that, to repeat the test set out in the policy paper, “apply in most areas” and to render local development plans subordinate to them in the event of a conflict, the least they can concede is that the Secretary of State be directed to consult with institutions, authorities and other bodies before making, revoking or modifying NDMPs—not just the initial suite of NDMPs, but any that follow in future years—and to ensure that appropriate parliamentary oversight takes place.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his amendment and the speech he has just made. This is the pivotal part of the whole Bill. It is about ensuring that there is a full and proper process—one that should eliminate risk and maximise the representation of local interest.
We had a really helpful discussion on Tuesday that explored why the amendment was needed in the first place, and I am sure the Minister soon recognised the democratic deficit the Bill would create. The Government have left a hole in the Bill, because it defines the process for establishing a national development management strategy but not the extent to which the strategy could apply, and it also fails to take forward the considerations of our communities. This provision does not belong in primary legislation, and the Minister should reflect today and over the summer on what his Government are trying to do.
The Minister said that he will be developing more detail over the summer, but we are considering the Bill line by line today. As my hon. Friend outlined, his amendment has done the work on how to govern the process for the Minister. First, on designation, there must be an in-depth consultation and any issue must come before Parliament. If an issue is of such magnitude that it requires Government to say that they need to override a local plan, surely there has to be a proper process. After all, planning does not just suddenly occur. I was scratching my head about what would constitute a national emergency that required planning permission. The only thing I could think of—the Minister may correct me—would be a war, but then we would have separate legislation to address that. On Tuesday, the Minister himself struggled to articulate where the thresholds would be and exactly what would constitute such a situation.
I have been thinking further about how our planning process is devised and the importance of co-production within our planning process. Why would this national development management strategy override a process of local planning? There could be no reason. If we think about unpopular things that the Government want to force through, such as mining hydrocarbons, fracking and so on, they should not be happening, because our planet cannot sustain their use. The same applies to building road infrastructure, but then again there are processes and national policy statements that can be made for those things.
High Speed 2 or an airport are perhaps the only other examples. We cannot sustain more air travel because of the climate crisis, and HS2 had a national policy statement —again, it has had its own legislation and processes. I really cannot imagine what is in the Government’s mind that is of such magnitude that it should require the overriding of a local plan and the hopes and aspirations of our local communities. Certainly in my community, local people have not had their aspirations heard in the planning process, because we have not had a local plan. There has been imposition by developers, using the powers they have, and it has just run into conflict, gridlock and pain. I cannot see why a Government would want to excite that in a community.
I am sure the Minister will give serious consideration to this matter, if not today, then through the summer. Opposition Members have made it clear that these clauses are an unnecessary development, but I am sure the Minister will hear that point even louder from Government Members.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance today, Mr Hollobone. This proposal from the Government feels rather tin-eared, and the amendment—or something like it, at the very least—seems appropriate. It is good that the official Opposition have put forward a route that the Government could choose to go down.
It seems odd that there is not a worked-out process for properly scrutinising and consulting on national policy statements that could have huge ramifications for every part of this country. This is a very diverse country: we have four nations, and communities that are rural, urban and suburban. National planning policy could have many different ramifications on different communities.
I think of my own community, with 67 parish councils and the need for them to be involved and to understand the issues. Further north in Cumbria, we have the very live issue of Britain’s first new coalmine in 30 years potentially being given permission later this summer—we will wait and see about that. It will be hugely significant for the community it could impact directly, but it will also have a national impact. For us not to have a level of scrutiny and consultation for national plans—something that a local authority would be slaughtered for not doing with its own local plans—seems to be very wrong and, as I say, somewhat tin-eared.
It goes back to a theme that I have tried to develop throughout debates on this Bill, which is about trying to understand the motivation. It could be that the Government are just being tin-eared and have not thought this through properly. That is entirely possible—Governments do that. The question is, who is this for? Is this devolution? Is this empowering local communities? That is what the Government claim it is. Or is it just for the convenience of central Government? If there are national plans and a national planning framework allowing Government to take forward their central agenda without proper consultation of local communities—be they rural or urban or in any part of this country—that will meet with huge opposition, including in the constituencies of Opposition Members.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure and an honour, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling this amendment. The national development management policies are an important change to the system, and I understand the desire to ensure that they are properly considered.
The amendment has three elements: consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and policy review. I will deal with each in turn. On consultation, the existing clause already imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that such consultation and participation as are considered appropriate take place. The previous Secretary of State was clear in his comments to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee that consultation on the national development management policies will indeed be carried out. The consultation specified by the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Moreover, we need to bear in mind the possibility that circumstances may occasionally arise in which the Government need to make urgent change. I heard what the hon. Member for York Central said earlier, and I would like to give her an example that became apparent during the pandemic of when we had to act quickly. Hon. Members will recall, during the first part of the pandemic, the significant issue with food supply. One of the decisions that was therefore made at a national level was to disapply planning conditions relating to the hours during which supermarkets could be served by delivery vehicles. Because of the way supply chains were at that point, it was extremely important to get food through to the stores. In those circumstances, it may not be feasible to do everything that the amendment seeks to do, for reasons that I hope she understands.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
In relation to consultation, the Minister just said that it depends on what the Secretary of State thinks is appropriate. Is there anywhere else in our legislation where things are left to the whim of a particular Secretary of State in that way? I cannot believe that the Minister thinks that is an acceptable way to conduct planning.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for her question. We need to look at what is being put forward today. Clearly, the passage of the Bill has some time to run, and we have to look at this issue in the context of the national planning policy prospectus that is being put out later this year so that hon. Members get a wider understanding, and I hope they will be able to respond to that.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for giving way again. Surely the prospectus should come first, before we consider implementing this legislation. It seems like things are being done in a completely back-to-front way, and I do not understand why. This is not a good way to make legislation.
Mr Jones
I understand what the hon. Member says, but clearly this process will take some time. There are other parts of the process that follow today’s proceedings and Committee stage. By the time we get to that point, I am sure hon. Members will have been able to see the national planning policy prospectus and understand it more fully.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful that the Minister was able to produce an example of where a national planning decision would override a local plan, but he talked about logistics, which does not come into the local planning process. That example was operational—it was not actually to do with planning. Can he drill down to say when a national development management policy would override a local plan?
Matthew Pennycook
Further to that point, is the Minister seriously saying that a logistical issue about the opening times of supermarkets is the type of policy that will be covered by an NDMP?
Mr Jones
What I am explaining is an example of where powers need to be taken, sometimes at short notice, in the national interest.
To move on, let me turn to parliamentary scrutiny. I have listened to the debate with interest, and I appreciate the points that have been made. The existing provisions for scrutiny of national policy statements, on which I believe the amendment has been modelled, play a particular role, given the way that those statements provide a framework for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, which are decided by Ministers.
National development management policies will serve a broader purpose and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans as the starting points for considering the suitability of development proposals. They will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions. The sort of things that we envisage them covering are standard policies—for example, avoiding inappropriate development in a green belt and areas at significant risk of flooding or coastal erosion; protecting nationally important habitats and heritage, and assets such as listed buildings; and ensuring that access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities or reduced mobility is taken into account when assessing development proposals.
As I have said, we have committed to consulting on national development management policies, and this is the first step in the process. The prospectus, which we will publish shortly, will set out more of our initial thinking on the scope of the policies, and the principles for their production. I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will read that document with interest when it comes out, and I hope that it will provide further reassurance on our commitment to transparency and full engagement as we develop the policies.
As the national development management policies will be public, parliamentarians and the public may still hold the Government to account, in the usual way, for the content of those policies. The nature of national development management policies differs from national policy statements, so we believe that the clause strikes the right balance.
We will continue to keep national policies under review by listening closely to colleagues, to the public and to the evidence presented to us, as Governments of all complexions do as a matter of course. It is not clear to me that the amendment would necessarily fit into that context. I have listened to the strength of feeling during the debate, and I hope that the national planning policy framework prospectus, when published, and my response to the three major issues that have been raised in discussing the amendment, will reassure Members. I will continue to reflect on the issues that have been raised, particularly in relation to responses to the prospectus. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was right to use the phrase “tin-eared”. That is what the Minister’s response was, and I hope he will reconsider.
The amendment and the clause go to the heart of the problem with the Bill. Is it a vehicle to empower communities and their representatives, or to override them when the Government of the day think that is the appropriate thing to do? Where the Government fall on that question is clear from the Minister’s answer. Let me reiterate that the level of scrutiny that we are asking for is not excessive or inappropriate; it is a minimum public consultation requirement in the way that currently applies to local planning policies, and the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as for designated national policy statements.
The Minister’s response was very telling. He said: “Well, the Secretary of State”—the previous Secretary of State now—“has committed to consultation.” That is all well and good, and I hope the prospectus will come in the summer, but it is not about that or about what the previous Secretary of State said; it is about what the Bill says. The Bill says that a Secretary of State needs to consult on an NDMPs if he or she considers it “appropriate”. If a Secretary of State in a future Labour Government brings forward an NDMP, does not consult on it, and uses it to override a local development plan in a constituency of one of the Members now on the Government side of this Committee, those Members would be the first to cry foul the use of such powers. The clause guarantees only that a Secretary of State needs to consult if he considers it appropriate.
On parliamentary scrutiny, the Minister said that NDMPs are different from national policy statements because they have a broader purpose. If they have a broader purpose, surely there is all the more need for basic parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, in the way that currently applies to such statements under the Planning Act 2008.
I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response, as he can tell. I hope that he will go back and reconsider this issue and those that we raised in the debate on clause 83, because we will certainly discuss these matters again, if not on Report in this place, then in the other place. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I urge him to reconsider. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
Clause 84 provides the statutory basis for national development management policies in England. As they will play an important part in the planning process, the clause puts a necessary safeguard in place: they must be designated by the Secretary of State so that their status is clear, they must relate to the development or use of land and, most importantly, they must be subject to appropriate consultation before they can have effect.
The clause is necessarily broad in scope so that national policies can address the various planning considerations that apply across the country, from basic policies for protecting the green belt to those for avoiding areas of high flood risk. That will free up local plans to focus on matters of local importance.
We intend to consult fully on the scope and content of these policies before they are first introduced to ensure we have heard a wide range of views before deciding what is best set out at a national level, and before deciding what the policies themselves will say. Alongside clauses 83 and 84, they will be instrumental in making it easier to prepare local plans that reflect communities’ priorities for their areas while providing a sound basis to address the general planning considerations that apply across the country. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Contents of the spatial development strategy
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 85, page 92, leave out lines 26 and 27.
This amendment would remove an additional legal test within London’s Spatial Development Strategy that could preclude the insertion of policies which contribute to the effective strategic planning of Greater London but would also apply to other urban areas or are not specific to Greater London.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 94, in clause 85, page 92, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) supporting policies within the Spatial Development Strategy that achieve objectives for the benefit of strategic planning of Greater London.”
This amendment would enable the Mayor of London can include policies in a Spatial Development Strategy that contribute to the effective strategic planning of Greater London.
Amendment 95, in clause 85, page 93, line 5, at end insert—
“(2DA) The determination of whether a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough for the purposes of subsection (2D) lies solely with the Mayor of London.”
This amendment is intended to remove ambiguity about whose opinion is relevant in relation to whether or not a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough.
Amendment 96, in clause 85, page 93, line 9, at end insert—
“(2F) The spatial development strategy must include statements dealing with the general spatial development aspects of—
(a) such of the other strategies prepared and published, or to be prepared and published, under the enactments mentioned in section 41(1) above as involve considerations of spatial development, and
(b) such of the Mayor of London’s other policies or proposals as involve such considerations, whether or not the strategy, policy or proposal relates to the development or use of land.”
This amendment would retain provisions relating to the Mayor of London’s Spatial Development Strategy which relate to the spatial development aspects of the other Mayoral strategies.
Amendment 97, in clause 85, page 93, leave out lines 13 to 19.
This amendment would remove inserted subsection (10), which would place constraints on the Mayor of London’s Spatial Development Strategy relating to national development management policies.
Amendment 91, in schedule 7, page 241, line 16, leave out “with respect to design”.
Amendment 92, in schedule 7, page 241, line 18, after “met” insert
“in support of plan-making or”.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 85 and 86 relate to the spatial development strategy in London. I hazard a guess that the subject is not likely to set Government Members’ pulses racing, but it is important none the less, and I feel duty bound to do it justice as the only Member present who represents our glorious capital city.
On the surface, clause 85 appears relatively innocuous. It would seem that it is simply a matter of bringing the London plan in line with other spatial development strategies and providing greater clarity on the matters that can and cannot be covered by a spatial development strategy. However, once one digs into the detail, as I have, it quickly becomes apparent that taken together with two proposed changes set out in schedule 7—proposed new section 15CC, on supplementary plans—it is far more insidious. It amounts, in effect, to the rolling back of London’s strategic planning powers in important ways.
Let me say a little at the outset about why curtailing the strategic planning powers that Greater London enjoys would be harmful. London’s devolved strategic planning powers have been a huge success story over the past two decades under successive mayoral administrations. Since the first draft London plan was published in 2002, successive plans have facilitated a step change in the planning of our country’s only global city. London has been able to lead the way in planning policy approaches in a wide range of areas, whether focused on tackling climate change, addressing biodiversity loss, improving fire safety, addressing poor air quality or increasing the supply of affordable housing and the pace of its delivery.
The results speak for themselves: since the creation of the Greater London Authority, annual net housing supply has doubled and new homes in London lead the country in design, quality and energy efficiency. Indeed, the co-ordinated strategic planning approach that London has adopted has been so successful that the Government are proposing, through this Bill, to allow the new combined county authorities essentially to adopt it.
Despite the tacit recognition of the success of London’s strategic planning powers that the provision of the new power to CCAs implies, clause 85 and parts of schedule 7 explicitly curtail their effective use by putting in place significant additional restrictions on the preparation of future iterations of the London plan. They do so in four ways: first, proposed new subsection (2A)(b) states that policies can be included in a future London plan only if they are designed to achieve objectives that relate to the
“particular characteristics or circumstances of Greater London”.
We believe that is unnecessarily restrictive. There are many objectives that the London plan should appropriately be working toward that are not specific to the characteristics or circumstances of London, whether that is climate change, biodiversity and green infrastructure, supporting town centres and high streets, or parking and suburban housing development.
Tim Farron
I am very concerned about this part of the Bill. If we ask people in England which part of our country has the most autonomy and sovereignty and is listened to the most, most of them will say London—and they would be broadly right. It is really concerning to any person in this country who cares about genuine devolution and the empowerment of local communities that the part of England with the most powers devolved to it is having many of those powers curtailed, qualified and restricted by the clause, and the amendments are important because they put a spotlight on that issue.
Some of the language around levelling up may in fact be divisive, because it is about setting ourselves against one another. Rural communities are the poorest and most needy in England, but there is much that binds us all together. We need to consider ourselves as a United Kingdom and to make common endeavour, but we can do that only if we trust one another, give communities genuine sovereignty and power, and trust them.
Again, there is a theme with the Bill: it is about levelling up and devolution in name, but in reality it is about a lack of trust in the local electorate, local communities and local leaders—in this case, the Mayor of London. Anybody in this country—in England at least—who is concerned about their autonomy, their sovereignty and the devolution they want for their community should be deeply concerned about this proposal and should stand in solidarity with communities in London, who seem to be having theirs curtailed in the Bill. That is the opposite of levelling up and the opposite of devolution, and it increasingly sounds not like devolution but like delegation.
Mr Jones
Clause 85 reaffirms the vital role of the London plan in setting strategic policy for the capital. However, the London plan is intended, and was originally designed, to deal only with matters of strategic importance in London. Those are limits to which the London plan has not always strictly adhered, and it now often touches on matters that no one would consider as strategic in nature, but rather as instances of applying the strategy.
Let me give an example of where the Mayor of London has overstepped that strategic objective. Policy H16 in the London plan refers to laundry, bedding and linen services, which do not seem overly strategic. The inclusion of non-strategic matters means that the London plan is far lengthier and more detailed than it needs to be—the current London plan is over 500 pages long. Not only does that increase the time taken to produce it, but it makes it more complicated for the people of London to work out what policies apply in their area and how those interact.
One of our most important objectives in reforming the planning system is to give a distinct and clearly defined role to each part of the development plan. By clearly specifying that the London plan must cover matters of strategic importance to London, we are making the plan’s role and its relationship to individual local plans easier to understand.
The text that amendment 93 proposes to remove also underlines that policies should relate to the particular characteristics or circumstances of London. During the preparation of the London plan, there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent the Mayor of London from considering matters that affect London but relate to areas outside Greater London. However, I hope we can agree that the policies themselves should relate to the area for which the Mayor has jurisdiction. Likewise, on amendment 94, it seems entirely reasonable that any policy included at the level of the London plan should have more than a local impact. Otherwise, it would be properly a matter for the appropriate local planning authority’s local or supplementary plans.
On that subject, under the provisions in the Bill, the Mayor of London may prepare a supplementary plan relating to design matters for the whole of Greater London, and amendments 91 and 92 concern that new power. I agree entirely with the intention behind amendment 92, but the amendment is needed to achieve that aim, because the Mayor’s supplementary plans will be part of the development plan, and schedule 7 inserts proposed new sections 15CA(5)(g) and 15CC(8), which provide that, in preparing local and supplementary plans, London boroughs—as local planning authorities—must have regard to the development plan.
Turning to amendment 91, supplementary plans provide local planning authorities with the flexibility to bring forward policies for specific sites, or groups of sites, quickly—for example, in response to a new opportunity that had not been identified in the local plan, or to set design standards too detailed for the local plan itself. They are not intended to supplant the primacy of the local plan or to circumvent the fuller process to which local plans will be subject. Supplementary plans are therefore primarily intended as a tool for local planning authorities to set more granular policies. Allowing the Mayor to set such policies would be contrary to the strategic—rather than locally specific—role of the Mayor. The Mayor’s role should be in setting design standards on a London-wide basis.
That is what the Mayor’s supplementary plan power provides for, while not precluding the Mayor from producing guidance on particular planning matters—a tool that I understand he has made good use of. However, the Mayor of London does not allocate sites in the London plan. Therefore, the ability to produce site-specific supplementary plans is not necessary. In the same way, in the current system, the Mayor does not produce supplementary planning documents.
That leads on to the effect of amendment 97. The London plan has never been able to allocate specific sites. It will retain its ability to identify broad locations for development, which will inform site allocations in individual local plans produced by London boroughs. Local plan making is the correct level at which to allocate individual sites for development, as boroughs work closely with their communities to identify the most suitable sites.
The Mayor should therefore not be able to allocate sites for development through either a supplementary plan or the London plan itself. That preserves the defined roles for strategic planning relative to the local plan. For that reason, it would be inappropriate for the Mayor alone, as suggested by amendment 95, to determine what should constitute “strategic” across more than one borough. That is not to say that the Mayor’s opinion on what constitutes a strategic matter is not essential. However, it is legitimate for other organisations and people, including the boroughs and those examining the London plan, to take a view on the issue.
In addition—although I do not think we need to repeat our earlier debate on this point—we have included the requirement not to be inconsistent with, or to repeat, any national development management policy, to ensure that the whole planning system, from national to local level, is consistent. That allows those matters that are best dealt with at the national level to have status, without requiring repetition in the development plan, potentially at both the strategic and local plan level.
Finally, on amendment 96, we want to remove unnecessary obligations from plan makers. Removing the requirement for the Mayor to include statements on general spatial development aspects of their other strategies and policies does not bar the Mayor from so doing. It merely allows the Mayor to judge how far it would be helpful to do so. I hope we can agree that that is a more sensible position.
I am aware that I have spoken at some length on these points, but I hope that has been helpful for the Committee. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I must confess that I am slightly disappointed with that answer. I appreciate that, in reading his remarks, the Minister has addressed each of the amendments in this group, but I do not think he has provided a convincing defence of why the Bill as it stands needs to be that way or of how restricting the Mayor’s powers in the way the Bill intends will not lead to harmful impacts of the kind I set out. I do not intend to press the amendments, but I very much hope that the Minister will continue to engage in dialogue with the Greater London Authority about these specific points. In one way or another, I think we will come back to these issues; if not, I expect that the noble Lords in the other place will do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The Localism Act 2011 abolished regional spatial strategies, which acted as strategic plans for the regions of England. The exception was London, where the Mayor has retained the power to produce a spatial development strategy, better known as the London plan.
The London plan acts as the strategic plan for the capital, and local plans produced by London boroughs must be in general conformity with it. It sets out the planning framework for the capital, which includes the setting of a London-wide housing target broken down into individual housing targets for boroughs. It cannot allocate sites, but it can identify broad locations for development, the details of which are established in subsequent local plans. Local plans require closer consultation between plan makers and the people they represent, making them better placed to identify specific sites for development.
Since 2011, the power to produce an SDS has been extended through devolution deals to three mayoral combined authorities—Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region and West of England—with the intention to give the equivalent power to West Yorkshire in the future. The Bill will expand the power to produce an SDS to all local planning authorities in England outside of Greater London and the mayoral combined authorities I have mentioned. Groups of authorities will be able to use the powers on a voluntary basis when they feel that they would benefit from such a plan.
Spatial development strategies are prepared by an elected Mayor or a combined authority to provide the strategic policies for the development and use of land in the area they cover. The Government wants the development plan system to be clear and efficient. By setting out clearly what a spatial development strategy can and cannot do, clause 85 will be instrumental in achieving a system that is easier to engage with.
Spatial development strategies enable a co-ordinated approach to planning across multiple local authorities and are an effective mechanism for resolving cross-boundary issues. The London plan has broadly been seen as a useful plan at that spatial scale, with each newly elected Mayor choosing to commence work on a new London plan shortly after entering office. It provides a clear and accountable mechanism for setting planning policy across London boroughs and for redistributing housing need across the city.
The London plan is intended to deal only with matters of strategic importance to London. However, that intention has not been strictly adhered to, as I mentioned earlier, and increasingly the London plan has included detailed development management policies on a range of issues that are not usually considered to be of a strategic nature. That increases the length and detail of the plan and the amount of time taken to produce it. It also means that the London plan encroaches on aspects of policy that should be dealt with at either local plan level or national level, which creates overlap between several types of plans and makes plans longer than they need to be.
The amendments made by clause 85 will ensure that the distinction between spatial development strategies and local plans remains clear. The clause will amend the provisions of section 334 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to update the permissible content of a spatial development strategy and will ensure that the purpose and scope of this type of development plan is clear.
In particular, at proposed new subsection (9), it is clear that a spatial development strategy must not be site specific, and nor can it be inconsistent with or repeat national policy. Proposed new subsection (9) also prohibits spatial development strategies from identifying particular sites, preserving that level of detail for the local plan, where such specificity is more appropriate. Unfortunately, only one member of this Committee is from London, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich would accept that his particular local authority knows local people on a more granular level than the Mayor does, because the Mayor works at a strategic level. Therefore it is a far better principle for the local authority to identify sites and make decisions on them.
The amendments made by the clause will mark a change to the current scope of the London plan and mean that it needs to be consistent with national development management policies. Proposed new subsection (2D)(b) introduces a new and additional requirement for strategic matters to be of strategic importance to more than one London borough. The clause deliberately uses the same wording as proposed new section 15AA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by schedule 7 to the Bill, which applies to the content of a joint spatial development strategy. The strategy can be prepared by partnerships of other local planning authorities around the country outside of combined authority areas, meaning that a spatial development strategy will have the same effect whichever system it is produced under. Again, that will help to clarify and demystify the planning system.
London plan policies would, in future, need to avoid conflict with national development management policies, which the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to prepare, and to be of strategic importance to more than one borough. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will not affect how the Mayor consults on or gains approval for the London plan or the role of either the Mayor or the Secretary of State in relation to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87
Plan making
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The clause introduces schedule 7, which will replace the majority of part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, namely sections 15 to 37. Schedule 7 contains new provisions relating to different elements of the development plan—specifically joint spatial development strategies, local plans, minerals and waste plans, and supplementary plans. The details of those provisions will be debated throughout these sessions.
In summary, the proposed changes will ensure that plans are faster for local authorities to produce, easier for communities to navigate, engage with and understand, and more focused on things that matter locally. The reforms will support local planning authorities to produce local plans and keep them up to date—something that has proven challenging for many under the existing system. Local planning authorities and communities invest considerable time and effort in preparing local plans, but many plans take too long to produce. The average plan takes seven years, and plans are frequently out of date and can be difficult to understand.
Decisions on planning applications are meant to be plan-led, but in practice local plans cannot always be relied on for guiding decisions, especially when they are not up to date or do not set clear standards for development to follow. To make the system more responsive and flexible, local authorities will be given new powers to collaborate voluntarily with each other on joint spatial development strategies. They will also be able to introduce new policy at pace through supplementary plans.
There are two specific elements of the current plan-making system that the Government are not looking to retain. The first is the requirement for local planning authorities to produce a statement of community involvement. Such statements do little to drive meaningful dialogue with communities during plan production. Instead, the Secretary of State will produce guidance setting out much clearer expectations around how local planning authorities should engage people in the planning process.
Secondly, we do not propose to retain the duty to co-operate. The duty has been widely criticised as inflexible and burdensome, causing significant delays to the production of local plans. It will be replaced with a more flexible policy-based approach to addressing strategic issues that cut across authorities. That will be set out in a revised national planning policy framework in due course.
Matthew Pennycook
Just to check that I understood the Minister correctly, is he saying that the new flexible alignment test, which is to follow in the Bill, will come in only at the point that the NPPF is finalised in 2025? Is he saying that that is when we should expect this new test to appear?
Mr Jones
Clearly we will need to ensure that the new test is workable. We will have to consider that very carefully, and we will no doubt consult on it. I will need to come back to the hon. Gentleman about the timeframe in order to provide him with that information. However, given the important changes that this clause enables us to introduce, I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Plan making
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 7, page 224, line 14, after “authorities” insert “or county councils”.
This amendment and amendment 113 would enable county councils to prepare joint spatial development plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 113, in schedule 7, page 224, line 16, after “authority” insert “or county council”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 112.
Amendment 103, in schedule 7, page 224, leave out lines 19 to 22.
This amendment would leave out inserted section 15A(2)(b) and make combined authorities eligible for a joint spatial development strategy.
Amendment 102 in schedule 7, page 233, line 41, at end insert—
“15AJ Duty to co-operate in absence of joint spatial development strategy
(1) This section applies in any area in which a joint spatial development strategy is not operative.
(2) Each person who is—
(a) a local planning authority,
(b) a county council in England that is not a local planning authority, or
(c) a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description, must co-operate with every other person who is within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) or subsection (10) in maximising the effectiveness with which activities within subsection (3) are undertaken.
(3) In particular, the duty imposed on a person by subsection (2) requires the person—
(a) to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in any process by means of which activities within subsection (4) are undertaken, and
(b) to have regard to activities of a person within subsection (10) so far as they are relevant to activities within subsection (4).
(4) The activities within this subsection are—
(a) the preparation of a joint spatial development strategy,
(b) the preparation of development plan documents,
(c) the preparation of other local development documents,
(d) the preparation of marine plans under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for the English inshore region, the English offshore region or any part of either of those regions,
(e) activities that can reasonably be considered to prepare the way for activities within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) that are, or could be, contemplated, and
(f) activities that support activities within any of paragraphs (a) to (d), so far as relating to a strategic matter.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), each of the following is a ‘strategic matter’—
(a) sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and
(b) sustainable development or use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use—
(i) is a county matter, or
(ii) has or would have a significant impact on a county matter.
(6) In subsection (5)—
‘county matter’ has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the principal Act (ignoring sub-paragraph 1(1)(i)),
‘planning area’ means—
(a) the area of—
(i) a district council (including a metropolitan district council),
(ii) a London borough council, or
(iii) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council,
but only so far as that area is neither in a National Park nor in the Broads,
(b) a National Park,
(c) the Broads,
(d) the English inshore region, or
(e) the English offshore region, and
‘two-tier area’ means an area—
(a) for which there is a county council and a district council, but
(b) which is not in a National Park.
(7) The engagement required of a person by subsection (3)(a) includes, in particular—
(a) considering whether to consult on and prepare, and enter into and publish, agreements on joint approaches to the undertaking of activities within subsection (3), and
(b) if the person is a local planning authority, considering whether to agree under section 28 to prepare joint local development documents.
(8) A person subject to the duty under subsection (2) must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about how the duty is to be complied with.
(9) A person, or description of persons, may be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) only if the person, or persons of that description, exercise functions for the purposes of an enactment.
(10) A person is within this subsection if the person is a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description.
(11) In this section—
‘the English inshore region’ and ‘the English offshore region’ have the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and
‘land’ includes the waters within those regions and the bed and subsoil of those waters.”
This amendment would require local authorities and other public bodies to co-operate on local planning measures in the absence of an operative joint spatial development strategy on the lines of section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This duty would encompass co-operation by all relevant local authorities on preparation for such a strategy.
Matthew Pennycook
Schedule 7 is 40 pages long and it contains a very wide range of provisions on plan making, many of which are complex. The amendments in this group relate to the provisions concerning joint spatial development strategies.
We support the new power in proposed new section 15A that allows two or more local planning authorities to work together to create one of these strategies. If done well, we believe they that will provide a high-level investment framework, more choice of where to direct development, greater opportunity to deliver sustainable growth and a means of translating national policy priorities, from levelling up to net zero, on a place-based basis.
In our view, joint spatial development strategies are likely to provide a much more attractive and deliverable strategic planning model than provided for by existing joint strategic plans, which have proved problematic, given that they are prepared and tested by means of an arrangement essentially designed for detailed local plans. Allowing groups of authorities to come together and collaborate to prepare and test strategic planning policies in relation to matters that cross local boundaries, whether that be infrastructure or affordable housing, by means of a joint spatial development strategy, is clearly a good thing, and it is crucial that more authorities do that.
Tim Farron
This is an important part of the Bill. I am comfortable with much of the direction that the Government seek to go in, but if we are to offer the power to develop joint spatial development strategies, it should be to everybody. I will make particular reference to national parks in England and the duty to consult with them.
It is worth bearing in mind that national parks are quasi-local authorities. In many ways, they have the functions of a local authority, particularly when it comes to planning and some other associated issues. They do not have council tax-raising powers and they are not directly elected in any shape or form in England or Wales. In Scotland, there is an element of direct election to the national parks.
I will make two suggestions. First, the needs of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are significant. They are parts of the country that we have collectively decided are so important that they need to be protected for environmental reasons, to provide education and enlightenment about our heritage and our culture, and to protect the communities within them. I am especially concerned about that latter point.
In national parks, decisions are made about housing, planning and development that have a huge impact on the lives of the people who live within them. The Lake District national park has between 40,000 and 50,000 full-time residents, a not inconsiderable number of people whose lives are affected by an unelected authority. By the way, the national parks do a great job—I have a lot of time and praise for what the Lake District national park and the Yorkshire Dales national park in my constituency do—but it is not true to say that they make their decisions entirely democratically.
When we are consulting and imposing a duty to consult, we must have a duty to consult the national parks. They must not be considered things to be overlooked, and communities must not be overlooked. We need to remember that decisions made about affordable housing and allowing farmers to do something on their farms that might enable them to diversify and to provide a home for agricultural workers, or a home for a farmer to retire into so that a young farmer can come and take their place, are often decided by people who do not live in the national park and who are not elected by the local community.
It would be interesting if the Minister could reflect on the extent to which the Government might consider learning from the Scottish example, whereby a number of members of national park authorities are directly elected. When we place a duty to consult, which means that we bring in the national parks, we should consult people who are there representatively, who are democratically elected and who are there to speak on behalf of the community. If we do not do that, the national parks will continue to be considered simply places for people to visit, not places for people to live. It is essential that we consider the living, vibrant communities of our national parks, as well as the fact that they are huge assets for the nation as a whole.
Mr Jones
Although I understand the reasons for the amendments, our intention is for the reformed planning system to be district-led. As we have discussed previously, we do not want to see planning or any other powers being drawn upwards as a result of our reforms. As such, joint spatial development strategies need to be driven by the authorities closest to their communities.
We agree that county councils should play an important role in the plan-making process. They will have significant influence over the development of a joint spatial development strategy, and we envisage that they will be closely involved with its day-to-day production. To make sure that happens, we are giving them the formal status of statutory consultee so that they can bring their experience and expertise in a range of issues, particularly highways, transport, flood mitigation, education and the rules on waste, to the creation of a joint spatial development strategy. Planning inspectors examining the joint spatial development strategy will want to see evidence of work on those key issues and to make sure that any views expressed by the county council have been properly taken into consideration.
The approach that we are proposing strikes a balance between ensuring that joint spatial development strategies are developed at the right level and ensuring that the views and expertise of county councils are part of the process. Likewise, in areas with an elected Mayor, we believe it is vital that the Mayor is formally involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, in order to provide clear and accountable leadership for it. That is why combined authorities should not be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In such cases, the Mayor, with the support of all the member authorities, can approach the Government to ask for spatial development strategy powers to be conferred on them as part of their devolution deal.
I hope that was the response that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was looking for. His amendments seem to view spatial development strategies as a co-ordinating layer in the planning system. Amendment 102 seeks to resuscitate the duty to co-operate, which is widely agreed—most Conservative Members would agree, at least—to have been an ineffective mechanism, criticised as inflexible, bureaucratic and slow. That is why the Bill abolishes it. We can all agree that it is vital for local planning authorities to work together to make sure that cross-boundary issues are properly addressed. We expect them to plan for, and deliver, the housing and infrastructure our communities need. The planning system provides a number of mechanisms to assist them in doing so to which we are adding.
We intend to replace the duty with more flexible policy within the revised national planning policy framework, upon which we will consult. This will enable local planning authorities to address any issues of alignment during the preparation of a plan. At present, if an authority fails the duty its local plan must be withdrawn. The Bill also introduces a new requirement to assist with plan making, which we will consider more fully in due course. That will ensure the involvement of those who are vital to production of plans, including the delivery and planning of infrastructure. As such, joint spatial development strategies should not be seen as a co-ordinating function, replacing the duty to co-operate. I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will agree to not to press the amendments to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. On the issue of mayoral combined authorities and combined authorities, I cannot say that I am entirely convinced. However, I note the detailed response he gave me to the amendment, and I will give it further consideration. On the issue of county councils, the Minister says that they will be closely involved. I remain concerned that not giving them equality of status will be harmful. I am aware that the Department is concerned that if we do not get county councils to bring resources to the table for the new joint spatial development strategies, it may have effects that the Government do not want.
On the issue of the duty to co-operate and the voluntary nature of those new powers, I remain concerned about what happens and how that impacts on the Government’s wider policy objectives in areas where authorities do not make use of the power when we have removed the only statutory arrangement to enable them to co-operate. I urge the Minister to go away and give that some thought. If the Minister is not comfortable reintroducing the duty for those who have not taken up those powers, will he at least think again about whether the incentive structure might be tweaked to ensure that the majority of areas make use of the powers? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Thursday 14th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 July 2022 - (14 Jul 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Because it is so hot, I am happy for Members to remove their jackets, if they so wish.
Schedule 7
Plan making
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 121, in schedule 7, page 227, line 15, at end insert—
“(e) other community organisations representing members of that community”
This amendment would extend the group of determining bodies to include community groups.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. Given that planning has to be about our local communities, I find it astounding how little agency communities, community groups and residents have in the process. As we heard this morning, it seems that their voices will be diminished by the Bill, rather than expanded. Therefore, I believe that my amendment would help give communities some agency within the planning process.
The Opposition really value civil society, and we value individual residents and their different views. We value businesses and our community groups, and I believe that their knowledge and passion for the local area is irreplaceable. They know the challenges, the investment that is needed, and the people. They should be the drivers of development, and they should be seen as central participants in any planning process or development. The amendment is designed to ensure that copies of reports are received by local communities, whose voices seem diminished in the Bill, because Labour wants to amplify the voices of the people most affected by planning.
In my constituency, there are just too many groups to mention. However, if we are looking at the planning process for transport, I think about the York Bus Forum, Walk York and the York Cycle Campaign, which provide the best analysis of the current and future transport needs of our city. York Civic Trust has just undertaken a piece of deliberative democracy to establish a future transport strategy, and it would want to receive a report in order to reflect on the findings and to ensure that it can fully participate in the planning process.
In York, we have a city full of historians and archaeologists who understand the value of place making; we have a university full of housing specialists; and we have York Central Co-Owned, or YoCo, which has been engaging residents in dialogue on future developments. York Disability Rights Forum can highlight issues of access. Our local enterprise partnership, universities and colleges, and business partners are working on York’s future economy. They, too, would want to be engaged in the planning process, yet community groups seem so absent and do not even receive reports of strategies in order to be able to take planning forward and to be part of the consultation on the future of what they spend 24 hours a day working for.
We have resident groups that are actively looking at planning. We all have such groups in our constituencies, and I am sure that all hon. Members will recognise their strength. We are proud of them because of their dedication and attention to detail, and the inclusion of the community is urgently needed in the planning and consultation process. My amendment would build on that expectation and stop communities being locked out of planning, because our planning system is all the poorer without them. I will shortly go on to explain why their prominence must change but, for now, I believe that the first step is to involve communities in consultations by sending over copies of strategies, which is something that the Minister should not block.
If we have such expertise in our communities, let us bring it into the heart of the planning process so that we get the very best housing, economic space and environment, and so that the people who know their area best—the local residents and other stakeholders—have greater agency in planning processes. I have tabled a number of amendments to stimulate the Government into working through how residents can have a greater say over the future of their communities.
York Central is a classic example. Right from the start of the process, the community have been told that they will have a voice in the project at the next stage. As we go through each stage and are told that their time will come, my conclusion is that they may get to choose the colour of the spring bulbs, but nothing significant. At every step of the process there is no opportunity for real community engagement. The promised voice never comes. Residents have organised into community groups with the hope that their collective voice will be heard, yet it is not.
Whether for York Central or the York local plan, the very people who should have the greatest voice have the least. In both scenarios, political expediency of the ruling council parties has placed political self-interest over the interests of the city. In York Central, the partners’ agenda is to secure the opening of the National Railway Museum by 2025—we all understand the importance of that. Network Rail getting a capital receipt has further blocked and locked out local people’s voices. The contempt is staggering.
The Minister would weep at the conduct of his own party, not to mention the Lib Dems and Greens, in the political process of planning in York. I will talk more about the solution in my next set of amendments. I urge Government to think more about the brilliance that will come from more community inclusion in the consultation processes, engaging our community groups by ensuring that they are included in the information and are sent a copy of the strategy. Surely that is the first stage.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on this sensible amendment, which I am very supportive of. It simply specifies, as she so clearly articulated, that local community groups be included in the list of bodies that are sent a copy of any joint spatial development strategy adopted.
The Government have extolled the virtues of this legislation in part on the basis that it will demonstrably improve local engagement in the planning process. It surely follows that Ministers would welcome the engagement of community organisations when it comes to the new strategies that schedule 7 provides for. Given that all the amendment does is to ensure that a copy of any such strategy created and adopted is sent to the representative community organisations, I cannot for the life of me think of a convincing reason why the Government would not accept it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mrs Murray. I am also keen to support the sentiment behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central. Confidence in the planning process is at an all-time low. In any of the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members, confidence in communities in the planning process will not be great. In mine, land is of such enormous value around national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
To have an amendment to the Bill that allows us to formalise a greater level of consultation and involvement of local communities seems very wise. If we can get the consent of local communities and have communities shape how they are developed in the years to come, the chance of people having confidence in the decision-making process and local democracy of the planning process is that much higher.
I am very lucky to have a constituency where every square inch is parished—there is not a single part of my community without a parish council. We have a default consultee on behalf of the community in every single town, village and valley in Westmorland and Lonsdale, and throughout much of the rest of Cumbria as well. There are community groups that ought to be formally involved in that process, so that the right decisions are made. People feel so frustrated.
In our community, we are the opposite: we want houses to be built. We see the decimation of our local communities—I can talk elsewhere about the evaporation of the housing market to second home owners and holiday lets. We desperately need homes that are affordable and available for local people. We do not get people saying, “Not in my backyard”; they are saying, “In my backyard now.” But we want houses that are useful to us: affordable, social rented and guaranteed for a local working population and those who are retired.
People are frustrated by a lack of adequate provision when it comes to drainage, flood prevention, sewerage, school places—all those sorts of things. If the community were properly involved, it would give its consent and approval to schemes that would otherwise get opposition.
We also see an imbalance in the process—the developer can appeal and the community cannot—which adds to the general sense that planning is a process by which things happen to communities, not by which communities decide what happens to them. The sentiments behind this amendment are good, and I really hope the Government will take it into account.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. Although I understand the reasons for the amendment, the list of bodies in proposed new section 15AB(3), to which participating authorities should consider sending a draft joint spatial development strategy, is already comprehensive and can reasonably be assumed to include most community organisations. That includes voluntary groups, bodies representing religious groups and bodies representing the interests of racial, ethnic and national groups. However, it is not exhaustive, and authorities are free to send drafts to whichever organisations they feel necessary.
Our approach strikes the right balance between ensuring wide consultation while not putting unreasonable burdens on participating authorities and making the process unnecessarily onerous. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for York Central will withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate the debate that we have had on amendment 121. The parish system is incredibly good at engaging people because it is so local. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale highlighted its establishment in the rural environment, but it is less prevalent in more urban environments, so we need to look at how to encourage the growth of parish councils across the country. They can be of real value and can get people to engage in their communities. Indeed, they are a first step for many in politics, as they are a less political environment in which to make decisions about their local community. There is some real strength in that. We will talk about neighbourhood plans, and it is important that we look at their inclusion as we work through the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his comments about the importance of putting people at the heart of planning; they often seem very much at the periphery. I looked very carefully at the Bill before drafting the amendment, and there is a bit of a vacuum in it, so it could be strengthened. Later this afternoon I will talk a little more about the importance of agency and voice, because they are absent.
I hear what the Minister says about the other organisations that are included, and his comments are helpful. If community groups feel excluded from the process, the Minister’s words highlighted that the clauses do not exclude them. Therefore, if they are unable to get hold of a copy of a report, I am sure those words will be very valuable in raising a challenge in the planning system to ensure that people get access to data. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I will be returning to the scene very shortly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 88, in schedule 7, page 228, leave out line 5.
This amendment, along with Amendment 89, would explicitly ensure that people would have a right to be heard at an examination in public in relation to the Joint Spatial Development Plan part of the development plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, in schedule 7, page 228, line 9, at end insert—
“(8) Any person who makes representations in relation to the strategy must (if that person so requests) be invited to appear before and be heard by the examiner.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 88.
Amendment 90, in schedule 7, page 246, line 29, leave out lines 29 and 30.
This amendment would prevent the general rule for hearings for supplementary plans taking the form of written representations and would instead enable the examiner to determine the form of the examination.
Matthew Pennycook
As I mentioned this morning, this is an incredibly technical schedule. It covers measures as diverse as powers to intervene in local plan making, a duty to prepare local design codes, neighbourhood priority statements and many other things. The three amendments relate to the important issue of public participation in the two new constituent parts of local development plans that the schedule introduces—namely, joint spatial development strategies, which we have already discussed; and supplementary plans.
It depends whether a local planning authority is in Greater London or subject to other devolutions deals, but in the main it is local and neighbourhood plans that presently constitute the development plan for most parts of England. Clause 82(3) expands the list of what can be included in a development plan to include spatial development strategies and supplementary plans, both of which will have the same legal status as a development plan in decision making, ironically taking us back to a situation where development plans are comprised of a suite of documents, not unlike what was introduced in the 2004 reforms and scrapped in 2011 on the basis that it was all too complicated.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he is saying and I want to give an example to add some context to his comments. York is due a local transport plan and is behind on the timetable for delivering that, so York Civic Trust set up a process of deliberative democracy and engaged city stakeholders. They have created a plan for the future of our city, which is gaining a lot of interest. That demonstrates that if local people are involved, the plan will be robust and address some of the major challenges that slow down local authorities from engaging in that process. I thought that example would be a useful addition to my hon. Friend’s comments.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which is a useful illustration of what local people and local community groups can add to the plan-making process.
Our specific concern is that the denial of the right to be heard on the two new documents means that, in important ways, the process of formulating a local plan could be constrained. Let me illustrate what I mean. It should be remembered that these documents are designed to resolve issues such as the local planning authorities’ approach to the green belt or strategic infrastructure. Once set, local plans will need to be in conformity with these strategies, but it will be impossible to make use of the right to be heard vis-à-vis a local plan on important issues affecting a community, because it will be in effect impossible to challenge a decision that has already been resolved by means of a spatial development strategy, in relation to which no right to be heard will exist.
The Minister will no doubt be briefed to say that rights to be heard do not apply to other strategic plans, such as the London plan or the now abolished regional plans. That is true, but the justification for the abolition of regional plans was that they were not accountable or trusted by communities. If the aim is to increase participation, why not grant these important safeguards?
On Second Reading, both the previous Secretary of State and the previous Minister championed this legislation in part because they argued that it would tangibly improve local engagement. Why, then, are the Government content to consciously and deliberately shut down the opportunity for such engagement when it comes to new joint spatial development strategies and supplementary plans?
Amendments 88 to 90 would resolve this glaring contradiction in the legislation. Taken together, amendments 88 and 89 would enshrine in the Bill the right to be heard at an examination in public in relation to a joint spatial development strategy, while amendment 90
“would prevent the general rule for hearings for supplementary plans taking the form of written representations and would instead enable the examiner to determine the form of the examination”
as they saw fit. We believe that these amount to simple but appropriate changes to schedule 7 that would restore the right to be heard and thus enable communities to engage fully at every stage of the development plan formulation process. If the Government are genuinely open to further honing and refining the Bill before it is given Royal Assent, as previous Ministers always maintained, they should accept these amendments, and I hope to hear that this Minister is content to do so.
Tim Farron
It is worth observing that a previous Government ripped up completely the spatial development strategy process, largely because of the sense that the populations of this country felt that it was utterly disconnected from the plans, desires and priorities of their communities.
If we are to go down this route and not enable a formalised process by which communities can have their voices heard when it comes to spatial development plans, we are just setting ourselves up for the same mistake that the previous Government made. If we want people to feel confident in these plans and believe that they are in their interests and right for the future of their communities, children and grandchildren, we need to give them the chance to have their voices heard and to have their say. The amendments seem entirely sensible to me.
Mr Jones
As we discussed in relation to digital reforms of the planning system, we absolutely share the objective of improving community engagement in all parts of the planning system. It is, however, appropriate to allow different procedures for that engagement, based on the role of the plan or strategy in question.
The current procedure for the examination of spatial development strategies is now well established. It is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right to appear in person. However, we are confident that the current arrangements are fair, proportionate and effective. Experience shows that planning inspectors go to great lengths to ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations for spatial development strategies. The Committee may like to know that the most recent spatial development strategy examination, for the London plan in 2019, took place over 12 weeks and the list of participants ran to 27 pages.
The fundamental difference between spatial development strategies and local plans is that they do not designate or allocate specific land for development; that remains the role of the local plan. It should also be remembered that written and oral evidence carry equal weight at examination, and there is no limit on the submission of written evidence.
That brings me to amendment 90. We intend supplementary plans to replace supplementary planning documents, and, once they have successfully passed through consultation and independent examination, to be afforded the same weight as a local plan and other parts of the development plan. We are committed to a fair examination process, which is why we have based it on the arrangements for neighbourhood development plans.
The Bill sets out that, as a general rule, the independent examination of a supplementary plan is to take the form of written representations. That is expected to be more appropriate to their role in setting more specific policies for smaller areas than the local plan. The examiner must, however, hold a hearing if they think that is necessary by virtue of the issues raised or to ensure fairness. We expect there to be a need for guidance to support the independent examination of supplementary plans in general. We have been clear that we will work closely with the sector to refine our implementation plans, and we will be keen to hear views on whether further clarification on the matter of public hearings is necessary.
We have also committed to producing new guidance on community engagement in planning, which will describe the different ways in which communities can get involved and will highlight best practice. The guidance will cover supplementary plans. Given that the processes for both joint spatial development strategies and supplementary plans build on proven existing processes that have been designed to reflect their intended role, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
Matthew Pennycook
As the Minister would expect, I am disappointed by his response. He said that improving community engagement was an objective of the Bill. I do not see how he can reconcile that with the decision to deny the right to be heard when it comes to the two new documents, which have the same legal status as a development plan in decision making, and, as I have argued, will constrain the local plan in many cases because they will effectively filter what local residents can have a say on in that local plan by already setting out the parameters in, for example, a joint spatial development strategy.
I am not minded to push these amendments to a vote at the moment, but we will come back to the issue. I just say to the Minister that anyone watching our proceedings who is interested in planning from a local perspective will see a pattern here of the Government constraining the ability of residents and community groups to engage, and—this is the most damaging aspect—further undermining trust and confidence in a system where trust and confidence are already at rock bottom. I urge him to reconsider over the summer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 122, in schedule 7, page 234, line 27, at end insert—
“(j) the timescale for the deliberative democracy process as set out in section [Deliberative democracy: local planning].”
This amendment along with Amendments 124 and 125 and NC42 will introduce a deliberative democracy process to the local plan timetable.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 124, in schedule 7, page 238, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) Prior to establishing a local plan, the local authority must carry out a deliberative democracy process as set out in section [Deliberative democracy: local planning].”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 122.
Amendment 125, in schedule 7, page 239, line 14, at end insert—
“(ha) the deliberative democracy process as set out in section [Deliberative democracy: local planning].”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 122.
New clause 42—Deliberative democracy: local planning—
“(1) Before the preparation of any development or outline plan the local planning authority must undertake a process of deliberative democracy which involving the community to set—
(a) the balance of economic, environmental, infrastructure and special plans,
(b) the type of housing to be delivered,
(c) the infrastructure that is required to be hosted,
(d) the type of economic space, and
(e) environmental considerations, including making sites sustainable.
(2) A process of deliberative democracy under this section must—
(a) invite all residents of the local authority area to apply to be a representative in the deliberative democracy process,
(b) include measures to try to ensure that there will be a diverse representation of that community in the process, and
(c) provide for a forum of representatives that—
(i) will determine its terms of terms of reference, number of meetings and agenda at its first meeting, and
(ii) will produce a report from the deliberative democracy process.
(3) A report under subsection (2)(c)(ii) may determine the scope of development on a site.”
This new clause would introduce a deliberative democracy forum comprised of members of the public prior to the formation of a new development plan or outline plan.
Rachael Maskell
We have started the conversation and we need to take it to the next level, to strengthen the voice and agency of people in our communities—not just residents but all stakeholders, including businesses, community groups and people working in our public services.
We know from the pilots run by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that deliberative democracy is a way of addressing challenging issues with a broad spectrum of the community and drawing out conclusions. The outcomes are more robust, consensus can be built, and challenging proposals can be brought into a place of understanding. People from all parts of the community engage, so we get true agency from different people in it. We want a modern and effective form of democratic engagement. We want to ensure that the planning process is not only robust and refreshing, but will resolve significant issues. That can be brought about by deliberative democracy.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling this group of amendments, which raise an incredibly important issue that the Bill is silent on.
Debates about whether and how to formalise arrangements for deliberative democracy within the planning system have occupied those engaged in planning policy and practice for some time. I do not intend to try to do justice to those debates or to set out the case for considering amending the Bill to introduce a deliberative democracy process within the local plan timetable—my hon. Friend has admirably made the case for the benefits that deliberative democracy can bring.
All I will say is that we support this group of amendments because we think it is right that we look to do more to encourage public participation in the planning process beyond the existing right to be heard that applies to the examination of a local development plan, if not to the new spatial development strategies and supplementary plans that this schedule gives effect to.
Tim Farron
The hon. Member for York Central will forgive me if I do not get into the internal politics of York city, but all the same I think her proposals have real merit.
It seems that the housing market—in York, in the lakes and dales, elsewhere in Cumbria and in other parts of the country as well—has got into such a ludicrous situation that our planning law is just not able to keep up with it or to provide local communities with any kind of protection or agency when it comes to challenging that spiralling, out-of-control housing market.
Fairness in the planning system is essential. It is utterly frustrating—in fact, it is absolutely heartbreaking, as the hon. Member said—when communities see the desperate need for affordable homes for families who either are local or who will become local and for those working in social care, hospitality and tourism, schools and every other part of our economy, but the planning system permits us to build for demand and not for need. Communities must have that power and that agency.
Structured fairness in the planning system is essential, but it will require resourcing because the better planning decisions are those made with the community fully involved and with the planners getting out of their offices and meeting developers and communities semi-formally on site long before a proposal has been put in, so that we end up with a proposal that is, effectively, agreed on almost in advance.
When communities feel they are having things done to them, and when whole neighbourhoods are evicted and expelled through section 21 evictions, which the Government are yet to do anything about, those communities are bound to be desperate to have control and agency, to make sure that we make the best use of the resources and powers we have. What a slap in the face it would be for communities if we went down the deliberative route and then found at the end that communities do not have any power to enforce 100% affordability on any development or the permanent occupancy of houses that are developed.
We need to give communities that proper engagement and involvement, and we need there need to be enough planners, with enough resources, so that they can get out of the office and help to communicate with the community and indeed with developers in a consensual and pragmatic way. However, if we do not have the powers and the control at local planning level, we will find people who have been consulted but who still feel completely and utterly powerless.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for tabling the amendments and the new clause, because they provide us with an opportunity to talk about community engagement.
The English planning system already gives communities a key role, so that they can take an active part in shaping their areas and, in doing so, build local pride and a sense of belonging. We are strengthening that role through the Bill. Communities must be consulted on local plans and on individual planning applications. However, we know that current levels of engagement do not match our ambition of community involvement. That is why, through the Bill, we will increase opportunities for the community to get involved in planning for its area, to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for local people.
The Bill reforms the process for producing local plans so that it is simpler, faster and easier for communities to engage with, and a number of measures in the Bill will create wholly new opportunities to engage. Neighbourhood priority statements will make it easier and quicker for local communities to determine priorities for their area, which will need to be taken into account in preparing local plans. Mandatory design codes will ensure that communities are directly involved in making rules on how they want developments to look and feel. Finally, street votes will provide a new way for residents to permit the additional development they want on their streets.
We intend to set out in regulations the minimum consultation periods on local plans, of eight and six weeks respectively, before a plan can be submitted for independent examination, which is longer than the current statutory requirements.
Rachael Maskell
I will respond more fully shortly, but I just wonder whether the Minister could set out the timescale for the guidance.
Mr Jones
I will come back to the hon. Member with the exact timescale on the guidance. We expect it to work in conjunction with the measures in the Bill. As we have discussed, we are keen to see more community engagement. The guidance may well recommend that some of the approaches set out in the amendment are the right things to do. However, it is critical that we ensure that authorities have the flexibility to respond to the needs of their area, and the amendment would impose a top-down structure that might suit some areas but not others. In the light of that and the steps that, as I have set out, we are already taking within and beyond the Bill, I hope the hon. Member will be minded to withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the debate we have just had. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his comments, which highlighted the importance that Labour places on community engagement and agency in the planning process.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made the point for me, when he said that he did not want to engage with the politics. This process should not be about the politics. That is the challenge: this should be about addressing the need that is clearly there in many of our communities. Where we have significant demand and need, we should be able to address that. Ensuring that the resourcing is there is, of course, a challenge for all local authorities at the moment, and we need to ensure that planning gets the injection of resourcing that it needs. We are also losing skills, so we need to ensure that we get them coming through for the future.
I thank the Minister for the consideration he has given to my amendments and new clause. He set out the things that he will bring forward through the planning system, but I still believe we are on the old track, as opposed to looking at new opportunities, so I will look at this guidance with great interest when it is published.
Quickening the process and improving some of the consultation times is of course welcome, but I am talking about a period of 76 years and trying something different after that amount of time. There is still real conflict and pain in York over what is happening with the planning system. We absolutely want to come to a good decision in the future, looking at new opportunities, particularly after all the work that DCMS did. The pilots were successful and did bring people together. It is delightful to hear about the work Steve Rotheram has been doing in Liverpool. He is really putting young people at the heart of his agenda and ensuring that people from the most deprived communities have real agency and voice. I would expect nothing less of the Metro Mayor in Liverpool, because I know his passion for that great city.
However, there needs to be more from the Minister. There needs to be more in our planning system. There needs to be opportunity and a voice for the people we represent. The Minister said it in his own words: the levels of engagement are still so low. We are engaging in digital and we see the opportunities there, but we also see the barriers to digital. The Minister spoke about QR codes in Watford and 3D models, which are great— they help people like myself, who are more visual, to be able to identify things. I understand all of that. However, it is ultimately about the voice, knowledge and emotion, which we do not often see in planning. That is what actually makes the difference. That is what people bring. We need people to be able to determine and shape their future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, we need to have those reports heard, engaged with and included in the planning system.
Although I will not press my amendments and new clause today, it is my intention to bring this issue back on Report. If the Minister were willing to meet me in the interim to talk about some of the challenges we have and some of the opportunities we want to build for my city of York, I would be happy to do that.
Rachael Maskell
I will close now, and I thank the Minister for that offer. I very much hope he will still be in his position—I appreciate that other events might take over. We may have a 24-hour period in September when we are able to meet. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 123, in schedule 7, page 238, line 6, at insert—
“(4A) A local plan may provide that the local planning authority may review and change any outline planning permissions in place prior to the establishment of a local plan, including on sites where work has already commenced, to bring those permissions in line with requirements set out in the plan.”
This amendment will allow Local Planning Authorities to require Outline Planning Applications to be adjusted where they conflict with Local Plans.
In my own mind, I have dubbed this the York Central amendment. I am sorry that I am going to talk about a real case study again. It highlights how planning that has been wrongly advanced due to the wrong motivations can be changed. If planning is going to be ruinous for an area, there must be an opportunity for proposals to be reworked.
Stakeholders across my city very much want Government to be able to assist in this matter. There are a number of developments that I can name in York that have been a complete disaster, and the features are all the same. Examples include the proposals for the old gas works, Hungate and the old Terry’s site. Developers extract what they can for what they want, and do not provide what people need in my city.
York Central is the largest brownfield development site in the country. It is vast. The development is threatening to take premium, valuable economic space next to the station, and it will choke off future economic opportunities —not only for the city of York and North Yorkshire, but for the gateway to the north.
The site is estimated to provide just 6,500 jobs. If we compare this to the Curzon Street, Toton or Crewe developments, those involved have understood the value of sites adjacent to stations of major connectivity. They have understood the opportunity to invest in the jobs that will provide people in my city with a good income in the future. We are a very low-wage economy in York because of the hospitality and tourism sectors. Not only do we want to level up York, but the north too.
I am so excited by the potential of the site, and yet the disaster of placing high-density housing for the super-rich in my low-income city is choking off the opportunity for York to level up or for the Treasury ever to reap its return. With the pace of capital receipt, 2,500 properties, mainly flats, are going to be built on the site. People in York want a home and garden, and 80% of the need is for family housing. However, luxury apartments across the city are going to be for investment, not residential purposes. My residents cannot afford to buy those places. York Central will be far worse, as the land value is higher. Just yesterday, a colleague in this place told me how their acquaintance had purchased seven of these luxury apartments and is turning them into Airbnbs. Is this really what development is meant to be all about?
This is what is really happening, and the Government need to get on top of it. Instead of the site being economically valuable and bringing investment in good jobs for the people of York, it will let property investors extract what they can out of our city. Empty units such as the ones we are seeing across our city, as well as second homes and Airbnbs, are not helping a single resident of York. Worse, they are heating up York’s housing market, so that it moves further away from my constituents’ dream. House prices are going up, and rent is going up. We have the extraction of housing, wealth and hope. It is a disaster. There are no additional homes in my community, and space is being taken up. High-value jobs will be lost for generations. Instead of my community being levelled up, it is spiralling down into even deeper debt and despair. I say to the Minister, this case study shows what is really happening right now.
We have to be able to work through things if they are wrong and if wrong decisions have been made, even if those decisions were made for political expediency, which they were. It is catastrophic. Even Homes England has said that York Central will become an Airbnb city, yet the Government have ploughed millions of pounds of taxpayer’s money into this site. I am not going to talk again about the transport challenges the site will bring as it gridlocks the city and turns it into a car park.
There must be a mechanism to stop disastrous developments. When mistakes have been made, we cannot just keep going on the treadmill, saying that the next stage is coming, when all it will do is cause more harm. This development could be stopped now, and the Minister should stop it—my amendment would give him that power. If he tells me that he already has those powers, then I earnestly ask why he has not used them. My city and my whole community want to know. Between us, we could fix this. This development could become a badge of pride, not just for my city but for the nation. York Central is a nightmare. I want it to turn into people’s dreams. We need to ensure that where poor planning decisions have been made, it is never too late to see change.
Tim Farron
The amendment is very helpful. I mentioned last week a decision taken recently by the Yorkshire Dales national park authority to ensure that 100% of all new developments will be for permanent occupancy. Although I would like to be wrong, I am pretty sure that it will not be able to enforce that condition. The amendment suggests how the Government might allow planning authorities, be they national parks or local councils, to have that kind of power.
In a community like mine if we build it, they will come. There is no problem meeting demand. If we build a three, four or five-bedroom property anywhere in the lakes, the dales or elsewhere in Cumbria, there will be a person who will pay top dollar for it. It will probably not even be their first home. Meeting demand will always be an answer that developers put forward; the properties will not stand empty—or at least they will not stand unowned. However, we have a planning regime that does not allow communities the agency and control to ensure that we build not for demand but for need.
One of the many blessings of having two national parks in a constituency is that we can compare them and try to encourage one to learn from the other. The Lake district does a great job, but the Yorkshire Dales national park authority has been far-sighted in saying, “These are the houses we need in our community. We don’t need more half-a-million, three-quarters-of-a-million or million-pound barn conversions. We need affordable homes for local families—or for those who will become local families.”
We are welcoming to offcomers from anywhere if they put down roots and contribute to our community. If the local plan could overrule outline planning permission, so that we can ensure that we deliver the homes, properties and business developments that we actually need rather than those that happen to have a place in the market, that would be a real power for communities like mine. I encourage the Minister to take the amendment seriously.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for the amendment. I thought she was almost tempting me to work with her during part of her speech. I could not quite understand why she seems to want me gone so quickly from this role.
It is good to have the opportunity to debate the amendment, which seeks to allow local plans to amend the details of existing outlined planning permissions so that they are in accordance with the local plan adopted after the grant of those permissions. Our planning reforms seek to ensure that local plans have a greater influence over individual planning decisions to ensure that development reflects what local communities want. In particular, our new decision-making framework under clause 82, which the Committee has debated, will lead to a more plan-led system, providing greater certainty to all.
I must say to the hon. Member for York Central that I cannot accept the amendment. To enable local plans to alter existing outline planning permissions, even when development has already started, runs counter to the long-standing position that the grant for planning permission is a development right. That right provides the certainty that developers need to raise finance and implement the permission. Allowing local plans to effectively rewrite permissions, even when they had already started, would create unnecessary uncertainty, and could see developers, especially small and medium-sized builders, faced with significant wasted costs and delays at a time when we need to support them.
Local planning authorities already have channels to revoke or modify existing planning permissions under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Importantly, those powers cannot affect works previously carried out and require the local planning authority—this is an important point—to pay compensation in respect of expenditure, loss or damage, so their use should be considered only as a last resort.
Furthermore, as developers often seek in practice to amend outline planning permissions, local planning authorities already have the opportunity to take account of new local plan policies when considering section 73 applications to vary planning conditions. That will also be the case under our new route to make minor variations to planning permissions, as set out in clause 98. For those reasons, I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for York Central that we will not be able to accept the amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the opportunity to set out why the amendment is so important. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for highlighting the actions taken in national parks.
The amendment is important because sometimes decisions are wrong. If, as is the case in York Central, the spade has not gone in the ground yet, it seems ludicrous to continue with something that will be ruinous to our city and will lead to 2,000 Airbnbs suddenly landing in it. That is not our tradition, it will not help anyone and it will ruin a beautiful city that should be a world heritage site. We are deeply concerned and disturbed by what is being done by developers that have control over our city. I am deeply worried about what is happening, and we need to find a way through it. There will be constant conflict as more and more people become disengaged and disenfranchised in York. The anger will build in our communities, but the Government have the opportunity to do something.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady has returned to the subject of local plans in her area many times during our deliberations over the past couple of days, but do not elected councillors in any area—I am not talking about York—have the responsibility to sort themselves out, get things together and create a local plan in consultation with local people that stops the type of situation she describes?
Rachael Maskell
If the Minister could have a word with his party’s councillors in York, that might help to move things forward.
Mr Jones
Clearly, I am not completely au fait with the political situation in the hon. Lady’s city, but my perception from having looked at it quickly is that the Conservatives have not controlled the council since 1980. There have been several short periods over the years in which the Conservatives have had the leader in a minority administration, but it seems squarely down to the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens over a number of years—particularly the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.
Rachael Maskell
We are not here to talk about politics—well, maybe we are. Before the last election it was a Conservative-led administration with the Lib Dems’ support. The Minister is right that the Lib Dems and the Greens are in charge of the administration. Labour has not had control for a significant time, although there are elections next year, so we will see.
The key point is that when there is poor planning, as there is for the site I am thinking of, and we are in a deadlock situation that will be ruinous for the future of the community, we need a resolution and tools that can be deployed to find a solution. As I have described, the site is not providing the housing that our city needs. It will block off the economic opportunity for something that is so valuable for the levelling-up agenda not just for York and North Yorkshire but for the north. We need to find some solutions and stop the exploitation of land on that site.
I thank the Minister for his comments. I will not press this amendment to a vote, but I will consider how we will come back to the issue because it is important that we get it right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 99, in schedule 7, page 238, leave out lines 16 and 17.
This amendment removes the requirement in inserted section 15C(7)(b) that a local development plan must be consistent with national policies at the development plan formulation stage.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 100, in schedule 7, page 239, line 19, at end insert—
“(but may not require a local plan to be consistent with any national demand management policy)”
This amendment would provide that regulations made under inserted section 15C could not require local plans to conform with national policies.
Matthew Pennycook
The amendments relate to a matter that we have already considered at length. As such, I do not intend to detain the Committee for long in speaking to them. Their purpose is simply to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that there are two aspects of the issues that we debated in relation to clause 83, which concerned the Government’s intention to accord primacy to national planning policy in the form of NDMPs and, as a result, to provide for a large measure of central control over local development plans.
In stating that any conflict between local development plans and national development management policies should be resolved in favour of the latter, clause 83 relates specifically to the point in time at which any planning application is determined. Proposed new subsection (5A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes it clear that proposed new subsections (5B) and (5C) are
“for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts”.
They therefore do not relate to the point at which the local development plan is put together.
In schedule 7, proposed new sections 15C and 15CA of the PCPA 2004 specify that local plans must be formulated in accordance with national development management policies. That matters, because even if we had been successful in convincing the Minister to leave out proposed new subsection (5C) in section 38 of the PCPA, proposed new sections 15C and 15CA would constrain the resulting local flexibility that we would have secured at the point that a planning application is determined, because they provide for a large measure of central control over what can be in a local or neighbourhood plan in the first place.
Amendments 99 and 100 seek to address the issue by removing the provisions in proposed new sections 15C and 15CA of the PCPA that local plans should be consistent with NDMPs. In the same way that amendment 86 to clause 83 sought to give precedence to local plans when a planning application is determined, the amendments seek to ensure that local and neighbourhood plans can have a degree of flexibility within a nationally set planning policy framework at the point that they are developed, rather than the content of local and neighbourhood plans being dictated in large part by central Government.
I know the response that the Minister will give me but I again urge him to reconsider according national planning policy in the form of NDMPs precedence over local development plans—in this instance, in relation to the point in time at which local plans are developed, rather than when planning applications are determined.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment to the plan preparation provisions in schedule 7 that prevent inconsistency with national development management policies. I feel this is almost like groundhog day on this particular point.
National development management policies would sit alongside those in local plans when certain planning decisions are made, and have clear statutory weight. National development management policies will primarily be nationally important policies used for making decisions, such as green belt protection. At present, local plans take too much time to produce and are too long, and they are often hard to digest. Notably, there can be a lot of overlap with policies in the national planning policy framework of common importance, such as flood protection and the green belt, where the protections are rightly uniform throughout the country.
A critical objective of our proposed changes to the planning system is to reduce the time it takes for local plans to be produced. Reducing the need to repeat common policies on nationally important matters in local plans removes an unnecessary burden on local authorities while underpinning key national policy protections with statutory weight such as policies for controlling development in the green belt, which I have mentioned several times.
Preventing plans from being inconsistent with national development management policies will also allow local plans to focus on the issues that matter to local communities, which will be enabled to focus on crafting local policies that are tailored to local circumstances. We have heard about one set of local circumstances at some length; clearly we want to make sure that local people and their representatives can craft local polices that are tailored to local circumstances.
Matthew Pennycook
As I said, I expected that answer. The Minister said our exchanges feel somewhat like groundhog day; it will start to feel like that, because we will return to this issue. We all know how the film “Groundhog Day” ends: when the main character, Phil Connors, reforms his ways. I hope the Minister can find it in his heart to change and to shift on this issue. I will not press the amendment to a vote but we will return to this issue, at the root of which is the status and scope of local plans, on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 126, in schedule 7, page 239, line 14, at end insert—
“(ha) Environmental Outcomes Reports,”.
This amendment would require local planning authority to have regard to Environmental Outcomes Reports in preparing a local plan.
I will be brief because we are going to say more about this issue when we deal with the environmental outcomes reports later in the Bill. If the amendment is not made, too little consideration will be given to the assessment of environmental impact. Nothing can be more important than to look at what is happening with the climate challenge. On Monday, many of us had the privilege to listen to top scientists talk about the climate risk and sketch out the profoundly troubling outcomes. We have struggled to get through this week because of the heat and people we know in our neighbourhoods are dying because of it.
We have to ensure that all outcomes seriously consider how we mitigate the climate catastrophe that we are living through. The planning process has a central role to play in that, whether in respect of transport, home heating, housing design or the industrial impacts that are having a great effect. As we all know, the current situation is not sustainable, and the Government have to focus on that at every turn. We have flooding and droughts side by side. I have tabled amendments for further discussion later in the Bill. Clause 116(2) sets out why this amendment is so important and why we must protect and restore our natural environment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the amendment which, as she has set out, seeks to ensure that the Bill makes it clear that local planning authorities should have regard to environmental outcomes reports in preparing their local plans. We support any practical revisions to the Bill that are aimed at strengthening and enhancing the delivery of environmental outcomes. If the Government will not accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, I hope to hear from the Minister not only a convincing argument as to why but an explanation of how the Government believe the new EOR regime that is set out part 5 will interact with the preparation of local plans.
Mr Jones
The Government are clear that environmental outcomes reports will form part of the consideration of whether a local plan is adopted. The Bill already includes provisions in clauses 118 and 117 to define which plans will require assessment and how such plans should be taken into account. Although the list of plans that require assessment will be set out in secondary legislation, our commitment to the non-regression of environmental protection makes it clear that the relevant local planning authorities will need to produce an environmental outcomes report as part of their local plan adoption process. The reports will ensure that environmental outcomes are taken into account during the preparation and adoption of local plans.
The regulations will set out which projects and plans will require the preparation of an environmental outcomes report. The exact list of projects and plans that will require assessment will be worked out through consultation with the sector and relevant stakeholders. That will ensure that we can capture and use expert feedback in the design of the system.
In writing the regulations, we will be constrained by our commitment to non-regression on environmental protections. In line with that commitment, local plans will require environmental assessment, as they do in the existing system. Setting out the exact list in regulations, rather than in primary legislation, will allow flexibility, which is key, given the type of changes we see. Flexibility will mean that we can take into account new situations and the emergence of new technologies or development types. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his comments, and for his pertinent questions to the Minister. This issue is central not just to planning, but to the future of our planet. The climate crisis is at a point where non-regression is not enough. I appreciate that the Minister is new in his role, but I very much hope that he is brought up to speed quickly. Our climate is changing with such rapidity that we will have to do much more than not regress if the next generation, let alone future generations, are to have a place on this planet.
This is a deeply troubling time, and I am glad to hear that the EORs will have a role in local planning, but that role and the relationship need to be strengthened. I very much hope that the Minister and his officials can find ways to achieve that, and to do much more. We simply do not have time to do only what the Minister said. We will certainly return to the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 127, in schedule 7, page 241, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) To have effect a supplementary plan must be agreed within 5 years of the commencement of preparation of the local plan to which it relates.”.
This amendment requires supplementary plans under inserted section 15CC to be agreed within 5 years of the commencement of the local plan process.
I will try not to dominate the afternoon’s proceedings, but I have tabled a number of amendments. This amendment is similar to a previous one. It seeks to ensure that supplementary plans are agreed within five years, so that we have the up-to-date data that is necessary for shaping local plans. The theory is obvious: something as important as a local plan needs to be built on rock-solid, up-to-date evidence and data. I am staggered that the planning process does not necessarily embrace that theory.
For example, on Tuesday, I referred to transport planning in York, and detailed how data from 13 years ago was determining how our local plan should be developed for the future. I have raised that point with the inspectors in York again this week. We cannot depend on something so out of date. Data must be up to date, whether it is mineral and waste plans, reports from the Environment Agency, local transport plans or any number of other reports.
We have just had a census, which has set out the demographic changes in our constituencies. We need to draw on up-to-date data to understand the rhythm of what is happening in planning and in our communities, and to ensure that they are in sync. The first stage of that is supplementary plans, on which local plans are built. They need to be secure and timely.
The amendment would ensure that, within existing constraints, supplementary plans remain relevant and up to date. In York, they simply are not, and I am sure that is the case in many other places, too. When local plans are put together, the opportunity should be taken to bring in wider considerations. For instance, right now, we need another hospital in York, but there is no facility to even think about how we can sequence that into the planning system. These things do not happen immediately; we need to plan in a timely way for the future. We must not lock out opportunities as we create green belts and everything else, important though they are. We must think our way through this. We should think about the structure of supplementary plans, ensure the data is up to date, and ensure their relevance. That should feed into the local planning process, and strengthen local plans and the planning process. My amendment 127 seeks to achieve that.
Tim Farron
This is one of many really helpful amendments being put forward today. I hope the Minister will seriously consider it.
In communities such as mine, there is a housing catastrophe—“crisis” is not an adequate word for it. There is a huge change in the demographic, as well as in the nature and the usage of the housing stock; I am sure that the situation is similar in your constituency, Mrs Murray. The nature of rural and holiday-destination communities has put us in a desperate state, so there is a need for urgent action.
One of the reasons why I am delighted to be a member of this Bill Committee is that it gives us the opportunity to talk about policies that could lead to urgent change. We do not have the time to be deliberative, and to take forever over all this; the crisis is happening now. The horses are leaving the stables at a canter. We need to shut the stable door at the very least, and then put some more horses in, if hon. Members do not mind me flogging a dead horse of a metaphor.
We need to think about this very seriously because so much has changed in the last few years. The timeliness of local plans is critical. We would make poor decisions if we used demographics on housing tenure and demand from 10 years ago; actually, we would probably make poor decisions if we made them on the basis of the way things were three years ago.
The recent census results show that in my community, there has been a 30% rise in the proportion of people who are retired—brilliant! But there is a drop in the number of people in the working-age population. It is therefore unsurprising that we face an absolute care crisis. We cannot find staff to provide support for people in their older age, or at other points in their life when they need care or support. Likewise, there would be 60,000 people working in the hospitality and tourism industry, which is utterly fundamental and the biggest employer in Cumbria, if we could fill the vacancies.
There has been a clear and very quick change in the nature of our demographic, with whole clearances of the working-age population. Long-term rentals are collapsing, and at least 50% of those properties are moving into the short-term Airbnb sector. We need to ensure that plans for development in our communities are based on live, current data. That is essential, so I hope the Minister will take this amendment seriously.
Mr Jones
In the new planning system, supplementary plans will replace supplementary planning documents. Once they have successfully passed through consultation and independent examination, they will be afforded the same weight as a local plan under the parts of the development plan.
Supplementary plans will provide local planning authorities with the flexibility to make policies for specific sites, or groups of sites, quickly. That could help to address urgent site-specific matters, for example in response to a new regeneration opportunity that had not been identified through the local plan, or to set out design policies outside the normal local plan process. We envisage a connection between local and supplementary plans in some cases—for example, where a local plan allocates a site-specific plan, and the supplementary plan sets out a design code for that site.
However, imposing an arbitrary tie between local and supplementary plans, as proposed by this amendment, could fetter the ability of authorities to use supplementary plans to respond positively to changes in their area at pace in the way that was intended. We have made clear our intention to bring forward in regulations a requirement for all local plans to be updated at least every five years. It is therefore not necessary to require supplementary plans to be made within five years of a local plan being adopted.
Rachael Maskell
I am conscious that some local transport plans date back 10 years. The local plan process may move forward at a different pace from supplementary plans. That is why I think that the Minister’s point strengthens the argument for the amendment.
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but this plan is there to provide local planning authorities with the flexibility to bring forward policies for sites or groups of sites quickly. That is different from the example that she gave. Again, requiring supplementary plans to be made every five years after a local plan is adopted is not necessary. I hope that my assurances will enable the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful once again for the opportunity to debate this issue, and to hear the Minister’s arguments. A theme is starting to emerge: the question of how to do planning in a timely way. We all recognise that: the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale set out clearly how rapidly our communities can change—demographic, housing and transport changes. We want to ensure that we keep up with that. As we become more digitised, technology can, in many respects, ensure that we stay current in setting local plans. That is another theme running through the Bill, which I would like to consider as it progresses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 139, in schedule 7, page 250, line 15, at end insert—
“(8) For a period of 6 months following a local election, a local planning authority may review a local plan that has already been adopted and submit a proposal to an examiner to change or adjust their plan.”
This amendment would allow newly elected Councils to amend local plans following an election.
Briefly, I understand that the whole point of a local plan is to create stability, and to ensure, based on evidence, that a plan delivers for a community. However, a plan adopted by a previous administration could strangulate an incoming administration, and prevent it from delivering economic or housing opportunities for their community. Their hands could be tied for the whole period of the administration.
A local plan should not be discarded. As I have said before, we should start thinking about planning as being about evolution rather than revolution; plans should be updated and should move forward rapidly. A new administration, whether in Government or local government, want to make a difference for their community, and to demonstrate that they can respond to need. We have talked so much—and will do so again—about the rise of Airbnbs and the many new and growing challenges. We need a rapid change in direction.
I want to give new authorities, of whatever colour, the opportunity to consider new structures and mechanisms for delivering for communities. Being able to look at a local plan at that moment could be a powerful intervention.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the amendment, because it probes the Government on an intriguing, if not uncontroversial, issue of whether a formal mechanism should be put in place to ensure that local plans can be revised in line with the local electoral cycle. She made the case that that would give us the flexibility to adjust to new political priorities. Also, one of the potential benefits of allowing for a six-month review period following a local election would be that political parties in a given local authority area would at least have an incentive to raise the issue of the local development plan as part of the democratic process, thereby raising public awareness of and engagement with it.
Given the steps being taken to ensure that every local plan is reviewed at least once every five years—the Minister spoke to that—the electoral cycle as a period of time is not too out of alignment with the time period we are talking about for the review. On that basis, I welcome the amendment as a way of probing the Government on the issue, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the case that my hon. Friend made.
Mr Jones
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Government’s proposals to get more up-to-date local plans in place. Paragraph 15GA in schedule 7 already enables a local planning authority to revise its plan at any time once it has come into force, irrespective of whether the authority has recently changed political control. My concern, however, is that by explicitly making a link between local elections and planning, the amendment risks turning a local plan into a political football. The hon. Member for York Central has told us all about what she thinks was a political football situation in her area.
For authorities that have elections in thirds, rewriting plans on the basis of election results could lead to updates three times every four years. That could lead to a constant change of direction. It would leave communities and other interested parties in a permanent state of uncertainty about what development should take place and where. Our reforms will provide welcome predictability in the local plan-making process; there will be a requirement for plans to be prepared within 30 months, and updated every five years. We think that is the right balance. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurances for the hon. Member for York Central, and that she will withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. We have heard from both sides about the positives of more engagement with local planning, but also about the politicisation of local planning. Ultimately, we want something that is robust, flexible and fit for purpose. I thank the Minister for pointing out that in schedule 7, paragraph 15GA, local authorities have flexibility of review. I am therefore happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 140, in schedule 7, page 252, line 24, at end insert—
“(c) consult with relevant stakeholders, including residents, via a deliberative process.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local stakeholders on the local plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 141, in schedule 7, page 262, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) A neighbourhood priorities statement must be prepared with the input of local stakeholders and community groups.”
This amendment would ensure that community groups and stakeholders are involved with the development of a neighbourhood priorities statement.
Rachael Maskell
I have gone into detail on why the Government should consider deliberative democracy. I will not repeat myself, but there is a real opportunity to enable deadlocks to be broken and to move forward with a process of engagement, so that we have a strong voice in setting neighbourhood priorities and can strengthen community voices in the planning process. I will say no more on that now, but I will return to the subject on Report. I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue again.
Matthew Pennycook
Briefly, I have made it clear on previous occasions that we support any measures in the Bill that increase local democratic control over engagement with the planning process, principally as a means of restoring trust and confidence in the planning system. Although the Bill requires a body preparing a neighbourhood priority statement to publish the proposal in draft so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood to which it relates can comment on it, I appreciate that the thrust of the amendments is to ensure that a degree of proactive consultation takes place at the point when the proposal is being put together, rather than providing the opportunity to comment on it once it is finalised. On that basis, we are happy to support the amendments, which would ensure that local stakeholders and community groups were treated as statutory consultees in the preparation of those statements.
Mr Jones
It is of course vital that communities are given every opportunity to have their say on draft local plans and supplementary plans. The English planning system already gives communities a key role, so that they can play an active part in shaping their areas and, in doing so, build local pride and belonging. In the Bill, we are not changing that; in fact, we are strengthening it. I have set out elsewhere how that will be achieved.
The powers we are discussing have been used only sparingly in the past. That is expected to remain the case under the reformed plan-making system. However, they act as an important safety net to ensure that all areas can benefit from having up-to-date plans in place. I provide reassurance that were the Secretary of State or a local plan commissioner ever to take over plan preparation using the powers in the Bill, the plan would need to undergo public consultation, like any other plan. Like other procedural requirements, that will continue to be set out in secondary legislation, akin to the existing Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, using powers set out elsewhere in the Bill. Incorporating the amendment into proposed new section 15HA is therefore unnecessary.
The hon. Member for York Central raises the important issue of engagement with the community on the preparation of neighbourhood priority statements. I hope that I can reassure her that the amendment is not necessary. The purpose of neighbourhood priority statements is to provide communities with a simpler and more accessible way to set out their priorities and preferences for the local area, including in relation to the use and development of land, housing, the economy, the environment, public spaces and local facilities.
Proposed new section 15K(6) under the schedule gives the Secretary of State powers to set out in regulations the procedures that neighbourhood planning groups must follow when preparing their neighbourhood priority statements. The Government’s intention is to use the power to set out the requirements that neighbourhood planning groups must meet in order to ensure that they engage widely. We are testing different approaches to community engagement through our simpler approach to neighbourhood planning pilot, which got under way earlier in the year.
I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurances for the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I think that we have to part ways on the issue of the planning process. I am not satisfied that it gives residents their rightful voice. I will not press the Committee to a Division, but giving our communities the opportunity to have a real say will be a major theme on Report. The Government are taking away their voices, but we want to empower them. After all, when people said, “Give us back control”, it was these very issues—their lives, communities and neighbourhoods—that people wanted control over. The Government have not heard that message, whereas we clearly want to respond. Even though my amendment would have enabled us to address why plans run into difficulty and fail to progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 7, page 262, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) A local planning authority must have regard to the content of any relevant neighbourhood priorities statement in the exercise of its planning functions.”
As we have just discussed, proposed new section 15K introduces a new neighbourhood planning tool, the neighbourhood priorities statement. According to the Bill’s explanatory notes, these statements will allow communities to identify key priorities for their local area, including their preferences in relation to development, with the intention of providing a simpler and more accessible way for communities to participate in neighbourhood planning.
The provision is clearly a response to the fact that the vast majority of the 1,061 neighbourhood plans made to date have emanated from more affluent parts of the country, where people have the time and the resources to prepare and implement them, rather than from less affluent areas and more complex urban environments. We very much welcome the fact that the Government are engaging with this real problem.
Tim Farron
This is a wise amendment and I hope that the Minister will take it seriously. I mentioned earlier the fact that fewer than 1% of the county’s population engaged with a consultation on local government reorganisation in Cumbria. The fact that they were ignored probably explains why people do not engage so much: never have we been more consulted as a society, and never have we been less listened to.
It is important to flesh out the status of neighbourhood priority statements. When people make representations on the future of their communities, we need to know whether they hold any status whatsoever. For example, a parish might identify a specific need for supported living for younger people with learning disabilities or for older people. There may be a specific need, as is the case in many parishes in my constituency, for on-farm agricultural dwellings for farmers to retire to or for agricultural labourers to live in while working on site. Such special needs identified by district and parish absolutely should be incorporated into the planning process.
Furthermore, neighbourhood priority statements should be taken into even greater consideration in planning discussions and decisions in those areas where the planning committee is not elected. I mentioned national parks earlier. Not a single member of the national park planning boards in England and Wales is directly elected. They are good people—most of them are very good people—who do their very best, but it does not seem right that people who make decisions are not directly accountable to those affected by them. That should be addressed in other ways, but in the meantime it is important that even greater consideration is given to neighbourhood priority statements in those communities where democracy is not part of the planning process.
Mr Jones
I welcome the Opposition’s support for neighbourhood planning. However, I do not agree that the amendment is necessary to ensure that neighbourhood priorities statements are properly considered in the planning process. The amendments made by schedule 7 set out that local planning authorities must have regard to any neighbourhood priorities statements in their areas when preparing their local plans. That will be tested independently at examination, which I think is an important point. The new local plan will be informed by any neighbourhood priorities statements and, alongside any neighbourhood plans in force, will form the basis for decisions on individual planning applications and enforcement decisions.
To respond to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, the intent is not for neighbourhood priority statements to replace a community’s ability to engage and form a neighbourhood plan. However, we do not want to create another layer to the formal development plan by turning priorities statements into a form of plan. That would make the planning system more complex and go against what we are trying to achieve with our reforms.
We are clear that the planning process must be more democratic, which is why we are making it easier and simpler for communities to engage. In addition to neighbourhood priorities statements, communities will be also be able to engage through new measures, including mandatory design codes, allowing communities to be directly involved in making rules on how they want developments to look and feel, with a much greater emphasis on environmental sustainability; street votes, allowing residents to propose developments on their street and for a vote to be held on whether planning permission should be given; and measures on street names, removing a local authority’s ability to impose street name changes on a community and instead requiring it to first obtain support from a majority of the local electorate on the street.
We are clear that communities should be at the heart of the local plan-making process, which is why we intend to include a requirement for two rounds of community engagement, for a minimum of eight and six weeks respectively. That is longer than the current statutory minimum.
We will create new guidance on best practice in community engagement, including digital approaches to engagement with sector experts, to provide local authorities and developers with a toolkit to improve local engagement. We will ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to engage if they wish, supported by digital tools to make engagement easier and more accessible, bringing the current system into the 21st century. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the Minister’s response and the clarification he provided. I am largely reassured, although I am still not entirely clear on the weight that those statements will have in development management decisions on individual applications. I will, however, review what he said, so on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 101, in schedule 7, page 270, line 31, at end insert—
“(4) In this part—
‘mitigation of climate change’ means compliance with the objectives and relevant budgetary provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008;
‘adaptation to climate change’ means the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including the mitigation of the risks identified in relation to section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the achievement of the objectives of the relevant flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”
This amendment requires references to climate change mitigation and adaptation in the inserted sections on plan making to be interpreted in line with the Climate Change Act 2008.
The debates we have had so far in relation to planning have focused heavily on the detailed procedures for how plans are made. We have spent far less time considering the practical outcomes that we want the planning system to help achieve and its role in enabling us to meet a number of significant challenges that we face as a country. I recognise that we will have time to do so after the summer recess, when we consider any proposed new clauses on the purpose of planning. However, we feel it is important that we also seek to amend those parts of the Bill that touch on some of those challenges but that do not necessarily ensure that we are doing what is necessary to meet them.
Of all the challenges we face, the most pressing is that of runaway global heating. Despite the desire of several Conservative party leadership candidates to abandon it, there is broad public support for bold climate action, and a strong cross-party consensus about the importance of the UK’s net zero target. Yet, in its latest annual progress report, the Committee on Climate Change found that the current Government’s policies
“will not deliver Net Zero”,
that the country is on track for only eight of 50 key indicators of progress, with 11 significantly off track, and that no credible plans exist for 61% of required emissions cuts.
When it comes to planning, one can point to a few exemplar development schemes across England, but, in general terms, we have failed to ensure that the planning system is playing its full part in tackling the climate emergency. Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that it is actively hindering our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change in myriad different ways, whether that be planning decisions enabling the building of new homes in places prone to flooding or unplanned development resulting in new communities that are entirely dependent on cars. More must therefore be done to ensure that the planning system effectively contributes to the delivery of our emission reduction targets and that new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places.
The amendment seeks to achieve that aim by ensuring that the process of plan making is fully aligned with the commitments set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. It would do so by clarifying the meaning of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Bill in such a way as to tie them directly to those Acts, thereby strengthening the duty placed on plan making via a 2008 amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that ensured that all plans contribute to the mitigation and adaptation of climate change.
By ensuring that there is genuine coherence between the country’s planning system and its climate commitments, the amendment would also provide the foundation for more detailed national policy on how planning will contribute to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and mitigating climate change as fully as possible in the forthcoming NPPF review. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will be able to pick that up and provide us with an update on when we might see that issue addressed in that NPPF review.
To conclude, we all know that the planning system must be aligned with net zero if we are to achieve our legally binding interim targets. I can think of no reason whatsoever that proposed new section 15LH, set out in schedule 7, should not be amended to give effect to that objective in relation to changes made to plan making in the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Tim Farron
I, too, am deeply concerned by the noises from some of those seeking to become leader of the Conservative party, and therefore Prime Minister, on issues to do with climate change and net zero. I think that they are unwise, politically. When all is said and done, the public are convinced of the need to take serious and radical action. They recognise it as the biggest earthly threat that we face. We must face it together, or we will indeed fall together.
This is where local authorities have the opportunity to make a huge difference in the planning process. I am going to pull out two examples to illustrate why it is so important for the planning system to be tied very closely to the need to comply with the terms of the Climate Change Act 2008. The first is, of course, zero-carbon homes. When we are building new buildings, whether they be homes for us to live in or business properties, we should ensure that they are all compliant. We know that planning committees currently want to make new developments zero carbon, to ensure that they are contributing to renewable energy and minimising any wastage of energy whatsoever, and yet in the final analysis they cannot do so, because it is not enforceable. This Committee has the ability to make the law so that they could do that. Why would we not do that? Why would we not give communities the power and agency to actually enforce zero-carbon homes and buildings in our communities?
As I said earlier, at some point in August—after an eight-month delay—we expect the inspector to announce whether the UK will open its first coalmine for 30 years, in west Cumbria. We obviously should not do that. We will wait and see what the inspector says, and then we will wait and see what the Secretary of State says in response. It should be a no-brainer. If we are acting in line with the terms of the Climate Change Act, we are not going to be sanctioning the digging up of more fossil fuels for any purpose at all.
Those powers should be held by local authorities so that planning authorities can put in practice what we as a national community and family have agreed are our priorities. That power is not present. This amendment, I hope, provides the possibility that it could be.
Mr Jones
I am sure we all agree that climate change is one of the central issues of our time. It is therefore critical that the reformed planning system addresses that issue effectively. That is why the Bill sets out that local plans
“must be designed to secure that the development and use of land in”
the local planning authority areas
“contribute to the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change.”
I think we can all see from the last few days and what is likely to happen early next week that things have changed even since a few short years ago, when you and I first came into this House, Mrs Murray. Also, the national planning policy framework already requires local planning authorities to plan in line with the objective and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. But we recognise the need to do more. That is why the Government also made a commitment to update the framework to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible. I heard what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said. I have undertaken previously during this sitting to write to him about the review of the national planning policy framework, and I will include the response to the question that he has just asked.
We will also be consulting on this as part of wider changes needed to deliver on the Bill’s ambitions after Royal Assent, and we will consult shortly on some immediate changes to deliver on commitments in the British energy security strategy, to help lower energy bills and increase our energy security.
Therefore, although I understand the spirit of this amendment, the Government must oppose it to ensure that this important issue can be properly considered and addressed through a review of national policy, which will go out to consultation next year, but I will come back, with further information, to the hon. Gentleman. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that detailed response, but what I did not hear was a convincing argument as to why the Government cannot accept this amendment, which would simply alter the definitions of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Bill so that they aligned with the legislation that we have been talking about. We feel quite strongly on this matter, and I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Jones
On the basis that we have today spent significant time debating the content of schedule 7, I would like to commend schedule 7 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
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
Access to Cash in Scotland
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
We begin with a Select Committee statement. Pete Wishart will speak on the publication of the Second Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, “Access to cash in Scotland”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members, if they stand, to ask questions on the subject of the statement. I will call Pete Wishart to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief. I will begin Mr Shannon’s debate at 1.50 pm promptly. I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Ms Rees. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to make a statement on our report, “Access to cash in Scotland”, which we published on Monday. It is great to see so many colleagues from Scottish constituencies here today. [Interruption.] And of course from Northern Ireland—I cannot possibly forget the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I look forward to their questions.
We know that lack of access to cash continues to concern many of our constituents, and it impacts on some of the most marginalised and vulnerable people we represent. The Scottish Affairs Committee has taken a long-term interest in the issue: our predecessor Committee released a report in 2018. We looked at the issue in the round and made a number of recommendations. We have also taken an interest in banking infrastructure right across Scotland, publishing reports and holding sessions on that subject over the past few years.
Our inquiry took evidence from representative groups and organisations; we also invited members of the public to complete a public survey on access to cash in Scotland, noting their own experiences and views. We of course thank everyone who contributed to our investigation, as well as those who responded to our public survey.
A key recommendation of the previous report, which the Committee published in 2018, was that the Government consider legislating to ensure that communities continue to have access to vital banking services. We are therefore delighted that the Government have done just that, by including a Bill in the Queen’s Speech to ensure that happens. The financial services and markets Bill is a positive development and a constructive response to the efforts of the Committee and the many representations that have been made by colleagues from across the House. If we have any disappointment, it is that the Bill may be a bit too late because we have lost many elements of our banking infrastructure in the intervening years. We understand that the Government want to conduct a wider and all-inclusive consultation prior to publishing their Bill, but it concerns us that we have lost so many bank branches in the intervening years, and we know that banks are now considering rushing closures ahead of any legislation being passed by the House.
The picture today looks considerably different from when the previous Committee investigated access to cash. The pandemic has changed everything, and the rush to digitalisation and the increased use of digital facilities for personal and business banking have continued. The pandemic accelerated that move, but cash payments are still the second most used form of payment and account for 17% of all transactions.
Currently, 5.4 million people, or about 10% of UK adults, are reliant on cash. In Scotland, that is equivalent to around 500,000 people—half a million of our over 5 million population. In 2019, the “Access to Cash Review” found that over 8 million adults, or 17% of the UK population, would struggle to cope in a cashless society. That was reflected in the public survey I mentioned. The majority of our respondents held very negative views about the potential for the UK to become a cashless society. Some 67% of those who responded to our survey told us they thought it would be “very negative” if the UK became a cashless society.
The other thing that concerned our Committee was the sheer volume of bank closures that we have seen across the UK—specifically in Scotland, of course—over the past few years. Since 2015, Scotland has lost 53% of its bank branches; we have experienced the greatest percentage of loss out of all the UK nations. The figures for the automated teller machine or ATM network are just as bad, with 20% of Scotland’s free-to-use ATMs closing since 2018.
Obviously, the banking industry contributed to our report and inquiry. It told us that it is merely responding to falling customer demand, and that many bank branches and ATMs are no longer commercially viable. I think that all of us understand, appreciate and respect the fact that many more people have taken advantage of the useful digital services that are now available to each and every single one of us. However, we were told by Which? that the impact of bank branch and ATM closures is most severe in remote and rural areas of Scotland, due to challenges around connectivity. Often, people must travel greater distances to reach the nearest cash access point and I am pretty certain that hon. Members will want to raise that issue with me this afternoon.
Which? also told us that the covid-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in the number of retailers refusing to accept cash as a form of payment. There is no doubt that the pandemic forced a number of businesses to adapt and accelerate the move to digital payment. On top of that now, there is the cost of living crisis. We heard in evidence that increases in the cost of living may result in more people choosing to use cash to manage their finances and budgeting. We were told that there is limited publicly available data on retail cash acceptance, but the report of an increase in the number of retailers refusing to accept cash is concerning. We recommended in our report that the UK Government consider asking the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate and monitor cash acceptance levels across the UK.
We also note in our report that the banking industry has undertaken several impressive initiatives to protect consumers’ access to cash. One example is LINK’s financial inclusion programme, which ensures that the most rural and deprived areas in the UK continue to have access to cash. That effort is very welcome, but the programme’s success is reliant on the voluntary membership of card issuers and ATM operators, so we also recommended that the UK Government mandate membership of LINK for card issuers and ATM operators, to ensure that LINK’s initiatives are not simply enacted on the voluntary basis that they are today.
We also heard about the benefits that the introduction of universal deposit-taking ATMs would bring to consumers and especially businesses across Scotland. Such infrastructure would contribute to the sustainability of the ATM network, while providing a secure location for customers and businesses to deposit cash. However, attempts to introduce this sort of infrastructure have been constrained by a lack of progress on the part of the UK Government and the banking industry. Our predecessor Committee considered deposit-taking ATMs, and we repeated its recommendation that the UK Government set up a working group with industry to introduce network-wide deposit-taking ATMs.
Throughout our inquiry, we heard about the substantial role of the Post Office and its increasing provision of banking services, and it continues to provide consumers and businesses with access to basic cash and banking facilities. However, despite the positive interventions made by both the banking industry and the Post Office, the current provision of cash via post offices rests on the short-term and voluntary banking framework agreement. We recommend in our report that the UK Government seek a long-term commitment from the banks to maintain appropriate banking services for their customers using the post office network.
As I said earlier, the Committee of course welcomes the Government’s commitment to protecting access to cash through legislation, but we are concerned that measures may be needed now, until that Bill is introduced and the legislation enacted. Nevertheless, we look forward to working with the Government to ensure that the Bill is a success when it is introduced.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
As a humble Back Bencher, it is always a privilege to be able to question a leading member of the British establishment in Parliament.
I very much welcome the Committee’s inquiry, because this is a serious matter. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) touched on a number of subjects, although he did not mention an issue that is important to my constituents, which is the ability to deposit cash. That, as well as access to and use of cash, is a significant issue.
I want to touch on the hon. Gentleman’s point about banks taking pre-emptive steps ahead of any legislation, which I experienced in my constituency recently when the Bank of Scotland closed branches in Innerleithen and Lockerbie. From my discussions with the bank, it seems that the only basis for that action was to pre-empt legislation that it anticipates the Government bringing forward. In their work on the report, did he and the Select Committee consider how that practice could be prevented ahead of the Government bringing forward the legislation to which he referred?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I am pleased that he showed sufficient deference when questioning a member of the establishment. I am always glad to accept questions from him in any setting, so it is good that he is here.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, he obviously did not hear me point out in my contribution that we looked at deposit-accepting ATMs. We see them as a really valuable introduction and something that could help businesses in rural areas, which find it difficult to deposit their cash in the evening. On that basis, we proposed that a working group should be set up, chaired by the Government, to see what could be done to facilitate that.
Throughout the inquiry, we recognised from the evidence that we heard that that would be a positive development particularly for businesses in rural areas such as the one the right hon. Gentleman represents. When he looks at the report, I hope that he will see the conclusions and recommendations we made on that. I know that the Minister is listening and taking notes, so I hope that we might be able to see that in the legislation in due course.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I thank the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee for this comprehensive report. We continue to wait for action from the UK Government, as we have for a long time, on legislation to protect access to cash. Page 11 of the report makes it clear that
“Ministers have not had a clear picture of the implications of bank branch and ATM closures on communities in Scotland.”
Those of us who have repeatedly raised the impact of greatly reduced access to cash in our communities know all too well the damage that it is doing. It is vital that the UK Government do all they can to develop a clear picture of the implications of reduced access to cash in advance of any legislation to protect access to cash. Will the Committee continue to pursue that? Otherwise, as I am sure he will agree, the long-promised access-to-cash legislation that we are waiting for will simply not be fit for purpose. It is urgent, as the report makes clear.
Pete Wishart
We put those questions to the Minister when he appeared before the Committee. He made it clear, very legitimately, that the Government cannot get involved in commercial decisions on closures of branch operations, but that does not mean that they cannot do anything. The Access to Cash Action Group recommended several things that the Government could do so that banks were able to proceed, particularly around consultation with local communities, which is available now.
Data is indeed important ahead of legislation. The Government have an opportunity to find out how much cash usage there is across the UK, how many retailers refuse to accept cash at salepoints, and exact data on bank closures, which does not exist in any tangible or useful form. As the Government head towards the legislation, they have an opportunity to look at that and, hopefully, enable Members of Parliament on both sides of the House to be better informed when they are contributing to discussions about the legislation and to know exactly the state of play when it comes to bank closures and the use of cash.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is fair to say that the Chair and I do not always agree in the Scottish Affairs Committee—indeed, outwith the Committee, we almost never agree—but I pay tribute to the way that he has led this inquiry to the conclusion where we unanimously agreed the content of the report with no changes. That is also credit to our Clerks and it is right to thank them for their work in evidence gathering and report writing.
Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that it was clear from a number of the evidence sessions that many of the banks are frankly morally bankrupt in the way that they treat their loyal and dedicated customers with contempt? In Forres, we have seen all four of the bank branches close in recent years. Just this week, the final bank—the Bank of Scotland—closed its branch. I held a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister and senior managers to discuss the issue, but they refused to come to Forres and speak directly to the customers they were leaving. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be far more engagement between the banks and their customers? Does he also agree that there is an opportunity to have banking hubs? If individual banks do not believe that they have the customers to keep a branch open, they should work together so that a town the size of Forres can still have a banking footprint.
Pete Wishart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks—I am sure we will be back to business as normal on Monday, when the Committee meets again.
The hon. Gentleman’s substantive points were very useful. I agree that banks need to properly explain to local communities the reasons behind closures. I remember a protest in Aberfeldy. It takes a lot to get people protesting in Aberfeldy, but they protested in large numbers about the closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch there. Communities get very upset about this issue, and they look for reasons and answers. They want to understand why banks in the heart of the community have been closed, and more could be done to explain that.
There is, of course, a code of conduct that the banks are expected to fall in line with, but I think most people find that insufficient. Again, there may be a role for the Government to intervene and to make sure that we have proper thresholds and guidelines for where banks are to be closed. The previous Government had legislation about the last branch in town, but that seems to have gone and is no longer a feature of the Government’s thinking about this issue. The Minister is listening, and that may be something that he might want to think about as we look forward to the Bill being introduced.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Like others, I offer the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) all the deference that he deserves.
The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said that the banks are “morally bankrupt”. Let us not forget that, but for the taxpayer, they would also be financially bankrupt. We have recently seen the withdrawal of the Bank of Scotland from Stromness in my constituency—the last bank in town. If we now hear that there is a rush of banks seeking to avoid the incoming legislation, does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that that is simply acting in bad faith, which the Government should not be tolerating and in respect of which they should be acting?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He and I are the “Faithers of the Hoose”, given that we were both elected in 2001. [Interruption.] I know that he signed in before me, but I still claim that I was elected before him—we will fight that one out at some point in the future.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think we are all concerned about the intervening period and what happens now to the legislation being introduced. There are several things that I believe the Government could do. A “cease and desist” instruction could be enacted to tell banks very clearly that there is an expectation that no branches should be closed in the period between now and the legislation being introduced. The Government could make it retrospective and say that the clear intention of the legislation is that there should be no branches closed until the Bill has been considered. Again, this is something that could be done in advance of the legislation being introduced. It is really a matter for the Government, but I think the Minister is hearing very clearly.
Looking around the Chamber, most of us represent rural or semi-rural constituencies, and we have this very clear problem. We remain greatly concerned about what happens now. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there now seems to be a rush to close branches ahead of the legislation coming in. It is almost perverse that the banks would choose to do so, knowing that we are coming to some sort of solution about how this matter could be taken forward. I really hope that something can be done in the intervening weeks and months.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee with the Chair and the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). I too have had a number of bank branch closures in my constituency. What came through very strongly when we were hearing about the Post Office is that the banks often offload their responsibilities on to post offices, but we are seeing closures of them across our constituencies as well. I have certainly seen that in North East Fife. Although I welcome the hubs, does the Chair agree with me that there is a risk that banks’ overreliance on the Post Office to deliver access-to-cash services prevents it from delivering the wider services that it provides to our communities?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is an assiduous member of the Scottish Affairs Committee and who makes very valuable contributions to our reports and inquiries. She is right to suggest that the banks may look at the Post Office as a convenient get-out clause from their responsibilities, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the Post Office has offered a substantial and significant resource when it comes to banking services.
The hon. Lady mentions hubs. I should have said to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) that the Committee found that banking hubs are the way forward. We saw a couple of the experiments that have been carried out in the past few years—particularly Cambuslang bank hub, which people are finding useful. What we are looking at is an arrangement where there are joint services—
NHS PPE Supply Chains: Forced Labour
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered forced labour and NHS PPE supply chains.
Thank you, Ms Rees, for the opportunity to lead this debate. I applied for it some time ago—long before the Health and Care Act 2022 was brought to the House—so I want to take the opportunity today to do a follow-up with the Minister. I know she is incredibly assiduous on this issue and is, like me, keen to ensure that the progress continues to be made.
I thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is a special envoy for international freedom of religion or belief, for co-sponsoring this debate. She told me earlier in the week that, unfortunately, she has another engagement: I understand she is a guest speaker at Chester cathedral. An apology has been sent to the Minister and the shadow Minister. I hope they have both received it, because it is disappointing that the hon. Lady cannot be here. She sends her best wishes, and I know that we would have been greatly encouraged by her presence and her contribution.
Without the hon. Lady’s tireless work on international freedom of religious belief, the world would be a much more unjust place. The international conference, which she was instrumental in bringing about, took place last week and the week before. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister and the Government, and also to the Prime Minister, who is still there, for his commitment to ensuring the conference took place. There were 1,000 delegates from all over the world—from probably more than 60 countries. It was a marvellous opportunity to highlight issues across the world.
I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for international freedom of religion or belief and for Pakistani minorities. Both issues are very close to my heart, as they are for the hon. Member for Congleton.
I thank everyone in Parliament who has faithfully championed the rights of the Uyghurs since we first learned of the horrific reports of what is happening in Xinjiang province and the atrocious scale of systematic persecution that they face. There is not one of us who is not pained in our hearts at what is taking place. We feel for those people who, like everyone else, were just trying to make a living. The Chinese Government—the Chinese Communist party—took it upon themselves to persecute them and force their religious beliefs out of their minds. I will speak about that as I work my way through my speech.
This debate is about forced labour and the NHS personal protective equipment supply chains, and it is no secret that the Uyghurs are the main group being horrifically exploited. The obscene violations of human rights that have occurred in China warrant endless debates—not just this debate, but many more. As a nation, as human beings and as beneficiaries of the many supply chains with ties to China, we must not rest while China continues its despicable practices across the world.
The House will be aware of the amendment to the Health and Care Act tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which obliged the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make provisions to ensure that the procurement of all goods and services for the NHS avoids modern slavery. I welcomed the amendment very much; I spoke about it in the Chamber and I welcomed the Government’s commitment. It is important that we do not forget why it was needed. The covid-19 pandemic was a national emergency and a time of special need—a time when the Government, the Prime Minister and the Ministers responsible had to respond urgently to the national and global emergency. There was suddenly an unprecedented need for the procurement of personal protective equipment and intense national pressure to provide it.
Reports show that shortcuts around standard procurement procedures were taken. I understand why. During that time, Her Majesty’s Government gave out PPE contracts worth £150 million to Chinese firms with links to forced labour abuses in Xinjiang. That included £122 million to Winner Medical, which uses cotton produced by forced labour, with links to the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, the state-backed paramilitary organisation—the very organisation responsible for running the region’s so-called re-education camps. I know the Minister understands why we feel angered and annoyed that such a thing should ever happen.
An additional £19 million was provided to China Meheco, and another £16.5 million to Sinopharm. Both companies have strong links to the Chinese Communist party’s Xinjiang labour transform programme, which relocates Uyghurs from Xinjiang as slave labourers across China. We do not see as much about that now, or perhaps there is not so much focus on it as there should be, but that is what is happening—people are being moved to other parts of China, so slave labour continues not just in Xinjiang but elsewhere.
I understand that there was a pressing need for PPE, but it is disgraceful that NHS staff had to use protective equipment made in the slave labour camps of Xinjiang, let alone that taxpayers’ money was used to purchase that equipment and therefore fund abhorrent abuse. It is even more disgraceful as the abuses were well-known during the pandemic. A report from the British Medical Association notes serious concerns about the role of Uyghur forced labour in the production of PPE. An investigation by The New York Times came to the same conclusion, as did multiple reports and briefings from the United Nations dating as far back as 2010.
This is not just something that happened in the last couple of years, during covid. It has been happening for several years. It was exacerbated during covid, and has been exacerbated even more so now. I am thankful that the Health and Care Act has made NHS procurement policy more consistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations to prevent and punish acts of genocide, and more in line with the Modern Slavery Act 2015. PPE is just the tip of the iceberg.
Since 2003, nearly 20 years ago, China has sought to eradicate Uyghur culture from China. It has been happening for more than 20 years and has been exacerbated in the last two to three years. For 20 years, a systematic approach to Uyghurs has led to mass forced labour, driven Uyghurs from their homes to abuse camps, forced detention of up to 2 million people and enacted arbitrary torture, as well as forced sterilisation, executions and even organ harvesting. There have also been reports of sexual abuse, murder and torture.
China widely denies the mass incarceration and forced labour and cites terrorism as the cause of security measures in the region. I think most of us can agree, however, that that is ridiculous and entirely insincere and untrue. There is overwhelming evidence that shows a systematic approach to destroying Uyghur culture, language, and faith.
Most recently the “Xinjiang Police Files”, released in May 2022, highlighted the internal view of China’s Communist party that Uyghur culture was incompatible with Chinese culture. Those documents include memos and speeches from President Xi Jinping and other senior leaders of the CCP, describing an active objective to rewire the thinking of the Uyghur Muslims. My goodness —to change the whole way in which people think. People have a right to express their religious view, and it is for that reason that I sought to secure this debate through the Backbench Business Committee—I thank it very much for giving me this opportunity. The Chinese Communist party’s objective was to be achieved through indoctrination and interrogation, transforming the Uyghurs into secular and loyal supporters of the party. The party takes away their right to think and believe, and make them something else.
Uyghurs and other minorities in China face intense monitoring and severe persecution, which have led to credible accusations of genocide and crimes against humanity. As China commits those crimes, it also seeks to profit from the detention of the Uyghur Muslims. As the arrests have increased, so has the economic output of the region. The Chinese Government have a group of people they detain and work long hours—to use terminology from back home, they work them to the bone. Goods produced by the forced labour of Uyghurs are not confined to PPE; they also include fashion, sugar, cosmetics and 40% of China’s coal, and organs are forcibly harvested for use in China’s organ tourism industry.
The Xinjiang region also produces 20% of global cotton production and 45% of the world supply of polysilicon—an essential material in solar panel construction. Today, it is deeply tied to global supply chains, from fashion to renewable energy, and that builds on the profits of ongoing crimes against humanity and, as this House has often claimed, genocide.
To put that in context, one in five items of clothing made with cotton has its origins in Xinjiang province. One in five suits, pairs of trousers and dresses is made with cotton hand-picked by Uyghurs detained in Xinjiang province. If we are to distance ourselves from the horrific abuse of Uyghurs, we must do more to distance ourselves from supply chains involving China.
I am always pleased to see the Minister in her place, because I know she has a deep interest in these issues, and that she will come back with the answers we are seeking. I look forward to what she and the shadow Minister will say. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what must be done next to address the issue of supply chains, which goes far beyond the NHS and into society.
Some have argued that legislation is already in place to prevent such goods from entering UK supply chains. It includes the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which encourages businesses to take action to eradicate modern slavery from their operations and supply chains. I believe that the Act is a nudge strategy; it does not have any teeth. It asks businesses with a turnover of more than £36 million to make statements describing the steps they are taking to address modern slavery. We need a lot more than statements; we need action.
The Act has been championed as providing measures that could help restrict imports from Xinjiang province. However, in February 2021, a review from the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre concluded that it had failed to eradicate modern slavery from UK supply chains. What is being done to ensure that words become action that makes a difference?
Companies can choose what to include in their statement. They can adopt a tick-box approach and provide only general information. They can also state that they have taken no steps at all to eradicate forced labour and still be compliant with the Act. It is not a verbal commitment that we need; it is action on the ground.
Despite that minimal approach, there has been persistent non-compliance by 40% of companies. We really need to turn the screws on them and ensure that they do more than give verbal commitments, and we also need to act upon the ones that do not. After six years of non-compliance, there has not been one injunction or penalty for any company that has failed to report, so it seems that the Act is toothless.
Clearly, more legislation or more pressure is needed to make the change. In the Queen’s Speech, Her Majesty’s Government outlined plans to increase companies’ and other organisations’ accountability for driving out modern slavery from their supply chains through a new modern slavery Bill. I hope that that Bill will strengthen existing legislation, but the Government need to lead by example. Will the Minister give us some idea of how the new legislation will make a difference?
If we are asking British companies and the NHS to take steps to ensure that procurement is free from modern slavery, we must lead and not be complacent with legislation that does not achieve what it sets out to do.
It is right to pay tribute to the many parliamentarians who have advocated and worked physically and emotionally in both Westminster Hall and the main Chamber for the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province. A great deal of parliamentary time has been given to the topic, and rightly so. I want to recognise that because I believe that the efforts of both Back and Front Benchers has made a difference. In the last few years, there have been no fewer than 16 debates and 446 written questions across both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That gives an idea of the magnitude and significance of this issue and the strength of commitment and interest from Members. There have been multiple urgent questions on the matter, and Parliament has stated that it believes there is overwhelming evidence of genocide in Xinjiang province by the Chinese Communist party. The Foreign Affairs Committee has published two reports recommending that the Government
“accept Parliament’s view that Uyghurs and other ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang are suffering genocide and crimes against humanity, and take action to bring these crimes to an end.”
We know that Christians have suffered in China. They are persecuted, their churches are knocked down, and they are continually spied upon. Those of other faiths and ethnic groups, such as Falun Gong, are also subject to this incredible persecution by the Chinese Communist party. In short, there can be no doubt of the extent of support for more to be done to combat the practices of the Chinese Communist party.
It is worth noting that the efforts of this Parliament, our Government and our Ministers, as well as others in the international community, have borne fruit. Let us recognise some of the things that have happened and the good things that have been done. We often lament the dire situation in China and human rights violations more broadly, but we should take encouragement that not all efforts are in vain. Next week, at about this time, there will be a debate in the main Chamber on human rights across the world. I may have an opportunity to highlight this matter in a different way, along with many others.
China is changing its narrative on Xinjiang—at least outwardly. It has now acknowledged the existence of the re-education camps and claimed that students at those camps have graduated, focusing significant propaganda efforts to try to justify its policies. Those are only for the world and the media; the reality is very different. China is aware that there is growing awareness of its corruption, but further international action is essential. I am mindful that the Minister present is responsible for the NHS, not the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. However, I ask her what discussions she has had with the FCDO on other steps that we can take outside her Department.
In January 2021, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office announced its intention to introduce measures to ensure that
“British organisations…are not complicit in, nor profiting from, the human rights violations in Xinjiang.”
The then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), stated that compliance with those measures will be mandatory for central Government and that:
“This package will help make sure that no British organisations, Government or private sector, deliberately or inadvertently, profit from or contribute to the human rights violations against the Uyghurs or other minorities in Xinjiang.”
It is now 550 days—more than a year and a half—since that announcement, and those measures have yet to be implemented in their totality. I therefore seek an assurance that that action will be taken and, if possible, a timescale for when that will happen.
The will of this Parliament is clear: action is needed, and action works. The Health and Care Act 2022 highlighted the scale of the problem of forced labour in the NHS, but that legislation impacts on just one Department. The import ban for the NHS is an encouraging step, but I am sure we all agree that no Government Department should procure goods produced by slave labour, whether that be in Xinjiang province in China, which is living off the backs of the Uyghurs, or in any other part of the world. No Government Department should allow China the opportunity to profit from the genocide, brutality and violence that it is carrying out against good, decent, ordinary people.
I am very proud of this country’s commitment to upholding human rights internationally. I am also proud to be a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to be MP for Strangford. I am proud and happy to support our Minister and her Department. During the UK presidency of the G7, one focus area was addressing forced labour in global supply chains and making commitments to uphold human rights and international labour standards, but we are in danger of losing that reputation.
Since the Brexit referendum, human rights standards and obligations have been removed from negotiations and the texts of trade deals. That does not fall within the remit of the Minister’s Department, and I do not expect an answer from her—I cannot ask her to answer for Departments where she has no responsibility—but will she do me the kindness of asking that question of the correct Minister? It is important that we have an idea of what has been done to address that issue, because these standards are the norm around the world. Global Britain has much to offer the world, but that cannot be at the expense of Uyghurs in Xinjiang province or of other religious or belief minority groups around the world, whether they are in China or further afield.
Her Majesty’s Government have refused to accept Parliament’s view that it is highly likely that genocide is happening in Xinjiang province, despite reams of evidence from many people, including video evidence and personal evidence from within China. That evidence has been provided by the Uyghur tribunal, United Nations monitoring trips, the Xinjiang police files, the Foreign Affairs Committee and many more. It is time to change that and to follow the example of the United States of America in recognising what is happening to the Uyghurs and others in Xinjiang province as genocide. I wish we had done the same, and I hope it can still happen.
Just this week, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act came into force in the United States of America. The Act introduced a ban on imports from Xinjiang province following the overwhelming evidence of forced labour abuses. They had the evidence and we have access to that same evidence; we need to take the same action that they have taken. All companies have to prove they have taken due diligence of all possible steps to ensure their supply chain does not contain goods made through Uyghur forced labour.
The Act introduces penalties for companies, the ability to seize goods that originate in Xinjiang province and a testing requirement, which can include genetic testing of cotton and other goods to find out where they have come from. I hope that the Minister will ask other Departments to urgently endorse the strategy of the United States and do the same here. I am proud that the Act was drafted as a result of the G7 summit in Cornwall, in our own United Kingdom, which shows the influence we have. It is now time to follow the example of the United States. A similar ban on imports from Xinjiang province should apply not only to the NHS but to all Government Departments and further afield.
In drawing my remarks to an end, I want to highlight the next steps. First, we must ensure that the measures announced by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on 12 January 2022 are enacted swiftly. The Government have set down some policies and some ways forward, and I would like to see them happening, and happening soon. I also seek a timescale for those policies. We must ensure that these measures, existing legislation and the new modern slavery Bill are robust enough to address reports that Uyghurs are being moved out of Xinjiang province and into other parts of China. They are dispersing them throughout China and it is going to be hard to find out what is happening in other parts of China. It is wonderful how information seems to leak out. The Chinese Communist party is trying to hide the abuse across all parts of China. It is doing something absolutely despicable and dastardly.
Secondly, Her Majesty’s Government must lead by example. The Health and Care Act sets a precedent. Each Government Department should conduct an urgent review to ensure that its supply chains do not source products from Xinjiang or have links with companies that support detention camps in the region. No Government Department should allow China the opportunity to profit from a genocide that the rest of the world has recognised and that I believe we must recognise as well.
Thirdly, the Government should introduce a central list of goods and resources that have a high risk of being produced by slave labour in Xinjiang province and implement testing requirements for Government procurement contracts that involve items on that list. At a minimum, the list should include cotton and polysilicon.
Fourthly, we need to reintroduce basic human rights standards into the negotiations and the wording of post-Brexit trade deals. That is a norm in international trade deals and, if Britain is to maintain its leading role in championing democracy and human rights, as I hope it will, we cannot sever the link between trade and human rights. The central theme that came through the international conference held last week was the connection between freedom of religious belief and human rights. The two are closely linked, and cannot be severed. Nor can we sever the link between trade and human rights, especially as younger generations put greater emphasis on corporate responsibility. The parallels are evident and should be heeded. The conference made that point.
Finally, Her Majesty’s Government should revisit the outcome of the parliamentary debate that decided that it is highly likely that genocide is happening in Xinjiang province. I know that the Minister will respond by stating that it is the long-standing policy of the British Government not to make determinations in relation to genocide and that that is instead down to a competent court or tribunal. As such, I gently remind the Minister—although I am also trying to be persuasive—that the UK’s duty under the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide is to prevent genocide, not just to punish the perpetrators after the event. What is being done to prevent the genocide that is most likely going to occur, if it is not already happening?
There was a debate in the main Chamber earlier on Srebrenica. That offers a reminder of the many places across the world where massacres and genocide have been carried out. We always hope that each one will be the last, but unfortunately that is not the case. I am very pleased that this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a leading voice on the international stage, well known for its advancement of human rights, particularly that of freedom of religion or belief. Let us not damage that reputation by failing to act.
At last week’s international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, a quotation from Dietrich Bonhoeffer was repeated, over and over again, in different seminars and fringe events. Many will know it:
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
Those words are as relevant today as they were many years ago.
Parliament has spoken. Her Majesty’s Government must lead by example. Will the Minister address the need that all Government Departments—she can speak for her Department and the discussions she has had with others—should not procure any goods whatsoever made in Xinjiang? What steps will Her Majesty’s Government take to reach that goal? What discussions have taken place with other countries to do the same?
I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar). I think we are a tag team, as he is always here in Westminster Hall, as is the Labour party’s shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West).
I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I look forward to her response. I also look forward to the remarks of others, because they, like me, believe that what happens in Xinjiang province is unacceptable and that we have role to play in that. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to come along and make my comments.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I applaud the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this vital debate and, more importantly, for informing us all so well about the subject. It really is abhorrent to think that, in the 21st century, we are still discussing the plight of slave workers and forced labour practices. This can and will only change when the Government change and their outlook on human rights changes too—becoming one of sympathy and compassion, not of collusion and indifference.
From the very start of the covid-19 pandemic, the UK Government’s remaining morals were unfortunately diminished. With the desire to sustain a harsh Brexiteer stance, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), refused to take part in an EU-wide scheme to obtain necessary PPE and ventilators in a legitimate manner, choosing instead to favour companies responsible for committing some of the greatest humanitarian rights offences of recent times. Various pieces of evidence have emerged over the past two years, and I would like to share a few of them with the House.
In November 2020, The Guardian reported that the Government had sourced PPE from factories in China where hundreds of North Korean women had been working in modern slavery conditions. In December 2020, the BBC revealed that a charity set up by the Daily Mail to buy protective equipment for NHS staff donated 100,000 face masks that were suspected of being made via forced Uyghur labour in Xinjiang province. In February 2022, it was revealed that the UK had bought around £5.8 billion-worth of lateral flow tests from China, where the use of forced labour in re-education camps is a known UN human rights concern.
Even the British Medical Association report of July 2021 confirmed:
“Many of the masks and aprons distributed in the first six months of the pandemic were sourced from China and the majority of the 1.9 billion examination gloves were sourced from Malaysia”,
and that there are
“serious labour rights concerns in the production of PPE.”
No matter the circumstances and the dire need for equipment, purchases of any form cannot and should not occur when unethical practices are at play. Surely that is the very least that a compassionate Government should be ensuring.
I welcome the steps taken in recent months to combat this issue. The UK Government recently announced that NHS England would be barred from using goods and services linked to slavery or human trafficking. Although we in the Scottish National party agree with such action, the question remains as to why more concrete action was not taken sooner. To fully rectify the issue of unethical supply chains, the UK Government could insert a “duty to protect” clause within the parameters of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, meaning that all procurement agencies would be legally obliged to ensure that all products imported into or sold in the UK were not obtained through unethical supply chains.
On top of that, the UK Government still have a questionable track record on their efforts to deter forced labour products. In 2021, the Government opposed the so-called genocide amendment to the Trade Act 2021, which would have seen the High Courts of England and Wales establishing preliminary rulings on the occurrence of genocide in states, and then requiring the UK Government to revoke any trade agreements with countries where potential genocide was found by domestic courts. The UK Government have still never given an adequate answer to why they opposed the genocide amendment, so perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. From a human rights perspective, I believe there is no clear justification for the Government’s position.
The Scottish Government have worked hard to ensure that PPE supply chains in Scotland are safeguarded from forced labour products. From the outset of the pandemic, the Scottish Government have worked with the NHS and Scottish suppliers, and on a four-nation basis, to ensure that Scotland has adequate stocks of PPE. In Scotland, 88% of PPE is produced locally, and overall costs of pandemic procurement were a third less than those in the rest of the UK. That proves that the Scottish Government have worked to significantly enhance domestic production of PPE to mitigate global supply chain problems that emerged during the pandemic.
The SNP is committed to retaining powerful safeguards on the use of public money in healthcare through strong procurement rules. We are fully committed to the safety and wellbeing of medical staff and healthcare professionals, while also ensuring ethical supply chains for all medical and protective equipment. I cannot urge the UK Government enough to follow suit and replicate this truly ethical model. More importantly, the Scottish Government did not engage in the cronyism and corruption of this Government in the acquisition of PPE. While the Conservative party flogged PPE contracts to party donors and friends of Ministers in their unlawful VIP PPE lane, the Scottish Government kept robust processes in place to ensure value for money, meaning that the Scottish Government paid a third less for PPE than the UK Government did.
Where possible, all PPE acquired will be used in Scotland's hospitals, care homes and other healthcare settings. Our stockpile of unused PPE is therefore vastly smaller than that of England. Instead of selling off unused PPE to Government contacts for pennies—as the Tories are doing—the much smaller amount of unused PPE in Scotland is being either maintained for use or donated to charities and shared with nations, such as Malawi and Zambia, which desperately need it.
I will end by saying that the fight against the covid-19 pandemic is a global one, and it is right that the Scottish Government support international partners and less well-off nations in their tackling of the pandemic. Donating excess PPE is one way of achieving that, and it is a model example that I hope the UK Government will also take forward.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under you chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it. He is, of course, well known in the House for his commitment to the defence of human rights and the freedom of religion or belief. Given the ongoing Conservative party leadership election, and the comments made by some candidates in recent days regarding policies and views relating to China and human rights, this debate is particularly timely.
Having a new Prime Minister and a fresh ministerial team this autumn will give us a real opportunity to do the right thing, not only in purchasing PPE but in applying pressure on Governments and in legislating to ensure that private sector organisations do their bit to promote human rights. The number of human rights staff in overseas posts has been cut back severely since 2010. I sincerely hope that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will replace them, because that is how we know exactly what conditions are like in manufacturing and overseas supply chains.
We know that there are many concerns about supply chains that arise from the Xinjiang province of China, with the Chinese Government being routinely accused of using the Uyghur minority population as slave labour. As the hon. Member for Strangford has said, at least 20% of all global cotton and 80% of Chinese domestic production, has its provenance on the Xinjiang region. The scale of the problem is why this issue is so important.
It is vital that the NHS, as one of our proudest national achievements and a large purchasing unit, is not implicated, either directly or indirectly, in forced labour or questionable supply chains. But we know, sadly, that that is often the case. Pre-pandemic, PPE global supply chains were already known to be riddled with trade union and human rights violations, but it has worsened in the past 28 months. However, many of the companies supplying PPE have vastly increased their profits.
Forced labour has increased but this is not just a story about forced labour. Authoritarian Governments have used the pandemic to further restrict workers from organising into trade unions. All over the world, in all sectors, collective bargaining agreements have been ripped up and thrown away. In a number of countries in the Asia-Pacific area, wage theft is sadly a feature of the production of PPE basics such as rubber gloves, gowns and surgical masks.
I acknowledge the ongoing work of the trade union movement, not least Unison, which has been campaigning on this issue for some time. Labour’s position has always been clear and consistent—that we must remove any suggestion of forced labour from the NHS’s PPE supply chain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the shadow Health Secretary, has spoken clearly about Labour’s support for legislative measures during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, particularly given the significant amount of public money that has been wasted through crony contracting. The Government should resource adequately the checks on procurement and bring to book any companies that fail to follow guidelines on supply chains. We cannot allow public money for our NHS to pay for questionable contracts, to enable forced labour, or to be part of our entering trade deals that contradict the spirit of the UK’s obligations under the genocide convention.
The issue is not new and today is not the first time that it has been raised. As we are aware, there is a requirement on Governments that are signatories to the genocide convention to act even when there is only a suspicion that genocide might have occurred, and not to turn a blind eye to human rights infringements.
As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned in his opening remarks, the House has voted that the evidence that has been brought to light about slave labour in the People’s Republic of China amounts to evidence of a genocide. There is some debate in wider terms around that issue, but the genocide convention bypasses that point and that debate about definition by saying that even when there is just a suspicion that there could be some form of genocide, Governments who are signatories to that convention ought to take action. Consequently, I am pleased that following the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, there has been some movement by the Government.
I urge the Minister to respond to the points that have been made in this debate, to clarify the position today; the 2022 Act completed its passage only a short time ago. What cross-departmental work is being undertaken to apply the guidelines that we have discussed across other Government procurement practices? What guidelines have been issued to local government, for example? The average local authority in inner London has a £1 billion turnover. Other large purchasing units at Government level also ought to be aware of the duty to prevent potential human slavery or potential genocide. What discussions has she had with the trade union movement to ensure that its views, expertise and research are integral to the formation of any strategy to clean up our supply chains?
The Minister of State, Department for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate and on all his hard work, alongside Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), on this significant issue. It is important to debate the supply chain for NHS PPE, to learn lessons from the past and to ensure that robust systems are in place for the future. I reassure him, and all hon. Members, that this matter is a priority for the Department and we continue to take steps to ensure that there are robust systems to safeguard against the coming into the system of supplies that may be linked to slavery or forced labour. I am pleased that this issue was debated during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, and further legislation will be introduced to address it.
However, I must put it on the record that our priority during the pandemic, as Members will understand, was to protect our frontline staff. This was a global crisis, in which we were competing against many countries to secure PPE for our frontline workers. Nevertheless, we had and still have a responsibility to those across the PPE supply chain to make sure that when PPE is procured, it is done responsibly and does not put people in any part of that chain at risk. It is absolutely important that we do that both globally and domestically, because although the hon. Member for Strangford rightly mentioned the Uyghurs in China, we have heard only too well this week from Mo Farah that slave labour and slavery exist in this country as well.
I take the point that the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) raised about his concerns about the Government’s approach, but I will gently say that the Herald on Sunday stated that during the pandemic, half a billion pounds-worth of procurement in Scotland did not go through the usual scrutiny process, either—and that was just one report. That reflects the fact that all countries during the pandemic had to make tough decisions to get supplies through, safeguard frontline services and ensure that those pieces of equipment were in place. Where lessons need to be learned, we absolutely will do so. Since the pandemic, almost 40 billion items of PPE have been ordered and almost 20 billion were distributed by March 2022. We are still distributing over 600 million items a month. That shows the scale of the amount of PPE that we have had to distribute. Hon. Members will be aware that covid rates are still high at the moment, so PPE is still very much needed by our frontline staff.
Global chains were used to procure many supplies, whether aprons, gloves or masks, but where possible we have tried to escalate domestic supply, because while it is not 100% failsafe against slavery, it is more likely that there are robust systems in place. To effectively distribute the supply across health and social care settings, we have built a distribution network from scratch and adopted a sophisticated sales and operations planning system to regulate supply and distribution. We have a clear understanding of where the stock has come from and the processes in place to ensure that slavery or forced labour was not used in any part of that chain. Part of the network is using technology to track and trace where that supply comes from, and if there are queries or concerns in the future, we are able to look back and see where those supplies came from. Since April 2020, over 6.9 billion PPE items have been ordered through that e-portal system.
As we move to living with covid, the decision has been made to step down some of the Department’s work on the PPE programme, and we are handing that over to the NHS supply chain more generally. Safeguards in the Act ensure that some of that work will continue to happen. Modern slavery encompasses the offences of slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour and human trafficking. The NHS has a significant role to play in combating modern slavery, including by taking steps to ensure that the NHS supply chains and business activities are free from labour abuses. The Government rely on their suppliers for the delivery of many important public services, and we expect high standards of business ethics from our suppliers—and their agents. They will be routinely checked for that.
The Department follows a procurement approach, as set out in the UK Government modern slavery statement, that includes a zero-tolerance approach to modern slavery and a commitment to ensure that respect for human rights is built into all our contracts, self-assessments, audits, training and capacity building. I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that if there is a complaint or a suggestion of any supply being involved in slavery or forced labour, we can lock down that stock until an investigation is concluded. We can then unlock it if no evidence is found, but we can stop some of those contracts if there is evidence of forced labour. We look at what happens in other countries—he touched on the US—and if other countries are finding evidence of slave labour used in any part of the supply chain, investigations will start on UK stock as well.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her positive response. Clearly, the United States has taken a line of legislative action. Has the Minister had a chance to discuss or get ideas from what the States are doing and what drove them to do that? I posed that question and both hon. Members who spoke asked the same question. If they can do it in the States, we can do it here.
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. We have secondary legislation coming forward that will enact what was agreed in the Health and Care Act 2022, which will look at some of this issue. The Procurement Bill is also passing through the House of Lords and will come to our Chamber. It will look at procurement more generally, not just NHS procurement. If he and other hon. Members with a keen interest in the subject, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, have specific questions on NHS procurement, I am happy for them to write to me and we shall see whether we can look at them as part of scrutiny of the Bill as it progresses. He is right that we want to ensure that we are learning lessons and sharing best practice across the board. I cannot speak for other Departments, but we are keen to get that right for the NHS where possible.
We are taking steps to achieve greater supply chain visibility, particularly where risks are highest, with the recognition that workers in the lower tiers of supply chains are often the most vulnerable. In line with that, we ensure that all contracts placed by the Department adhere to standard terms and conditions that include clauses requiring good industry practice to ensure that there is no slavery or human trafficking in supply chains.
Suppliers appointed to NHS supply chain frameworks must also comply with those standards or they can be removed from consideration for future opportunities. All the suppliers of PPE frameworks let in conjunction with the Department were registered and required to complete a modern slavery assessment and a labour standards assessment. Our purchase process includes safeguards to strengthen due diligence and to terminate a contract should there be substantiated allegations against a provider.
We are not content to rest on the status quo, which is why the Health and Care Act contained a regulation-making power that will come into force, designed to eradicate the use in the NHS of goods or services tainted by slavery or human trafficking. The regulations will set out the steps that the NHS should be taking to assess the level of risk associated with individual suppliers and the basis on which it should exclude them from a tendering process. Those regulations will help to ensure that the NHS, the biggest public procurer in the country, is not buying or using any goods or services produced by or involving any kind of slave labour. It represents a significant step forward in our mission to crack down on the evils of modern slavery wherever they are found. We are grateful to the work of modern slavery campaigners, who hailed the regulations as
“the most significant development in supply chain regulation since the Modern Slavery Act 2015”.
Alongside those regulations, the Health and Care Act also requires the Secretary of State to carry out a review into the risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place in NHS supply chains and to lay before Parliament a report on its outcomes. That review will focus on NHS supply chain activity, as well as supporting the NHS to identify and mitigate risks with a view to resolving issues. The review and the regulations will send a clear signal to suppliers that the NHS will not tolerate human rights abuses in its supply chain; they will create significant incentives for suppliers to review their practices; and they will block, if necessary, any suppliers that are found to be using human trafficking or slave labour.
I was moved to hear the cases of the Uyghurs that the hon. Member for Strangford raised. He is right that that goes far beyond the NHS, which is why the Procurement Bill, currently passing through the other place, is an important piece of legislation. I am sure that he and other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and for Congleton, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who are assiduous campaigners on the issue, will take a keen interest in that.
I conclude by thanking all hon. Members for their contributions. Modern day slavery is a deplorable practice that causes irreversible harm to those affected. We all have a responsibility to call it out. As a Department, we take it extremely seriously. I hope that, by sharing what is happening, I have given hon. Members confidence that we will do all we can to root it out and take out of our supply chains any affected pieces of equipment.
Catherine West
The Minister is being generous; I recognise that she is speaking from a health perspective. Will she undertake to write to hon. Members present about the Government’s progress on cross-departmental best practice sharing from her Department?
Maria Caulfield
I am very happy to do that. While I have been able to highlight what the NHS is doing, some good cross-departmental work is also being done on procurement and on identifying where slavery is happening both globally and domestically. I highlighted the evidence from Mo Farah this week. We must not take it for granted that slavery is not happening in this country. I am happy to write to the shadow Minister and those who have taken part in the debate to highlight the work that is happening across the Government. It has to be a cross-Government initiative to make sure that we are all working together to root this out. Much remains to be done to ensure that we deliver the message that modern day slavery is completely unacceptable. I look forward to working with MPs across the House to make sure that we all do our bit.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Jim Shannon, would you like a couple of minutes to wind up?
Jim Shannon
I would. I shall be only two minutes. I thank the two shadow spokespeople. I thank the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) for his always helpful contributions. He and I seem to be in all the debates together. It does not lessen our interest in these issues, because pursuing them is what brings us together. He referred to the serious labour rights concerns that a compassionate Government need to respond to. We all agreed on genocide, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). She referred to the scale of the problem. It almost takes our breath away sometimes when we realise how massive the problem is. She also mentioned the trade unions, which have worked throughout the world; I recognise that. Trade unions play a critical role around the world; we thank them for all that they do.
In trade deals, human rights must be protected. I think the Government are already doing that, but it is good to call for it again. Hon. Members also mentioned cross-departmental work and the roles that must be fulfilled. In a late intervention, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green made an important point. When the Minister gets feedback from the other Departments, perhaps those who have participated today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I, will take the opportunity to express our views and have a chat with the Minister.
The Minister was helpful, as she always is. I wrote down some of the things she said. The Procurement Bill is coming through and we will all be able to feed into that process. The Government have made a commitment to use the modern slavery Bill to take significant steps against human trafficking and to block activities if necessary. I like the idea that if there is an accusation, there is a block right away until the matter is checked out evidentially. If it is proven to be true, it is stopped. That is positive stuff, and I welcome that.
I also mentioned the importance of following best practice when evidence is found. I understand—I think we all do—that the Government responded to covid-19 in the way that they had to. It is not a criticism: perhaps corners were cut—but that had to be done because otherwise we would never have got things in place. Now that we have got past that stage, it is time to get procurement right. This debate has been about getting it right.
I thank everyone who participated—the hon. Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and for Hornsey and Wood Green, and the Minister. I also thank you, Ms Rees. You are always very gentle but firm, and I thank you for your chairmanship of all the debates. I also thank the civil servants, who make sure that the debates go smoothly and get Ministers the answers, and I thank all the staff. Thank you so much, everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered forced labour and NHS PPE supply chains.
Written Statements
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Presidency of the G7: UK 2021
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
I would like to update Parliament on the outcomes of the UK’s G7 presidency in 2021 and the costs of the 2021 G7 summit in Carbis Bay, Cornwall.
As the most prominent grouping of democratic countries, the G7 has long been the catalyst for decisive international action to tackle the greatest challenges we face. Alongside leaders from G7 nations and the EU, the Prime Minister also invited leaders from Australia, India, the Republic of Korea and South Africa to attend the summit as guest countries. Between them, the leaders represented almost two-thirds of people living in democracies around the world.
The summit in Cornwall was the first in-person gathering of G7 leaders in almost two years and was a crucial opportunity to build back better from the covid-19 pandemic, uniting to make the future fairer, greener and more prosperous.
Under the UK’s leadership, the G7 made major achievements during the course of last year’s presidency, both through the leaders’ summit and through a series of ministerial policy tracks. These include:
Ending financing for coal power, which was then adopted by 25 nations and major finance institutions at COP26;
A global commitment to protect, conserve or restore 30% of land and ocean areas by 2030 (the 30 by 30 initiative), which was then adopted by 70 countries at COP26;
Establishing the G7 partnership for infrastructure and investment which will support the developing world to invest in clean, green infrastructure;
A commitment to provide a combined total of 1 billion covid-19 vaccines to poorer countries in order to vaccinate the world by the end of 2022, support for a “global pandemic radar” to spot pathogens before they spread and develop the ability to create new vaccines, treatments and tests in 100 days;
A collective G7 pledge of at least $2.75 billion funding over the next five years for the global partnership for education replenishment, and a G7 endorsement of two new global girls’ education targets to ensure that, by 2026, 40 million more girls are in school and 20 million more girls are reading by the age of 10 or by the end of primary school.
More than 130 countries (representing more than 90% of world GDP) signed up to a new international corporate tax framework, including working to implement the 15% minimum global tax rate.
Benefits to the UK
The benefits to Cornwall of hosting the G7 summit in Carbis Bay and the international media centre in Falmouth were felt across the duchy.
Local suppliers were used for food, drink, hospitality and gifts enjoyed by leaders and their delegations. Local artisans were profiled as a result of their contribution to the event. Her Majesty’s Government estimate that a minimum of £28.7 million was provided to Cornwall through Cornish suppliers and businesses, Cornwall Council and Cornwall Police. This includes a significant investment of £7.8 million in Cornwall Airport Newquay to improve its facilities and support its transition to becoming one of the UK’s first licensed spaceports, directly creating 200 high-skilled jobs and forecasted to bring £200 million to the Cornish economy by 2035.
Visit Cornwall estimated that the value of the international spotlight on Cornwall was at least £50 million through increased bookings from international travellers.
In addition, £2.16 million was provided for legacy projects throughout Cornwall, including nature recovery, creating opportunities for young people and supporting local regeneration.
Sustainability
The Government were committed to hosting a green summit, and successfully achieved both carbon neutral certification and the International Organization for Standardization 20121, an international standard for sustainable event management.
Costs
The total estimated cost of putting on a safe and secure G7 summit at Carbis Bay in Cornwall was £90.7 million, split between the costs of the event itself and the costs of policing and security in Cornwall. This was under budget and cost less in real terms than the previous UK-hosted G8 summit at Lough Erne in 2013. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office managed the logistical arrangements for the summit.
The Home Office co-ordinated policing and security for the G7 summit with Devon and Cornwall police, other security partners and Whitehall Departments. The total costs of the police and security operation were approximately £52.7 million. DCP were responsible for the operational delivery of a secure summit, involving almost 1,500 DCP officers and staff supplemented by 5,000 mutual aid police officers from police forces in England and Wales, and Scotland.
The experience of hosting the G7 summit also supported savings for COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021, the largest event of its kind that the UK has ever hosted.
Additional information
The UK presidency of the G7 also included work across seven ministerial tracks, run by relevant Government Departments with support from the Cabinet Office G7 taskforce, as well as six official G7 engagement groups and two advisory panels: the economic resilience panel and gender equality advisory committee. Costs for these elements are not included in this statement.
[HCWS203]
People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People: Sixth Annual Report
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
Since becoming the Minister for Care and Mental Health in September 2021, I have had the privilege of engaging and meeting with many people with a learning disability, autistic people and their families, carers and many dedicated health and social care staff. It deeply saddens me to hear some of the stories they have shared of experiences of poor health and care service provision and the premature loss of a loved one. That is why today I would like to acknowledge the publication of the sixth annual report of the “Learning from lives and deaths—People with a learning disability and autistic people” (LeDeR) programme compiled by the King’s College University and its partners (University of Central Lancashire and Kingston and St George’s Universities). A copy of the sixth annual LeDeR report will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The annual LeDeR report remains a crucial source of evidence that enables us to build up a detailed picture of the key improvements needed, both locally and at a national level, to tackle existing health disparities faced by people with a learning disability. It is an important step that as of January 2022, LeDeR reporting will be inclusive of the deaths of autistic people. This new information will be included in next year’s report.
It is encouraging that the sixth LeDeR report found that the life expectancy of a person with a learning disability has improved by one year for both males and females in 2021. The report also highlighted the phenomenal work of learning disability liaison nurses whose role in acute hospitals settings has been
“valued as a bridge between the principles and the provision of good care”.
This signals some improvement in the right direction, but there is much more to be done, such as reducing the number of avoidable and excess deaths of people with a learning disability.
I must acknowledge the unique circumstances that the pandemic presented in 2021; for the second year in a row covid-19 remains the leading cause of death for people with a learning disability. The LeDeR report highlights that during 2021 the rate of excess deaths from covid-19 was more than two times higher for people with a learning disability compared to the general population.
The report shows that people with a learning disability who were unvaccinated were nine times more likely to die of covid-19 than another cause compared to those who were vaccinated. These findings highlight the importance of the vaccination programme and the sustained focus on its roll out and uptake. NHS England have continued to engage on the delivery of reasonable adjustments in the vaccination programme and are offering a further booster in autumn 2022 for adults who are in a clinical risk group following the success of last year’s autumn booster programme.
We have made it clear throughout the pandemic that blanket application of “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (DNACPR) decisions is never appropriate. Concerningly, the report highlights an increase in the proportion of deaths in which the reviewer was unable to determine whether the process for making a DNACPR decision had been correctly followed. Whether the process for DNACPR decisions were correctly followed and completed properly were unknown for around a third of people whose deaths were reviewed in 2021 due to insufficient data. We will continue to monitor this closely and measure the impacts of steps already taken and planned to address inappropriate DNACPR decisions and recording of decisions, including the new requirement which came into force on 1 April 2022, requiring GPs to record conversations about end-of-life care and DNACPRs as part of annual health checks.
There have been recurring themes in previous years’ reports that have prompted action, and some are present once again in this year’s report. Amongst these, the most prominent were the need for greater learning disability and autism awareness training, and the significant under reporting of deaths and increased health disparities among people from an ethnic minority.
I am pleased that we are taking action to address these issues. As of June 2021, NHS England have begun carrying out focused reviews for every death of a person from an ethnic minority that is reported to LeDeR.
The Government have introduced a new requirement in the Health and Care Act 2022 requiring Care Quality Commission registered service providers to ensure their employees receive learning disability and autism training appropriate to their role. Significant progress has been made on the Oliver McGowan mandatory training programme to support this new requirement, with over 8,000 people participating in the trials in 2021. A final evaluation report was published in June 2022 which will inform next steps. This action will help to ensure health and social care staff have the skills and knowledge to provide safe, compassionate, and informed care.
NHS England has published its action from learning report alongside the sixth LeDeR report, setting out a range of work taking place to improve the safety and quality of care to reduce early deaths and health disparities. We will continue to work with all our partners to ensure we are tackling the issues raised with urgency.
[HCWS204]
People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People: Support Action Plan
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
Today I am delighted to announce the publication of the “Building the right support” action plan. This action plan aims to reduce reliance on in-patient care in mental health hospitals for people with a learning disability and autistic people of all ages by building the right support in the community.
People with a learning disability and autistic people should live in their own home and have the right support in place to live an ordinary life. This includes access to education, employment and other opportunities which help people to fulfil their aspirations. We know these aspirations are not currently being met.
The action plan brings together the commitments that have been made by different partners to realise this aim.
We want this action plan to support the NHS long-term plan commitment to achieve a 50% net reduction in the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people being cared for in an in-patient unit by the end of March 2024. There may be times when admission to a mental health hospital is necessary and has a therapeutic benefit. Where this is the case, we are clear that this care should be of high quality, the least restrictive possible and for the shortest time possible. It should also be close to home so that a connection can be maintained with family, friends, and their local community.
Too often we have heard that the care of people with a learning disability and autistic people in specialist mental health in-patient care has fallen far short of the standards we would expect. Instances of abuse or poor care, as seen in appalling cases such as Winterbourne View, Whorlton Hall and Cawston Park, are unacceptable. I am determined that, working with our partners, we do everything we can stop this from happening again. I am pleased the NHS is taking action to avoid admitting people with a learning disability and autistic people to hospital settings rated inadequate by the CQC unless, in exceptional circumstances, it is in the best interests of the individual and their family and is being done with their involvement.
In the manifesto, we committed to improving how people with a learning disability and autistic people are treated in law and to making it easier for them to be discharged from hospital. Our proposed reforms to the Mental Health Act will support this by ensuring people with a learning disability and autistic people can only be detained where there is a clear mental health need and by creating new duties on commissioners to ensure that there are sufficient community-based services in their local area to support people with a learning disability and autistic people.
Delivering “Building the right support” is a joint endeavour—no one organisation can make this happen on their own. The “Building the right support” delivery board, which I chair, brings together organisations with the levers to make change happen. The board will have oversight of the implementation of this plan.
The action plan includes:
work to ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people receive high quality
care and support, and are safe;
a commitment to make it easier to leave hospital when people are ready;
what is being done to enable people to live an ordinary life in the community, for example
with the right housing and support;
specific activities to enable a good start to life, including early diagnosis and positive :
experiences of education;
reforms across Government to make wider improvements, such as the Mental Health Act and adult social care reforms; and,
work and changes to deliver increased integration and join-up across systems.
We also recognise that the way that funding flows through and across the health and social care system can impact on the provision of support and people’s overall experiences of care. To support this, we commissioned an independent consultancy organisation to undertake a rapid review of funding flows. I am pleased that we have been able to publish the report alongside the plan today and I will work with the delivery board to take forward action in response to the findings.
[HCWS202]
Grand Committee
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, or ATMUA. Taking the opportunity of our departure from the European Union, ATMUA created a more flexible set of powers for Ministers to implement slot alleviation measures. We are now able to adapt our approach to best support the UK’s own specific circumstances.
We will all have seen the disruption that holidaymakers and other passengers have faced at some of the UK’s airports, particularly over the recent Easter and half-term breaks. There have been unacceptable queues, delays and short-notice cancellations of flights. The persistent impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has presented challenges for the aviation sector as it recovers, and there have been difficulties ramping up operations to meet the high levels of demand. Airlines, airports and the myriad other businesses that support aviation operations have struggled to recruit and train enough staff. Many other airports around the world are struggling with similar challenges. There have also been delays due to European air traffic control restrictions, strike action and airspace closures. This has resulted in short-notice cancellations of flights and considerable disruption for passengers.
The Government are doing everything in their power to support the aviation industry and ensure that passengers can fly with confidence over the summer. On 30 June, the Government set out a 22-point plan to support the aviation industry to avoid further disruption so that all travellers can get away over the summer period. One of the key elements of this package is the slot amnesty to which these regulations relate. It offers carriers more flexibility to plan and deliver reliable schedules and it introduced a two-week window, which closed on 9 July, during which airlines were able to offer back 30% of their remaining slots for the summer season. This is a one-off measure to allow airlines to plan a realistically deliverable schedule for the summer, and in particular to reduce the risk of short-notice cancellations and delays. Critical to this will be the sector itself ensuring that it develops robust schedules that it is confident it can deliver.
Ordinarily, airlines must operate slots 80% of the time to retain the right to the same slots the following year; this is known as the 80:20 rule. When the pandemic initially struck, the 80:20 rule was fully waived to avoid environmentally damaging and financially costly flights. Following the UK’s departure from the EU and the passage of ATMUA, we were able to introduce a more tailored alleviation of slot rules in response to the pandemic as the situation developed. For summer 2022, our focus is on encouraging recovery following the success of the vaccine rollout, the removal of travel restrictions and the generally positive demand outlook for aviation. After consultation with the industry and consideration of the evidence, we determined that a 70:30 ratio was an appropriate usage requirement for the summer period. This includes an extended justified non-use provision, which helps carriers when they are operating in markets that are still restricted due to the pandemic.
However, in light of the severe recent disruption at UK airports, caused by the persistent impact of Covid and a tight labour market, we consider that further alleviation measures are justified for the current season, which runs until 29 October. On 21 June, we therefore published this statutory instrument, which set out our plan to offer carriers the two-week window when they can hand back up to 30% of their remaining slots per airport for the current season. This is a critical measure to allow airlines and airports to take stock of what they can realistically deliver. This has been our message to the airlines and airports, and the entire aviation sector; they must be able to provide the certainty of a deliverable schedule. There is no point in continually announcing short-notice cancellations when they suddenly realise that they do not have the staff to fly a planned flight.
This proposal was developed following a short consultation with airports and airlines and there was strong support for it, with the great majority of both airlines and airports supporting it.
The draft instrument covers England, Scotland and Wales. Aerodromes in Northern Ireland are a devolved matter, but in any event, there are no slot co-ordinated airports in Northern Ireland, so the Northern Ireland Executive agreed that it was not necessary for the powers to extend there.
One other issue is worth highlighting. If an airline does hand back one of its slots, it can only be one that would be flown at least 14 days after it was handed back. This will mean that we do not end up with lots of short-notice cancellations within that fortnight. Orderly communications with consumers will be essential. We also expect airports to maintain their communications with consumers to advise them on what they need to do in order to ease their passage through the airport.
This is a simple statutory instrument that does just the one thing. I look forward to hearing comments from noble Lords and I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward the regulations before us, which I broadly support and welcome. I have a number of questions relating directly to the instrument and to the current situation. I understand that when a passenger buys an airline ticket, the simple measure of paying airport tax shows the airport and the airlines the number of people travelling on that particular day—so I am confused about why the numbers travelling seem to come as a complete surprise. I declare an interest: when I met and married my husband, he was an airline man and worked for a number of years with Delta Air Lines, Singapore Airlines and BOAC. As part of his responsibilities he was also director of Gatwick Handling.
Is one of the problems that airports and airlines are not themselves responsible for the ground handling operations, so that there is no joined-up operation from the moment that a passenger arrives at the airport and checks in their luggage? One word of advice, having married someone in the airline business, is to travel with hand luggage only so that, if you are offloaded, leaving the aircraft is a much simpler exercise. But I understand that for families and people going away for a long period that is not possible.
Do the Government have any plans to review the fact that ground handling operators are separate companies that are perhaps one step removed from the companies that passengers are paying for their services? I know that the airlines, airports and the Government are saying that they are doing all they possibly can to ensure a better experience than what we have been seeing since the May bank holidays earlier this year, but there still seem to be issues. How long does it take to train and give security clearance in particular to those working airside? I accept that we must take that extremely seriously, because that is where we are most vulnerable to a breach of security.
I welcome this amnesty. I offer a word of sympathy to the airlines and airports, which have probably been the hardest hit, alongside the hospitality and retail sectors. People were laid off. Willie Walsh said this week that, at the height of Covid, during the lockdown, only 2% of flights were operating. They had to grasp that situation and, given their ongoing overhead costs, save money as best they could, and obviously a lot of people who were in those positions have found work elsewhere.
Heathrow has asked for a moratorium on ticket sales for departures before 12 September. I pay tribute here to Simon Calder of the Independent, an expert in this field who does an enormous amount of work and is very helpful in advising passengers. He said that, after that announcement was made, when he tried to buy tickets—possibly yesterday—he found that a number of airlines were still selling tickets for before the magic date of 12 September. If that is the case, what comeback will there be? Those passengers may or may not read the newspapers and may or may not be aware of the issue. I have a further question on the impact of the amnesty. I want to establish whether, if an airline cedes a slot, it will recover the slot on the due date and there will be no economic loss to it.
I am one of the lucky passengers. I travelled during the May half-term. Although Ryanair may not be everyone’s favourite airline, I understand that it has the best figures for the fewest cancellations and the reliability and promptness of its flights. That week alone, it was estimated that between 2% and 4% of total flights were cancelled within a week of departure, compared with the normal rate of around 1%. Some 200,000 consumers were impacted by short-notice cancellations, as we are told in paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Note. It is not acceptable that 2.3 million passengers have been affected by delayed flights—approximately 43% of passengers arriving at or departing from UK airports. Given the importance of airports to the local economy in which they are based and to the national economy, that is obviously unacceptable.
Finally, paragraph 7.5 says that there will be 14 days’ notice when slots are ceded and that airlines are required to notify passengers of the cancellation of each flight at least 14 days before the date of the flight. Can my noble friend tell us what will happen if the airline fails to honour that commitment? It clearly is not happening. Anecdotally, a member of my family was caught up in this when they were actually in a taxi going to Heathrow airport. Having had a British Airways flight cancelled, she was then reallocated an EasyJet flight. When she was an hour from the airport, she was informed that that flight also was cancelled. So what redress will there be and what compensation will be given?
This is a deeply unfortunate situation in a major part of the economy, which is trying to do its level best to emerge as best it can from Covid times. I would like to think that one solution might be to consider ground handling operations being more hands-on with those closest to them. However, I hope my noble friend will give me the reassurance I am seeking for those passengers who have had less than 14 days’ notice, and, importantly, tell me how the airlines are required to inform passengers of a cancellation.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation, but I have to comment that there is something surreal about this SI. It talks about a lack of demand at a time when almost all airports, especially our largest—Heathrow and Gatwick, and one or two others—are struggling to cope.
The Government announced a grand plan of 22 points—this is one of them—and the Explanatory Memorandum talks of
“intervention to facilitate advance planning for a robust and reliable flight schedule.”
There is certainly a long way to go to achieve that, because it does not happen at the moment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, since it seems fashionable, I declare an interest as a British Airways pensioner after a 20-year career in BOAC—that is how old I am—and BA.
The chaos at airports in recent weeks is indicative of a Government who have lost their grip. In recent days, Heathrow has asked airlines to stop selling summer tickets, data has shown that one in every 14 flights from Gatwick was cancelled last month and the chief executive of Menzies, which provides check-in and baggage services, has laid the blame squarely at the feet of Ministers. But this issue has not crept up overnight. The Government have had months to resolve it, yet—unbelievably—I am told the Transport Secretary did not hold a single meeting with aviation bosses during Easter or the jubilee weekend, despite the chaos at airports across the country. The only reason the Government are now bringing forward this instrument and facilitating the mass cancellation of flights is that they have been slow to act. By introducing these regulations, Ministers are conceding that airlines are not able to meet the pre-Covid demand that is now returning. Ministers cannot escape their responsibility.
I always try to make my interventions in debates such as this fairly small because the impact one has is somewhat limited, but at the end of the day this is an important event and a national disgrace. One way or another, the airline industry has failed to operate. The Government have offered the view that their 22 points published on 30 June would solve the problems. I decided to examine the 22 points to see what the Government have promised to do and whether they have done it.
Points 9 to 14 are about supporting passengers. This is desirable, but it is not what we want. Passengers do not want support; they want to fly on time, and that is what we must concentrate on. Points 15 to 22 are about recruitment and retention. Once again, they are worthy but too late to make much impact this summer, so I go back to points 1 to 8.
Point 1 sets out “expectations”, but does not actually say who is supposed to do what. Point 2 is these regulations. As I read the 22 points, it is the only one that requires any legislative action.
Point 3 says:
“We have strengthened industry-government working, by establishing a new weekly Strategic Risk Group, chaired by ministers and attended by airline, airport and ground handler CEOs to ensure they are prepared for summer and can meet the schedules.”
“Weekly” presumably means that there have been at least two meetings. Can the Minister affirm whether that is true? Crucially, did the chief executive officers actually turn up? Most importantly, what did the meetings achieve? What new initiatives or co-ordination that was lacking were achieved?
Point 4 is about establishing
“a weekly Summer Resilience Group with airline, airport and ground handler operational directors to help them work through their pinch-points in the aviation system as they emerge and work collaboratively on solutions.”
Again, how often has this group met? Was it attended by the operational directors of each of the appropriate companies? What did it decide and what points were overcome?
Point 5 says:
“We have established a joint Home Office and DfT Ministerial Border Group to identify and prepare for high levels of demand at the UK border.”
I was somewhat surprised by this, because I rather assumed that was the sort of thing Ministers would do routinely. Nevertheless, it is promised. Has this border group actually had any outcome?
Point 6 says:
“We have worked with the major airlines and airports to get weekly updates and assurances to government that they can run their schedule of summer flights.”
Have the airlines met that demand? Are the Government getting weekly updates? What picture do those weekly updates present? Is the information that is submitted published in any public domain material?
Point 7 says:
“We are working with international partners, neighbouring countries and EUROCONTROL, to ensure that disruption is minimised through coordinated planning and cooperation across airspace boundaries.”
My recollection is that that is what these organisations do all the time. I find it difficult to see how that will have any impact.
Point 8 refers to a discussion of the ground handling market.
Although we will not oppose the instrument, on the grounds that we want the Government to bring forward a wider message for the efficient use of new slots, I hope the Minister can use this debate as an opportunity to bring forward a real strategy to solve this crisis.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate. I hope to get through as many of the questions as I possibly can. I think I can do them all, but if not, as ever, I will pop a letter in the post and try to provide a bit more information.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering raised the airport tax with me beforehand and we discussed it. The airline knows when someone books a ticket, so it knows that it has people who are about to fly, but many people book tickets many months ahead. I suppose that the airline thinks that it will be able to meet those obligations many months ahead, and then it turns out that it cannot. That is where short-notice cancellations come in. We know that there is a significant amount of data in the sector; obviously a lot of it is commercially sensitive, but we are fortunate in that it is shared with the department in certain circumstances so that we can scrutinise what is going on.
I was interested in my noble friend’s intervention about ground handling and operations. That was one of the things we pointed out specifically in our letter to the industry with the CAA, which we sent at the beginning of June. We were absolutely clear with the sector that we need a realistic schedule. This is one of the things that today’s regulations will help to provide. People need certainty.
The second point that we put in that letter was that we wanted all airports to have airport partner working groups. This was particularly to address the issue that my noble friend identified: to make sure that airports are not caught short by a lack of staff in ground- handling operations that they did not know about. We asked them to do that; we also asked them to focus, again, on passengers with reduced mobility, as there have been some dreadful stories of people being left on aircraft. But in all that, there should be no compromise on safety and security. Of course, we also said that all passengers must be informed of their rights and compensated where appropriate.
Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Movement etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Movement etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the import, export and placing on the market of cat and dog fur, and any products containing such fur, has been banned in the United Kingdom since 2008. This Government are committed to maintaining this existing ban in order to protect our much-loved cats and dogs—something that I am sure all noble Lords will welcome. I declare an interest as the co-owner of two rather lively black working cocker spaniels.
In 2008, when the prohibition entered UK law, the UK was implementing an EU regulation. The UK was a key supporter of the introduction of this ban on the trade in cat and dog fur while we were a member of the EU. The ban was in response to fears that non-labelled fur from cats and dogs was being sold in the EU. Consumers were naturally concerned about the possibility that they could find themselves unwittingly buying cat and dog fur and products containing such fur. The UK supported and pushed for the ban at the time of its inception, and our position on this remains unchanged. This is why it is so important that we replicate and maintain the ban on the trade in cat and dog fur by ensuring, through this SI, that it is fully operable now that we have left the European Union.
Some may ask why this ban is not being extended to cover the fur of other species. That is not possible through this instrument because it is made under powers contained within the European Union withdrawal Act 2020. These powers are limited to correcting technical deficiencies in retained EU law and implementing the Northern Ireland protocol. This instrument cannot introduce new policy; instead, it ensures that we can continue to maintain a fully functioning ban on the trade in cat and dog fur and, therefore, protect cats and dogs from those who would trade in their fur.
The instrument replicates, clarifies and makes fully operable the ban on the trade in cat and dog fur by replacing references to the European Union, its institutions and its legislation with references to Great Britain. It also makes continued provision for enforcement and clarifies criminal penalties for breach of the prohibition in each of the United Kingdom’s criminal law jurisdictions. This will ensure that there can be no doubt about the penalties for breaching this important ban.
Unfettered movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is a requirement of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The SI recognises this requirement by technically allowing the movement of cat and dog fur between Northern Ireland and Great Britain so that the retained regulation does not conflict with the requirement for the unfettered movement of goods within the United Kingdom.
However, to be clear, I assure noble Lords that this is merely a theoretical access to movement for cat and dog fur. No lawful movement of these goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain will occur in practice, because it remains illegal to import, export or place on the market cat and dog fur across the whole of the United Kingdom, through the combined effects of the EU regulation in Northern Ireland and the retained domestic version in Great Britain.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward this instrument. I am sure everyone would wish to support it—I think the fur would really start to fly if there was any sign of any trade whatever.
I have just one question for my noble friend. It is good to know that there is no evidence of any trade either from third countries or the EU—which is now a third country to us as well. What steps are taken at UK borders—airports, sea ports and indeed the Channel Tunnel—to ensure that there is no fur from cats or dogs in any part of the luggage? Obviously it is quite small and would be quite easy to hide. I would like to put my mind at rest that measures are in place to ensure that no fur is being brought in wilfully by passengers and can pass through untraced.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for his thorough explanation. I very much support his sentiments and comments around this area. I do not want to prolong the debate but, as we have heard, the instrument makes no change to policy and we welcome the Government’s continued commitment to maintaining pre-existing trade measures. I particularly recognise the Minister’s comments on how it is possible to use trade measures to make sure that these important matters are implemented, and I echo the sentiment and understanding that the fur trade is an abhorrent and cruel industry, and we have to do everything in our power to make sure that we interrupt any such practices wherever we can.
I have a couple of brief questions. I am sure the Minister will be aware of comments from Cats Protection raising concerns that regulations will be effective only where goods are explicitly sold as cat fur and do not address the problem of real fur being imported and sold as faux fur in poorly labelled goods. It has seen evidence of cases where fake fur used in products and garments such as shoes was in fact cat fur. What assessment have the Government made of that and have they given any consideration to further steps to stamp down on such practices? It cannot be right for UK consumers to be unwittingly supporting this cruel trade due to improper labelling.
On a wider but related note, have the Government considered changing labelling requirements so that any products containing animal fur or other parts of animal origin are clearly listed, so that consumers can be further aware of when they are and are not buying animal products, where they may have come from—both which animal and which country—and how they have been manufactured? I understand the possibilities around this; in the United States, there are detailed labelling requirements under the Fur Products Labeling Act.
I welcome the sentiments and intent of the proceedings today, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their brief comments and support for this SI. I will do my best to answer the questions raised. They broadly follow the same theme of enforcement, so I will pick up first on the point made by my noble friend and touched on by the noble Baroness.
There is no evidence of a trade in these products in the United Kingdom. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it has been banned since 2008. Importers and exporters must declare that their goods do not contain cat and dog fur. Border Force is responsible for enforcing anti-smuggling controls at UK points of entry and exit to prevent imports and exports of prohibited cat and dog fur and products containing such fur. Where Border Force believes an item has been intentionally described to conceal its true identity and suspects that it is cat or dog fur, it has the ability to detain or seize it and, if necessary, have it forensically tested. I hope that touches on the point about faux fur as a cover for real fur.
Traders found to have breached the ban can be subject to criminal penalties, and this SI provides for the imposition of those penalties and clarifies them in each of the United Kingdom’s criminal law jurisdictions. There can be no doubt as to the penalties that can be applied to those found to be trading in cat and dog fur. I have no doubt that UK Border Force is well trained in seeking out such goods, particularly as they can be easily hidden—a point that was well made.
Labelling was brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Labelling is more linked to Defra policy, so I will write a letter to the noble Baroness, and copy in my noble friend Lady McIntosh, explaining its link to the DIT.
This was not raised, but I want to give some reassurance to the Committee about the future. In May last year, Defra published a formal call for evidence on the fur trade in Great Britain. The evidence gathered will be used to inform future action on the fur trade in Great Britain. The outcome of the call for evidence will be published soon. I am afraid that I cannot give any further details, but it is happening. It is important to mention that as I am on my feet talking about this subject. I hope that I have answered all the questions.
Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Grand Committee do consider the Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on Thursday 16 June 2022 under Section 23(6) of the Business and Planning Act 2020 for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. If approved and made, these regulations will extend the temporary pavement licence provisions for 12 months, to 30 September 2023, and will come into effect the day after they are made.
The temporary pavement licence provisions created a faster, cheaper and more streamlined consenting regime for the placement of removeable furniture, including tables and chairs, on pavements outside premises such as cafés, bars, restaurants and pubs. These measures have been popular and very successful in supporting businesses, making it easier for businesses such as pubs, restaurants and cafés to facilitate al fresco dining with outside seating. It is vital that we continue to support the recovery of the hospitality sector from the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic by extending these provisions for 12 months.
I turn to the details of the regulations. The sole purpose of the regulations is to change the four references to the expiry date of these temporary pavement licence provisions in the legislation, as amended, from 30 September 2022 to 30 September 2023. The regulations do not change any other part of the temporary pavement licence provisions, so the process for applying for a licence during the extended period will not change.
Subject to the regulations being approved and made, businesses will be able to apply for a licence under the process set out in the pavement licence provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 for the extended period, until 30 September 2023. The regulations do not automatically extend licences that have already been granted under the current provisions, so businesses will need to apply for a new licence if they wish to have one in place during the extended period. Local authorities are encouraged by guidance to take a pragmatic approach in applying the relevant provisions so that it is as convenient as possible for businesses to apply for a licence during the extended period.
As the process for applying for a licence under the extended period will remain unchanged, I will briefly remind noble Lords of this process. All licence applications are subject to a seven-day public consultation period, starting the day after that on which the application is made, and then a further seven-day determination period during which the local authority is expected either to grant a licence or to reject the application. If the local authority does not determine the application before the end of the determination period, the licence will automatically be deemed to have been granted in the form in which the application was made, and the business can place the proposed removable furniture, such as tables and chairs, within the area set out in the application for the purpose or purposes proposed.
Licence application fees will be set locally but are capped at a maximum of £100. Again, these fees are unchanged from what they are for licence applications under the current temporary provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020. All licences will be subject to a national no-obstruction condition and smoke-free seating condition, as well as any local conditions set by local authorities.
The grant of a pavement licence covers only the placing of removable furniture on the highway. A pavement licence does not negate the need to obtain approvals under other regulatory frameworks, such as alcohol licensing. Once a licence is granted, or deemed to be granted, the applicant will also benefit from deemed planning permission to use the highway land for anything done pursuant to the licence while it is valid, such as using furniture to sell or serve food or drink supplied from, or in connection with relevant use of, the premises.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the statutory instrument and putting it in context. As she said, it rolls forward the existing pavement licences regime for another year, prior to them being embedded in primary legislation in the forthcoming levelling-up and urban renewal Bill.
My noble friend did not mention one controversial issue: smoking. If she did, I must have missed it. This is the background to the controversy about the instrument. When it was initially introduced there was no provision for non-smoking areas associated with pavement licences. There were then very strong representation from a number of noble Lords that, like licences for inside pubs, those for outside should also be non-smoking. There was a debate, and we ended up with a typical House of Lords compromise, which I suspect did not satisfy the Government and certainly did not satisfy me—namely, that provision must be made for non-smoking areas on the pavements. That is in the statutory instrument and is being rolled forward.
I remind my noble friend that a regret Motion was carried in your Lordships’ House a year ago on the omission of 100% non-smoking provision in the licence. That should be a warning to the Government that, when the LUR Bill eventually comes forward, there will be similar representations that the legislation should be changed. I say in passing that I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, whom we much miss in these debates, for the briefing that he gave me last week.
There has been a significant change since we last debated this, in the form of the Khan review on smoke-free 2030 policies. The Khan review is quite unequivocal on this. It recommends that the Government
“amend the 2006 Health Act to prohibit smoking on all premises where food or drink is served.”
It actually goes a lot further, calling for the introduction of more smoke-free outdoor public spaces through a ban on smoking in all outdoor areas, not just pavement licences, where children are present. If the Government are serious about the Khan review and the ambition to make this country smoke free by 2030, they have to take on board the review’s recommendations when they draft the LUR Bill.
In the meantime, some local authorities have used the freedom that they have under the SI to introduce smoke-free pavement areas—for example, Manchester and Newcastle. There is no evidence at all that this has had any impact on trade. In fact, the reverse is the case: all the public opinion surveys after the initial ban on smoking in pubs indicated that more people visited pubs when they were smoke free, and 100% smoke free with a pavement licence is much easier to implement than the halfway house we have at the moment. You just have to put up one notice saying “No smoking”, and then there are no ashtrays and no two-metre gap between the smoking and non-smoking areas.
My noble friend mentioned that new guidance will be issued in conjunction with this SI. I ask for an assurance that, before that guidance goes out, there is consultation with the Department of Health, which obviously has an interest in this subject. Last year there was an instance where correspondence went out to Manchester from the department—I think it was then the MHCLG—that I do not think had been cleared with the Department of Health and sent a slightly confusing message. While welcoming this statutory instrument, I would be grateful for that assurance from my noble friend that there will be consultation with the Department of Health before the guidance is sent out.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I spoke in support of these measures when they were first presented two years ago, and I am glad that they have been extended for another year. It is worth emphasising how important the hospitality trade is. In 2019 it was worth £59.3 billion and represented 3% of total UK economic output. From the point of view of levelling up, the trade is important across the whole country. But as the Minister says, hospitality has by no means recovered to pre-Covid levels. This is not just about the pandemic, although that is part of it: we now have the energy and cost of living crisis and the prospect of further rail strikes. But we should not forget what the pub group Mitchells & Butlers said last autumn—that Brexit was still
“an important event for the market”
in terms of workforce shortages, which have run into the thousands for that group alone. This is shades of what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was talking about in the earlier SI on airports. There are also supply and cost of product problems, and transport costs as well. So what measures, alongside this welcome if relatively modest measure, are the Government taking, or considering taking, to help the hospitality trade? The trade clearly needs considerably more help, not least to save more pubs from closure.
Clearly, it is important that pavements can be accessed properly by all users, including those with disabilities. It is worth repeating what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, two years ago: this is about not just access but predictability of access, so that street furniture is put out as precisely as possible, in the same place as the day before, to enable that access. That is a really important point, which I hope will appear in the new guidance. Will businesses clearly be able to refer to such guidance? Will this be checked after licences are awarded?
We are getting better at al fresco dining in this country. Of course, the weather at present is perfect for it, and I hope that we will enjoy the rest of the summer in this way and that the hospitality trade benefits from this as well.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I too give a warm welcome to my noble friend for stepping into the breach and presenting the regulations this afternoon. I join my noble friend Lord Young in congratulating my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh on all he achieved in his position. We have been extremely fortunate to have him. I do not think a day or a week passed without him making some contribution and he was extremely knowledgeable and skilled in his field, so I look forward to his many further contributions from the Back Benches—for the moment.
I will give a plug and a thank you to the Liaison Committee, which allowed us to do a follow-up report on the Licensing Act 2003, which is like the mother Act of many regulations, including those before us this afternoon. We published the report on Monday and it seems to have been extremely well received. I was fortunate enough to meet UKHospitality at a beer dinner last night, where I was able to discuss it briefly, and I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss our recommendations and conclusions.
One of the witnesses, Kate Nicholls, was in fact from UKHospitality and was extremely powerful. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done; I think the Government have appointed her as the first ever disability ambassador for hospitality. She will have a great role to play on pavement licences. We are fortunate that we are able-bodied and able to walk around quite freely—if you can pass the crowds on the pavement at the moment. But I think anybody who is hard of sight, or with a disability and needing a mobility scooter, is very mindful of the obstructions that street furniture and other things can cause.
We had a debate on airport slot allocations earlier. I would say that the airline, retail and hospitality sectors have definitely been the most damaged by the Covid crisis, which is still ongoing, so I warmly welcome the provisions that my noble friend has set out today. Looking back to 2003, when I had been an MP for, I think, six years—I am looking at my former Chief Whip—we were full of expectation that there was going to be a café culture and that we would be able to take young children and older family members into cafés to order coffee, wine or soft drinks. That never really took off under the Licensing Act 2003 in the way that the then Government intended.
However, we should pay tribute to the original regulations that my noble friend referred to, which came in in 2020, as she stated. Under the temporary provision, the process for applying for a licence was capped at £100—I think it still is—so everybody knows and the local authorities are onside. Perhaps even more importantly, a licence is automatically deemed granted if the authority does not make a decision on the application before the end of the determination period.
The two things I welcome most warmly in what my noble friend said are, first, the fact that the regulations today will extend the provisions right up to 30 September 2023 and, secondly, the commitment to make that a permanent feature in the levelling-up Bill. I am really looking forward to tackling that Bill as I have many other ideas, and I hope that my noble friend will enter into the spirit of that. With those few remarks, I welcome the regulations before us.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, who cannot be here today, I can say that we welcome the ability of cafés, restaurants and so on to have spaces outside on pavements. She leads in this area and wanted to make that clear. It has been a welcome development, pandemic or no pandemic. However, my noble friend’s particular concern is that businesses should pay rent for these spaces because the spaces are publicly owned and maintained by council taxpayers.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, over recent years, hospitality businesses across the UK have struggled, but the problems they face did not begin during the pandemic. As the cost of living bites, it is important that the Government support local businesses in any way possible. Even minor steps such as these regulations are welcome. Labour therefore does not oppose these regulations to extend pavement licences, but instead calls on the Government to minimise the unintended consequences. That means monitoring the impact on local residents and pedestrian access, particularly for those with disabilities and mobility issues—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Guide Dogs UK and the RNIB both raised concerns about the shortened timeframe for consultation when the temporary changes on pavement licencing were introduced. The department must work with both groups to resolve concerns. The Government should also work closely with local authorities to enforce safeguards in cases where businesses are blocking pavements and ensure that councils are properly resourced to fulfil their responsibilities.
Aside from the specific provisions of this instrument, Labour wants the Government to bring forward further support to help the hospitality industry, and that includes making sure that people have more disposable income to support local businesses.
Several noble Lords—particularly the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—mentioned that the hospitality industry has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. I have a few questions to follow up on some excellent contributions made by noble Lords in this debate.
During the two years since this has been in place, how many licences have been rejected and what were the main reasons for those rejections? On hospitality and local councils, has there been any feedback between the department and local authorities on what have been the major impacts? That is a very broad area, but I am sure that the Minister could comment on whether the issues are Brexit or pandemic-induced—a point made earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, made a powerful contribution and added to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham about the complexities and confusion around smoking and non-smoking areas. I hope for some clarification from the Minister.
The Minister also gave many examples of increasing capacity at minimum cost and short notice. In particular, has the department assessed how much value there has been in footfall to different hospitality sectors and has there been an economic measurement of increased revenue for businesses? Has work been done on that area?
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I am sure that in forthcoming proceedings on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill there will be many contributions and amendments, but it is a good start to hear the issues raised today.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank noble Lords for all their contributions, which have given us an interesting debate on the draft regulations before us today—a meatier debate than I expected at the outset. We have been discussing an essential extension of the temporary pavement licence provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 for 12 months to 30 September 2023. As previously outlined, the regulations continue our support for the hospitality sector’s economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, as well as supporting businesses in times of rising costs and expenses. They are vital to provide certainty for the businesses in their planning for al fresco dining for the next year.
I am grateful to noble Lords for raising a number of important points in relation to how this will operate, and I welcome this opportunity to respond. I have heard loud and clear the contributions of both the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Young on the issue of smoking and smoke-free areas and I acknowledge that they are both very well informed on the subject. To be fair, I merely touched on the issue of smoking in my opening remarks—certainly not in any great depth.
As they both know, all licences are subject to the smoke-free seating condition, which requires that the licence holder must make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted. The pavement licence guidance recommends that a minimum two-metre distance should be provided between non-smoking and smoking areas wherever possible. My noble friend is quite correct that local authorities can also apply their own local conditions to licences, and both Newcastle City Council and Manchester City Council have entirely banned smoking in areas that have been granted pavement licences.
House of Lords
Covid-19 Lockdown: Fixed Penalty Notices
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathcarron
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given (1) to granting an amnesty to the 43 per cent of people who were issued with Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) during the COVID-19 lockdowns and who have not paid them, and (2) to refunding the remaining 57 per cent of people issued with FPNs who did pay them.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that a proportionate law enforcement response was needed to get Covid-19 under control and get lives back to normal. Parliament agreed, and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations 2020 passed into law. While the majority followed the rules, it is right that those who put us most at risk by ignoring the rules faced appropriate penalties.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
I thank the Minister for that reply. The police in England and Wales issued just under 119,000 Covid restriction lockdown fines. Most are well over a year old and 43% of them have not been paid and, let us face it, by now never will be paid. Part of the lockdowns’ collateral damage to all sectors has been the enormous courts backlog so, in the spirit of peace and reconciliation, will the Minister consider an amnesty for those who have not paid the fines and never will, and, in all fairness, a refund for those who have?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the spirit in which my noble friend poses the Question, drawn perhaps out of his continuing interest in mediation as an alternative dispute resolution, but I make two points in response. First, consideration of an amnesty is not within the gift of the Home Office: police forces are independent of government. Secondly, funds ingathered under this scheme have already begun to be distributed among local authorities, hence the course for which he calls is not a feasible one.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I agree with an amnesty, but we seem to have gone from one extreme to the other, with a TUC survey that now finds 9% of employees showing Covid symptoms being forced to go to work. Does the Minister agree that anyone who tests positive or displays Covid symptoms should not be forced to go into work, and that no one should have to work alongside colleagues who are testing positive? Employees should, at the very least, be allowed that choice for the sake of their own health and the health of others.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure how far it lies within the power of central government to make the orders for which the noble Earl calls. I will, if he wishes, correspond with him on just what the Government can do to prevent people being coerced into going into work against their will.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is making a virtual contribution.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the data in the National Police Chiefs’ Council report on fixed penalty notices issued in England and Wales shows the different approach to FPNs taken by forces. For example, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire issued less than half the number that Sussex and Norfolk issued. Will the reasons for those different rates be looked at, especially if persuasion was a more successful approach than penalties, so that lessons can be learned for the future?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the circumstances on which the noble Baroness founds her question seem an inevitable consequence of the independence of police forces, to which I made reference earlier. The Home Office worked closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the Government’s enforcement approach to the health crisis, with engagement at both ministerial and official level. Police forces were guided by instruction and advice from the College of Policing.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have so many questions. The Minister talked about appropriate penalties, but there were people who escaped appropriate penalties—for example, at No. 10. Is there going to be any retrospective view of this? The Government gave out some very confusing messages, which may partially explain the difference in police force enforcement.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I repeat my previous answer: it is the foundation of policing in England and Wales that individual forces are independent of central government and not accountable to central government for decisions they take. On the specific matter to which the noble Baroness refers, in relation to events down the street in Whitehall, I think that that has been investigated thoroughly by the Metropolitan Police.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, fixed penalty notices were up to seven times more likely to be issued to black, Asian and ethnic-minority individuals, according to data produced by the Guardian. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that this disparity is investigated by the Covid-19 public inquiry?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the disparities to which the noble Baroness draws my attention are a matter of concern for the Government, as well as for all right-thinking people around this House and beyond. I cannot speak for the independent inquiry that is being set up, but I assure her that the matter will be looked into by the Home Office.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, first, I echo the points made by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron and I agree with what he said. I spoke recently in the coronavirus emergency measures debate, and it was clear throughout that a blur between guidance and regulation for lockdown restrictions had clearly come to pass. As has been said, thousands of people were issued with fines in one part of the country, while others never received even a warning for a similar offence. Does the Minister agree that the law of the land must apply across the board and cannot be determined by postcode, as that makes a mockery of the judicial system in this country?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I regret that I cannot agree with my noble friend, for the reasons I have given. While a degree of support and advice was promulgated by the College of Policing and the Government, individual decisions were matters for individual police services across the country. That is a cornerstone of our policing in England and Wales and I think it merits support.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we should remind ourselves that the vast majority of the public conformed to the rules in the face of a pandemic; only a small minority did not and were issued with fixed penalty notices. Are the 43% who have not paid being actively pursued? What is the Government’s policy or advice to the police on that? It would be interesting to know whether all the people who have been issued with fixed penalty notices get a criminal record and what the consequences will be if people continue to refuse to pay the fines with which they have been issued.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Lord asks a series of questions. If I may, I will revert to him on a couple of them. He asked about further enforcement steps by the Government; enforcement is in the hands of another arm’s-length body, the ACRO Criminal Records Office, so it is not a matter directly for the Government. He asked a very important question about whether people will receive criminal records for non-payment. Because the regulations were not marked as recordable, this will generally not be the case. In cases where people were brought on a complaint which specified an offence under these regulations and another offence which is recordable, the Covid offence may be recorded.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is important to uphold the rule of law? Many colleagues across the House will know that I disagreed fundamentally with the extent of the lockdowns and the extent to which they were prolonged—I would have preferred Sweden’s approach—but, given that it is the law and that we need trust in policing, the idea that someone who has broken the law at the time should suddenly be pardoned when others have paid the fine strikes me as strange. If the problem is in the courts, what other crimes will we turn a blind eye to just because the courts are overloaded?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully agree with my noble friend. In any event, it is not within the power of the Home Office to grant an amnesty, as I said earlier. The funds ingathered from Covid are being returned to local authorities or the Government of Wales—the areas from which they were gathered—and applied to other purposes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the figure of 119,000 was mentioned in relation to England and Wales. Can the Minister give us the equivalent number for Scotland? It would be interesting to compare Darlington and Cannock with Dirleton and Cumnock, to take two random places, and see whether people in one are more law-abiding than those in the other, or whether the police are more diligent in one than the other.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that that question is important and may yield interesting answers. I regret that the facts in relation to Dirleton and Cumnock do not fall within the ambit of the Home Office. He gestures to me; I will indeed write to him on the topic.
Northern Ireland: Operation Kenova
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord’s Question directly, I am conscious that between now and the end of this month we will see the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Park bombings, the 50th anniversary of Bloody Friday and the Claudy bombings and 32 years since the murder of Ian Gow, a friend of many of us in this House. All were heinous, wicked terrorist atrocities which were totally unjustified. Our thoughts, as always, are with the survivors and victims.
Operation Kenova has conducted much commendable work since its establishment in 2016, particularly through its ability to build trust and confidence with those engaging with its investigations. The Government very much hope that the best practices established by it will be carried through into the new legacy bodies once they are established.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply, particularly his reminder to the House about past atrocities, which we should never forget. Before the Northern Ireland legacy Bill, to which he referred, comes to this House, will Ministers agree to an amendment that I will table to adopt the Operation Kenova investigations model? Lamentably, the Government’s current amnesty provisions—that is what they are—favour perpetrators of atrocities over the needs of victims. Kenova uncovers crucial information because it is carrying out investigations to criminal justice ECHR Article 2-compliant standards, with 32 of its cases referred to the Public Prosecution Service, and so offers potential justice to victims and upholds the rule of law in a way the Bill does not. As currently drafted, the Bill does neither and is opposed by all victims’ groups and Stormont parties. Surely, Ministers should think again.
Lord Caine (Con)
The former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland makes a number of important points. As I said at the outset, Operation Kenova has conducted much commendable work and I pay tribute to the way in which Jon Boutcher has set about his task. The noble Lord probably asks me to go a bit too far in agreeing to amendments before we have even considered Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships’ House. As he is aware from my record in taking other legislation through this House, I am always prepared to look at any amendment on its merits and give it due consideration. I am very happy to sit down with the noble Lord and any other noble Lords across the House prior to Second Reading to discuss the contents of the Bill.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there can never be any moral equivalence between those who were sent by this Parliament to defend the rule of law—they sometimes made mistakes but they were under a huge amount of pressure—and those who went illegally, with weapons, to murder and cause mayhem?
Lord Caine (Con)
My noble friend will not be in the least surprised to hear that I agree with his comments entirely. He makes very important and powerful points. There is no moral equivalence between those who set out to uphold the rule of law and defend democracy and those who sought to destroy both. His question gives me the opportunity to place on record once again the enormous debt of gratitude we all owe to the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, George Cross, and the members of our Armed Forces for their work in Northern Ireland. Of course mistakes were made but, overall, it is a record of which they and we can be very proud.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Hain, about learning from the processes of Operation Kenova. Since, as the Minister knows, every victims’ group in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government and every single political party in Northern Ireland disagrees with the Bill, is it not time to go back to the new Secretary of State, rethink the Bill, or preferably abandon it altogether?
Lord Caine (Con)
I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord, another distinguished former Secretary of State, makes his point. As he will know from his time in office, finding consensus around legacy and the past is incredibly difficult and has eluded successive Governments. I was intimately involved in the Stormont House negotiations in 2014, when we thought we had reached some kind of agreement. That subsequently unravelled in the following years. These are very difficult matters but, as I said in response to a previous question, I am very happy to meet victims’ groups, political parties, the Irish Government and Members of your Lordships’ House to see if there are ways in which the Bill can be improved.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the international steering group for Operation Kenova, on which I have served for six years. Is the Minister aware that Operation Kenova has been investigating some 200 murders over a span of 25 years, including the murders of three police officers in 1982 at the Kinnego embankment, and that Kenova has submitted some 33 investigations to the DPP since 2019, but that no prosecutorial decision has issued in respect of the murders and abductions, apparently because of a lack of resources? How does the Minister view the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, now before your Lordships’ House, which will prevent anybody whose loved one died as a result of the Troubles terrorism, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, being able to have an inquest or bring any civil action for damages, and even from having a proper investigation which will lead to a prosecution? Can the Minister explain how this is consistent with the operation of the rule of law, of which we are so proud in the United Kingdom?
Lord Caine (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and acknowledge her work on Kenova, and as a former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. She makes a large number of points, which are probably worthy of a debate rather than Question Time. She highlighted the point that over 30 case files are currently with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Funding for the DPP and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is a devolved matter for the Assembly, not for Her Majesty’s Government. It highlights the fact that the cases where criminal justice outcomes have been sought take a huge amount of time. The Government are trying to focus on moving towards a more information recovery-based approach to legacy cases, which will, we hope, allow victims to access more information more quickly than would be the case with long, drawn-out prosecutions.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said, he knows how important it is to build consensus on this matter in Norther Ireland. However, it is clear—I hope he will acknowledge this—that there is no consensus for the legacy Bill. I am pleased the Minister has agreed to meet the victims’ groups and the political parties in Stormont over the summer, but will he commit to listening to what they say and bringing forward a different Bill or, preferably, to scrapping the Bill as it stands?
Lord Caine (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As I think I have outlined in my response to previous questions, I am very happy to do that. I think she will know, from experience of dealing with me, that I am always prepared to listen.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, was not my noble friend right to remind us of the anniversaries of terrible terrorist atrocities in order to keep proper perspective on these matters? I speak as one who was not far from the Oxford Street bus station in Belfast just after 3 pm on 21 July, 50 years ago, when an IRA car bomb killed six people and injured nearly 40. Is it not one of the objectives of terrorists and their sympathisers to try to rewrite history, to draw attention away from their evil deeds? Is it not the duty of all of us to ensure that they do not succeed?
Lord Caine (Con)
I agree entirely with my noble friend. It is worth remembering that, on the day in question, some 20 bombs were exploded in the space of about 80 minutes in the centre of Belfast, killing nine people and injuring 130—it was utterly horrific. My noble friend is correct to highlight the attempt by some to rewrite history. We have seen over recent years, I am afraid, a pernicious counternarrative of the Troubles, which tries to place the state at the heart of every atrocity, denigrates the contribution of the police and our Armed Forces, and seeks to legitimise terrorism. We should strongly resist that.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred to Kenova and its lack of resources. Would the Minister and colleagues talk immediately to the Justice Minister to ensure that both financial and staff resources are provided to a legacy investigation unit within the Public Prosecution Service, so that it can carry out the prosecutions that will flow from the Kenova inquiry, rather than pursuing this legacy Bill, which has been rejected by everybody in Northern Ireland?
Lord Caine (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As I made clear in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, funding for the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter for the Department of Justice.
American War of Independence: Semiquincentennial Commemorations
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of the United States of America about the participation of the United Kingdom in the semiquincentennial commemorations of the American War of Independence being planned in that country to start in 2025.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, US planning for the 250th anniversary of independence is at the early stages so it is premature for HMG to start working on specific events. The closeness of our relationship today is testament to the work of generations of Americans and Britons over a quarter of a millennium. We have come a long way since 1776 and the American war of independence, and we look forward to marking and celebrating the success of the modern UK-US partnership in 2026.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, in 1976 there was a state visit by Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. During this, they presented a bicentennial bell cast in the same Whitechapel foundry as the Liberty Bell of 1751. They also loaned to the people of the US an original copy of the Magna Carta. Would the Minister like to put on his thinking cap and come up with some equally imaginative suggestions for 2026, which might include, for example, a project run in collaboration with the American Battlefield Trust, to identify and rededicate the graves of British soldiers who rest on revolutionary war battlefields and elsewhere in the United States?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question, and also for a rare opportunity to use the word “semiquincentennial” in conversation. US planning for the 250th anniversary of independence in 2026 is still in its early stages, so plans are not yet fully formed. He makes some very good suggestions which I will happily take back, because I particularly like the battlefield idea. There are no immediate plans for a state visit, but I am sure that is something that will be considered. I should declare an interest as I lived in the US for five years, both my children are dual nationals and I am member of the Pilgrim Society.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the magisterial biography of the Border reivers by George MacDonald Fraser starts with the inauguration of President Nixon taking over from President Johnson, with Billy Graham giving the eulogy. The Minister references the Pilgrim Society. There was an outward emigration group of Border reiver families after the pilgrims, of less strong character perhaps, from whom so many in America are descended. The story of the Borders, and the story of Scotland, and America is so linked, including Trump’s mother being Scottish—which we overlook. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the Minister could perhaps think about an aged bottle of whisky, which I know the Minister and I both enjoy, but it is also an opportunity for America to withdraw its ban on haggis. The story of Scotland and America is very strong, so can the Minister make sure it is linked to any of the preparations?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have read The Steel Bonnets, which is a very fine book, and I agree with his strong character remarks, which he phrased very artfully. I will certainly take the haggis suggestion back, although I am not sure that I can make any promises.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, what form of commemoration might the Government consider if we remember that this was a war of independence against the UK?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question—I think. I am not entirely sure how to answer that. I think we have all moved on over the last 250 years—or, I should say, over the last semiquincentenary.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, was not one of the important consequences of the American war of independence that it stimulated political and constitutional reform in this country? Perhaps we could commemorate the event in that way.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think the noble Lord for that good point; I shall take it back as well.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, it is not in my nature to adopt a serious note when we have heard some quite interesting comments. However, the US is our most important ally, and these celebrations are only three years away. It is important that we work to ensure that we have a positive diplomatic programme to celebrate, not just within the FCDO but with other departments, including the MoD and DCMS, so that we put on a proper show of solidarity with our American friends.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord. That gives me an opportunity to restate the fact that the US and the UK relationship is one of being top allies in defending freedom and democracy around the world through our unrivalled defence, intelligence, security and, indeed, trade ties. Regardless of who is in power, whether on trade, security or defence, the US is always our closest partner, and we do more together than any other two countries. Last year on 10 June 2021, the PM and President Biden signed a new Atlantic Charter and joint statement, setting an ambitious agenda for US-UK co-operation across a wide range of areas.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, bearing in mind that this is close upon us—it is three or four years away—could we not refer this to the British-American Parliamentary Group, and could not Members in all parts of the House submit ideas? I will submit one now: would it not be a marvellous thing to have two tea parties, in Boston, USA, and in the wonderful city of Boston, Lincolnshire, with the American President attending the latter and Prince Charles attending the former?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his suggestion. I was wondering whether he would manage to get Boston, Lincolnshire, into this Question, and he succeeded. Again, I shall take that suggestion back.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I cannot resist saying that the Temple Church held a service last Sunday commemorating the close relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom, and we had the president-elect of the American Bar Association to give the address. Might the Minister encourage other organisations, not necessarily churches, to take part so that it is not just a parliamentary or government matter?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness makes an extremely important point. Of course, the American Bar Association has been a proud supporter of things such as the Runnymede Trust for many years, and I commend it for its efforts. Absolutely—this should be widely spread. The ties are not just governmental but are between people as well, and we should celebrate that fact too.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in our commemoration of the centenary of World War I, we put a great deal of effort into the reconciliation between ourselves and our enemy Germany. As we look at commemorating the 250th anniversary of the American war of independence, could we put the same amount of effort into what was our other main enemy in that war, which was of course France? The battles of Chesapeake Bay and of Yorktown were basically Franco-British as much as a war of independence with the United States. If I were American, I would certainly want to mark the role of France as a key ally in America’s war of independence. May I suggest that some discreet conversations with Paris about how we approach this sesquiquincentennial might be appropriate?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
To help the noble Lord, it is semiquincentennial—I have said it quite a lot over the last few days.
I do not know—I like the idea, which is a good one. Perhaps we could offer to paint the Statue of Liberty, for example, as an act of reconciliation. I cannot speculate as to what conversations will be held with France, but of course we should be celebrating all our alliances.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Pilgrims. I have to say that I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about the importance of the relationship. It is extraordinary how over the last two centuries the English-speaking peoples have assured a certain security and peace in the globe, and that absolutely needs celebration. There will inevitably be a huge fleet review for Fleet Week, because they always do that in New York. Can the noble Lord say whether we are likely to have a ship available to go and take part in that big American celebration in three years’ time?
Lord Lexden (Con)
Will the Government encourage the organisers of these commemorations to include a lecture by Professor Andrew Roberts, whose recent award-winning biography of King George III shows that the last monarch to reign over the American colonies was no tyrant but a man who kept strictly within his constitutional position?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have no doubt at all that the historian Andrew Roberts to whom my noble friend refers will be involved in these celebrations, not least of course because of his work on Winston Churchill, who also had American roots. I am sure that he will take an active part.
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a patron of the Battlefields Trust, may I very much associate myself with the tenor of this discussion and the Minister’s clear enthusiasm for a response? Will not the key to this be a degree of joint working, both between various organs of government and of course various private sector organisations and other enthusiasts? Will not the main themes be: first, to look at the military side, including the fact that many of our own regiments have an important history in that war; secondly, the wider issues of educating younger people into the reality of that situation, which was very nuanced, as many of us know; and, finally, the wider diplomatic opportunities to commemorate the very happy subsequent association of our two countries, which is what primarily this is geared towards? However, I also bring in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the French were there also, and today happens to be 14 July.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with all the comments of the noble Lord. I particularly respect his comments as regards the antecedents of some of our current regiments; that point is worth making and it is worth reminding the British Army of it.
Energy: Prices and Supply
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking (1) to address rising energy prices, and (2) to ensure the security of the United Kingdom’s energy supply for the coming winter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government understand the pressures people are facing with high global energy prices and are providing support for the cost of living totalling £37 billion this year. Great Britain has secure and diverse supplies of energy but we have acted to boost electricity security, including by temporarily extending the operations of certain coal-generation units to provide back-up capacity if needed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is acknowledged that the UK is not directly dependent on Russia for the supply of natural gas. However, do the Government recognise that the Russian situation could cause gas supply shortages in mainland Europe, which could have a domino effect that could impact the UK, including Northern Ireland, particularly at a time of high energy prices? What measures are in place to address this issue?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is of course right, and the answer to the question is yes, we recognise this maybe unlikely risk, which is nevertheless a risk. That is why I indicated in the Answer that we have acted to secure additional back-up capacity if needed for this winter.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, there is a good deal more we can do internationally with our like-minded friends to curb the appalling increase in energy prices which is about to hit households in this country yet again, and even more ferociously. However, does my noble friend accept that in fact, indirect taxes on energy add to the headline consumer prices index, and that if one could bring that down, it would also vastly reduce the Government spend on having to update their outlays on index-linked causes, including benefits? Does he accept that if you take down one, you will take down the other? I do not think that is widely understood by the social experts and commentators in the press, and I wonder whether it is understood by the Treasury. However, it is a way forward.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend is tempting me to say what is understood and is not understood by the Treasury, which is perhaps a road I should not go down. Of course, the point is right. The contribution of energy to the consumer prices index is particularly important, and my noble friend is also correct about the proportion of indirect taxes on energy bills.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Conservative manifesto of 2019 stated:
“We will help lower energy bills by investing £9.2 billion in the energy efficiency of homes, schools and hospitals.”
Now that we are over half way through this parliamentary term, exactly how much money has been spent—not planned to be spent—on the energy efficiency of homes and other buildings?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Certainly, we are well on the way to that commitment, and this spending review period allocated about £6.6 billion towards those targets. For example, we have spent £471 million to date on the social housing decarbonisation fund and £350 million on the sustainable warmth programme, and we are going out to bids later this year for another £800 million of spending under the social housing decarbonisation fund, so we are making considerable progress.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would make more sense to incentivise investment in the skills and technologies of the future, rather than in oil and gas companies, which are soon to become technologies of the past? Is there not a danger that investment in oil and gas could lead to stranded assets and stranded jobs?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is partly correct. Of course, we need to invest in the technologies of the future, which is why we are developing our green finance policies and a green taxonomy to help direct investment in those technologies. However, we will also need oil and gas as transition fuels, so it makes sense to continue to exploit our own resources.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, picking up on the noble Baroness’s original Question, it was reported in the Financial Times about 10 days ago that under the UK’s emergency gas plan, if our gas supplies fall short the United Kingdom will cut the supply of gas to Europe via the so-called interconnectors. Can my noble friend tell us whether that is the case?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend will understand that I am not going to get into discussing emergency situations. Anything as drastic as that is extremely unlikely. All parts of Europe benefit from interconnected supplies of electricity and gas. It helps to secure both our energy supplies and resilience for our future, and that of other European countries.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Government’s failures in energy policy go back over a decade, including on energy efficiency. Homes are still being built that do not meet minimum standards of efficiency and will require significant retrofitting in the near future to meet legal standards. As mentioned in the recent Climate Change Committee report to Parliament, the promised future homes standard and changes to the planning system have not yet been delivered. Can the Minister inform us, either now or in writing, how many homes not meeting minimum standards of efficiency have been built since the close of consultation in January 2021? Also, how many planning permissions are in place to allow the building of such substandard homes before June 2023? How many housing units does that amount to?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is asking for some detailed statistics which I do not have to hand, but I will certainly write to her about that. There is a considerable uplift in the building regulations coming next year. The future homes standard is coming in 2025 and when it is introduced, the carbon efficiency of homes will be increased by about 75%.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
The Minister will be aware that President Biden is on an energy-related play to Saudi Arabia. Was there a positive upshot of our Prime Minister’s visit to Saudi Arabia with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, on related matters? If so, what benefits were accrued?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Viscount makes a good point. The Prime Minister and my noble friend Lord Grimstone visited the UAE and Saudi Arabia on 15 and 16 March. They met leaders of both countries and had some extremely productive discussions about collaboration and the importance of maintaining energy security and working together to help the green transition.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in respect of National Energy Action.
I welcome Ofgem’s ruling that overpayments of grossly inflated direct debits will be rectified. However, does my noble friend not question why the standing charge on each household bill has increased by up to 50%, given that this goes to distributors whose costs have not increased to the same extent as those of electricity suppliers? Should this not be urgently investigated?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Ofgem does look very closely at connection cost standard charges and direct fuel costs. Funding the transition from a big node-type power supply to lots of more diverse, renewable sources of energy requires considerable investment in our transmission system. In order to expand the use of electric cars, heat pumps et cetera, we must reinforce the electricity supply system, which of course needs to be paid for.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, currently the Government tax people heavily, especially the poorest. They then hand back a few pounds to the people, helping with energy bills—and it is promptly handed over to the energy companies. In this circuit, there is no check whatsoever on curbing inflation, energy prices or corporate profiteering. Why are the Government neglecting these three things?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am afraid that I simply do not agree with the noble Lord. A number of aspects of his question were wrong. The Government are not handing money over to energy companies: the money is going directly to consumers—more than £37 billion of expenditure. The noble Lord might think that that is a few pounds, but I think it is a considerable sum of money. Clearly, energy prices are likely to go up again in the autumn, and that is something we will need to return to.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
Can the Minister reassure the House regarding when energy security last appeared on the agenda of, and was discussed by, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not a member of that committee, so I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, nuclear is crucial to our future energy supply. Will there be an announcement before the House rises next Thursday about Sizewell C and all of the decisions that have been delayed?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point and I completely agree about the importance of nuclear and Sizewell C. Negotiations are continuing; I think it unlikely that there will be an announcement before the House rises.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, commendably, the Government are trying to shield households from these excessive rises in energy costs. However, will my noble friend consider carefully the excellent point made by our noble friend Lord Howell: that cutting fuel duties could indeed set up a virtuous circle? Given the extent of the rise in fuel costs, households surely need time to transition to this higher-cost environment. A tax cut, as long as it is passed on to bill payers, could assist in that transition.
Lord Callanan (Con)
This has of course been a source of considerable debate in the current leadership contest. I am sure that the new Prime Minister and the new or existing Chancellor will want to consider these matters very carefully. As I said, we have already supported households to a massive extent, but given the inevitable rises that are coming down the line later in the year, I am sure the Chancellor will want to look at these matters again.
Leasehold Reform (Disclosure and Insurance Commissions) Bill [HL]
Thursday 14th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Leasehold Reform (Disclosure and Insurance Commissions) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Leasehold Reform (Disclosure and Insurance Commissions) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a leaseholder.
Afghanistan: British Special Forces
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat the Answer to the Urgent Question provided by my honourable friend Mr James Heappey, Minister for Armed Forces, in the other place earlier today. The response is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, on 12 July, the BBC broadcast an episode of ‘Panorama’ claiming evidence of criminality allegedly committed by Special Forces in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence is currently defending two judicial reviews relating to allegations of unlawful killings during operations in Afghanistan in 2011 and 2012. While I accept that in order to allow today’s Urgent Question you have waived the convention not to discuss matters that are sub judice, advice from MoD lawyers is that any discussion of specific details would be prejudicial to the ongoing litigation and that I am afraid I simply cannot enter into detail about specific allegations made on specific operations relating to specific people.
We recognise very much the severity of these allegations and where there is reason to believe that personnel may have fallen short of expectations, it is absolutely right that they be held to account. Nobody in our organisation, however special, is above the law and the service police have already carried out extensive investigations into allegations about the conduct of UK Forces in Afghanistan, including allegations of ill-treatment and unlawful killing.
No charges were brought under Operation Northmoor, which investigated historical allegations relating to instances in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2013. The service police concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring cases to the independent Service Prosecuting Authority. I should stress that both these organisations have full authority and independence to take investigative decisions outside of the MoD’s chain of command.
A separate allegation from October 2012 was investigated by the Royal Military Police under Operation Cestro, which resulted in the referral of three soldiers to the Service Prosecuting Authority. In 2014, after careful consideration, the Director of Service Prosecutions took the decision not to prosecute any of the three soldiers referred.
It is my understanding that all of the allegedly criminal events referred to in the ‘Panorama’ programme have already been fully investigated by the service police. However, we remain fully committed to any further reviews or investigations, where any new evidence or reason to do so is presented.
A decision to investigate allegations of criminality is for the service police. They provide an independent and impartial investigative capability, free from improper interference. Earlier this week, the Royal Military Police wrote to the production team of ‘Panorama’ to request any new evidence be provided to it. I am placing a copy of the RMP’s letter in the Library of the House. I understand that the BBC has responded to question the legal basis on which the RMP is requesting that new evidence, which makes little sense to me. But the RMP and the BBC are in discussions.
As I have said, if there is any new evidence presented to the Royal Military Police, it will be investigated. I am aware that the programme alleges the involvement of units for which it is MoD policy to neither confirm nor deny their involvement in any operational event. As such, I must refer in generalities to the Armed Forces in response to the questions I know colleagues will want to ask. I cannot refer to any specific service personnel who may or may not have served in these units. We should continue to recognise the overwhelming majority of our Armed Forces serve with courage and professionalism. We hold them to the highest standards. They are our nation’s bravest and best and allegations like this tarnish the reputation of an organisation. We all want to see allegations like these investigated so that the fine reputation of the British Armed Forces can be untarnished and remain as high as it should be.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer and the tone in which she gave it. I think that will be welcomed by all of us. I welcome the point she made in her remarks about nobody being above the law and join with her in saluting the bravery of our Special Forces.
It is essential that we maintain the confidence that we all have in our Special Forces. I welcome again the statement by the Minister that, unless I have misunderstood—and this is very important—the Government have asked “Panorama” for any new evidence to be given to the Royal Military Police. Can the Minister confirm that any such new evidence, if handed over to the Royal Military Police, will be fully investigated in an independent way, maybe in a similar way to which the Australian inquiry took place? Is it actively pursuing again and again with the BBC for this new evidence to be given to it? When new evidence is given, the Royal Military Police can look at it and then we can move forward in ensuring that these very serious allegations of dropped weapons and suspicious deaths can be looked into and it can be determined by a proper independent inquiry whether anything further needs to be done.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the tenor of his remarks. Yes, it is the case that the RMP has asked the BBC, the “Panorama” production team, to produce this evidence on which it founded the programme. If that evidence is produced and it is new evidence it will fully investigated and it will initially be the task of the Royal Military Police to do that. The police are independent of the chain of command and have the power to pursue these matters objectively and independently and in the best interests of serving justice.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also pay tribute very strongly to our Armed Forces personnel but, as the Minister said, these are grave allegations, especially in the context where, as we see with Ukraine, the moral leadership and professionalism of our Armed Forces and the reputation that we hold is very strong as far as the UK is concerned. Can the Minister be a bit more specific on the independent status of the Royal Military Police in how it will approach the new allegations? Would the Minister agree that there is a case for, and an opportunity for, a parallel, external, independent review of how these allegations are held? Ultimately the Royal Military Police Force is, as the Minister said, beyond the chain of command, but it is still an internal investigative authority.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that the Royal Military Police is indeed an independent investigatory authority that has been regarded as professional and effective. It engages regularly with its civilian counterparts to ensure that it is adopting best practice and pursuing the best approach for investigations. Initially, if new evidence is produced, it would be for the Royal Military Police to investigate that.
As to broader issues, the Secretary of State has been very clear that nothing is ruled out. Really, the starting point has to be whether there is new evidence. If so, it needs to be produced.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a serving member of the Army, somebody who served in Afghanistan and, perhaps most relevant, served as the Minister for the Armed Forces from 2017 to 2019.
I would like simply to reassure your Lordships’ House, as somebody who is as concerned as anybody about these allegations. When they first emerged, I was deeply impressed with the thoroughness of the investigation by the Royal Military Police, both within the United Kingdom and, crucially, within Afghanistan, perhaps learning the lessons of the past where such investigations were not thorough in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. It is of course in the Ministry of Defence’s own interests that these allegations are thoroughly investigated because, often, new allegations are not new at all but simply a rehash or second-hand views of allegations that have been made already.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Royal Military Police is uniquely placed? With its knowledge of service matters, its ability to investigate historically within Afghanistan at the time and its own service personnel, it has the right people to continue this investigation.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I am sure the House will have paid close attention to his authority in relation to these matters.
I reassure the House that the RMP is a professional, competent and well-trained investigative authority, and it has proven itself in that effectiveness on numerous occasions. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, it engages with the civilian police force to make sure that it is absolutely abreast of all the procedures and processes of modern technology.
My noble friend is quite right: if there is anything wrong, if anything criminal has happened and the evidence can be produced to substantiate that, of course it is in the interests of the MoD and the great majority of law-abiding, upstanding and honourable members of the military that these matters be investigated. I reassure him again that if we are made aware of any new evidence that supports the assertions made in the programme then, yes, they will be investigated.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the SAS has an international reputation as the bravest and best. All I can say from my time as Secretary of State for Defence is that that is a well-earned reputation. The allegations are very grave. I do not intend to draw the Minister into any comments about specific allegations, but at the heart of the response from the MoD is the information, which is impressive, that extensive independent investigations have taken place and no charges were brought because there was no evidence to justify that.
My problem is that at the heart of the programme is an allegation that investigators told the police—this is apparently supported by some video evidence—that they were obstructed by the British military in their efforts to gather evidence. That is a fundamental and important allegation, which, separately from anything else, needs to be investigated.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to the noble Lord that, as he will understand from his own background, we need evidence. That is why the RMP has asked the BBC for the evidence. Where is the substance of the information on which it based this programme? That is what we are waiting to see. As I remarked in the Statement, the BBC wants to seek the RMP’s legal authority for seeking this information, which seems to be the most perverse way of approaching everyone’s interests in trying to find the truth and establish justice. Still, there is engagement between the RMP and the BBC and the noble Lord is correct: if there is evidence to support these very serious allegations, and it is new evidence, it will be investigated.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is it not the case that if the investigators feel they are in need of advice, they can seek such advice from the Attorney-General?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My understanding is that the Royal Military Police are free to seek advice. As I said earlier, they may seek advice from the civilian police force. If confronted with legal issues, they may want to seek legal authority, and the Attorney-General may well be the appropriate destination to seek that advice from.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not share my deep sense of unease that the BBC should choose to broadcast this programme before laying the evidence that it had before the appropriate authorities?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think we all understand that journalism has a role in a democratic society, and journalists have a job to do and documentary producers seek to discharge that role. What I think is reprehensible is—in discharging that role without producing substantive evidence or explaining why that evidence has never been investigated before—to proceed to traduce reputations and, as I say, tarnish an honourable military force of which we are extremely proud, the British Army, in which the overwhelming majority of soldiers are upstanding, competent and professional individuals who abide by the law.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are two issues involved here, legal and reputational? In law, people are innocent until they are proved guilty, but reputations can be besmirched by programmes such as “Panorama” even if there is insufficient evidence to bring a legal case. If there is evidence then quite clearly it needs to be pursued vigorously, but, if there is not, does the Minister accept that it would be insufficient for the MoD simply to say, “There is insufficient evidence to bring a criminal case”? It will have to adopt a more proactive approach to demonstrate to the British public that their confidence in the Special Forces is not misplaced and that proper procedures were followed.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think we all understand the noble and gallant Lord’s interests in this with great sympathy. He will understand why I have to be generic in my references. We are actively seeking that new evidence. If it can be produced, action will be taken. There may then be the broader issue, if no new evidence can be produced, of what constitutes responsible journalism and what are the unacceptable consequences of irresponsible journalism.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid that the time for the Question is up.
Women and Girls: Economic Well-being, Welfare, Safety and Opportunities
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
That this House takes note of the status of women and girls in the United Kingdom since 2010 with regards to their economic wellbeing, welfare, safety and opportunities.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, today, as we look at the status of women since 2010, we see a cost of living crisis that affects most people but especially mothers bringing up their children on their own. We see many women fearing that they will be attacked as they walk the streets at night on their own. There have been a number of tragic cases where women have been murdered when all they were doing was walking home alone. We see that the number of women who are victims of domestic abuse continues to be high. We see women wanting to enter political life facing many barriers: abuse, discrimination, and misogyny. These are some of the matters we will be debating today.
Eradicating child poverty by 2020 was a key commitment of the last Labour Government. Unfortunately, progress has been reversed under the Conservatives amid the austerity drive that the coalition Government embarked on in 2010. Figures from the Child Poverty Action Group charity show there were 3.9 million children living in poverty in the UK last year—more than one-quarter of all children. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the rise in poverty for children living in lone-parent households reflects reductions in the real value of state benefits from 2011 to 2019. I quote from a newspaper report:
“Among the cuts in support that have most affected single mothers are the benefit cap, the four-year freeze in benefits between 2016 and 2020, the two-child limit and a lowering of the age of the youngest child when single parents must start looking for work.”
Previously, lone parents were able to claim income support until their youngest child reached 16, or 19 if in full-time education. Now single parents are expected to prepare for work when their youngest reaches the age of one, and then be in a job from when their child is three. Experts say that the benefits cap, first imposed in 2013, and the four-year freeze on benefits were among the biggest drivers of financial damage for single mothers. They were launched by former Chancellor George Osborne as a crackdown on those who he claimed were “living a life” on public assistance—that is no life. Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, said:
“This alarming research is a wake-up call showing the need for additional support for families with children in response to the cost of living crisis. It is no surprise to see child poverty rates rising fast for lone-parent families after the harsh effects of years of benefit cuts and freezes, and with no shock absorbers left to deal with inescapable soaring living costs.”
With the rise in poverty, many use food banks to have enough food to feed their children. Stories of mothers eating only one meal a day to ensure that their children are fed should make the Government ashamed. For single mothers raising children today, life is difficult and, with the cost of living crisis, it looks as though things are going to get worse. That is a bleak prospect that looks set to continue, although I have no doubt that the Minister will mention the support that the Government are giving, which starts today. That will be of some help to some people, but long-term policies are needed to deal with the high inflation rate and energy costs.
How safe is it for women in today’s society? We are all aware of these issues. Why is it that women have to worry about their safety if they are out late at night? Even in the day, women out for a walk will get men shouting sexist remarks at them. We are all aware of the tragedies of women walking home unaccompanied getting attacked and murdered. Women who are raped have little chance of seeing the perpetrator convicted. With the conviction rate so low, most rapists get away with it.
Domestic abuse of older people is often hidden away. There are no figures available for the number of people over the age of 74. I believe the ONS has said it will start collecting figures this year, but it will be some time before the statistics are known. Many of us are mourning the loss of our dear friend Baroness Sally Greengross, who died recently. She founded Hourglass, the charity which works for older people who suffer domestic abuse. Sally continued her campaign right up until the end. She wrote to the Prime Minister only days before she passed away:
“Prime Minister, I beg of you to do the right thing by older people in this country by ensuring that the Hourglass helpline receives the funding that it so desperately needs to do its important work”.
What a great tribute it would be if one of his last acts as Prime Minister was to acknowledge the work of Hourglass and ensure its funding.
If we look at women in politics, we see that there has been an increase in the number of women in the House of Commons, with 225 women there today. Women are still underrepresented in political life, although in the devolved parliaments they fare much better. We do not have a diverse Parliament in Westminster—one that reflects the electorate. One measure the Government could take would be to enact Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010. This Act was passed by a Labour Government just before the 2010 general election. The enactment of Section 106 could change the look of political representation, as it would require all parties to publish diversity data on candidates standing for elections to the House of Commons, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd. An organisation called the Centenary Action Group is running a campaign called Enact 106. It comes to something when there is a campaign to get the Government to enact a piece of legislation that became an Act of Parliament in 2010.
The Minister will be aware that over the years I have asked Oral and Written Questions on this, the last one being in January this year. The Minister’s reply was:
“The Government keeps section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 under review but remains of the view that political parties should lead the way in increasing diverse electoral representation through their own approaches to the selection of candidates.”
That is just not good enough. At the last general election, most political parties gave a commitment in their manifesto to implement Section 106, but not of course the Conservatives. What is it that the Government do not like about Section 106? It would give all political parties the opportunity to see how they are doing in getting a diverse range of candidates. It will give them the data necessary to look at how they can improve the diversity of their candidates.
The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 allowed political parties to use all-women shortlists to address the underrepresentation of women holding political office. The Labour Party has used this extensively and as a result has more women MPs that all the other parties. This Act has a sunset clause which has been extended from 2015 to 2030. Are the Government planning to extend it further? We are only just under eight years away from 2030 now.
In July 2019, the Government announced the publication of their policy paper Gender Equality at Every Stage: A Roadmap for Change. This paper detailed eight issues around gender inequality that the Government have pledged to tackle, including limited attitudes to gender and the gender pay gap. The policy paper noted:
“Commitments in this roadmap will be absorbed into departments’ 2020/21 single departmental plans as necessary”.
In addition, the Government stated that they would
“provide an annual progress report to Parliament, alongside annual reporting against the Gender Equality Monitor”.
Announcing the launch of the road map, the then Minister for Women and Equalities, Penny Mordaunt, stated:
“I want everyone in our country to be able to thrive in life. That means being able to be in control of the choices you make and have the opportunities you have to seize. We must be honest that many women do not have those choices or opportunities, and as a consequence are not able to be as financially resilient or independent. This inequality is faced at every stage of a woman’s life—from how she is treated in the classroom, to the caring roles she often takes on, and the lack of savings or pension she accumulates.”
I have read the document and it struck me that it is full of things that the Government say that they will do. It said they would
“provide an annual progress report to Parliament, alongside annual reporting against the Gender Equality Monitor, to ensure we continue to respond to emerging issues, level up, and create true gender equality.”
That sounds great. Unfortunately, as of this month in 2022, there has not been any progress report published. That was three years ago, and we have not heard a word about it since. Perhaps the Minister can say what has happened to all the good intentions of that report. Do the Government have any plans to ensure that all the things they said they would do in the report will someday be carried out? If they carried out the aims of that report, it would go a long way to improving the lives of women.
The status of women has improved in several areas, but we have had setbacks along the way. There is still much work to do and, with government action, it could happen. However, we may have to wait to see a Labour Government before we see the change that is needed.
I acknowledge that the Government have acted in some areas such as domestic abuse legislation. There have been some really good initiatives such as the publication of the policy paper Gender Equality at Every Stage: A Roadmap for Change, which I mentioned earlier, and the ratification of the Istanbul convention. That has to take place, according to the Government, by 31 July—this month—but a lot of us were disappointed that there were reservations attached to the ratification. Can the Minister tell us the date of the ratification today? There are only about two weeks left and I hope it will be announced before the Summer Recess.
We need action on a number of fronts to enable women to achieve equality and I am hoping this debate might help us along the road to equality. I look forward to the Minister’s response and the contributions of all noble Peers today.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for facilitating this debate, for the breadth of the title of the debate, and that she has laid the foundation for the remarks I want to make today, which focus on the status of women in Parliament, how to get more of them, how to engage more girls in politics and encourage them to consider a political career.
Political activism is important but not enough; to change things, you have to join a political party and get stuck in. Noble Lords will appreciate that my focus is inevitably on Conservative women because, although Labour certainly has some problems with women, the Parliamentary Labour Party currently consists—as the noble Baroness has said—of 51% women, and frankly they are not my concern.
Theresa May and I founded Women2Win in 2005 at the very beginning of David Cameron’s leadership. At that stage there were 17 Conservative women MPs, just 9% of the parliamentary party—or, to put it another way, 91% of our MPs were men. Our journey to the 87 women MPs elected in 2019 started with the 2010 general election, which produced the first leap forward to 16%, and consistent, if slow, progress to the 25% women MPs we have in the Conservative Party today. It is better, but not good enough.
Recent weeks, with the allegations of sleaze and impropriety, have focused minds once more on the behaviour of some parliamentarians, all of whom have one thing in common I am afraid: they are men. I am not saying that women are saints—their behaviour can of course be unedifying—but I believe that the toxic mix of stress, booze, testosterone, power and opportunity drives behaviours that are unacceptable. It is crucial that all the contenders for the leadership of my party commit to prioritising efforts to improve our standards in public life.
However, when it comes to encouraging more women to stand up and put themselves forward, I am seeing some, angered by what is going on, finally filling in their form to start their journey into public life. I am particularly proud that, as of this morning, and despite women MPs making up only a quarter of the Conservative Parliamentary Party, four of the six remaining leadership candidates are women, and very diverse at that. I am delighted with the wide range of those who have put themselves forward to be our next leader, showing ambition and no sign of imposter syndrome. I hope that their confidence will act as a spur to others watching. What amazing role models they are for girls in this country.
As a Conservative, I am obviously proud that we have had two women Prime Ministers, with a possibility of another to come in the next few weeks, but Parliament and public discourse must change in order for women parliamentarians to thrive. The abuse experienced by all MPs, and women in particular, across all parties, is unacceptable, but we do need more women with resilience and commitment to start that journey into public life.
I have a final word to our future Prime Minister. Our current Prime Minister said this only a couple of years ago:
“There is one ‘first’ that is still long overdue and that is the moment when—for the first time—we finally achieve 50:50 … in our Parliament.”
Very welcome words, but I am afraid that is all they are. In the only place where he has the power and opportunity to make this happen—here in your Lordships’ House—he has so far appointed seven women and 29 men to the Conservative Benches. It is not too late to put this right and I very much hope that he will take the opportunity to do so.
I welcome the progress from 49 Conservative women MPs in 2010 to 87 today, with two-thirds of our leadership candidates women, but there is no room for complacency and I hope that everyone involved understands this.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, before I move on to the main thrust of what I want to say today, I say that political parties can survive with the majority of their MPs being female, because the Liberal Democrats have done it. Our nerves are, I feel, matched when I meet some of these new and enthusiastic parliamentarians in my own party. Having said that, I accept that as a hereditary Peer I probably represent the historical block of male privilege.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to one part of our lives that probably comes under the “opportunities” mentioned in the Motion’s title and where there has been a sea change for the good: the growth of women’s sport and how seriously it is taken. At the moment, we are in the middle of a major celebration of a female sporting tournament on its own terms: the Women’s Euro 2022 football. It has not arrived as an afterthought; it has been built up and the nation has been told to “go and celebrate”. This is a major change, as it is not happening as an add-on, nor on the sideline. It is not just for those who are interested and do not mind digging around to look for it; it is a major event at a major time that the nation as a whole should watch.
Sport was a bastion of male privilege X number of years ago. For some major team games, female involvement was not exactly frowned upon, but it was seen as an optional extra. The way it has been covered in the media has changed, but it requires space and time to make change happen. It is not enough to change things and say, “By the way, here come the ladies and the girls”. It has to be a celebration, and on its own terms.
It is a fact that men tend to be bigger and stronger. If women’s competitions are placed at the same time, the attention on them goes down. The criticism, when it is not seen as a contest in its own right, is that it is seen as something lesser. I think this is something we have proven. So, the way that we are doing things at the moment is the way forward. We must encourage skilled tournaments, on even terms, for that half of the population—or slightly more—that is taking part.
The history of broadcasting in this area has, unsurprisingly, been driven by the free-to-air broadcasters. The BBC must take most of the credit here. I hope that in the Government’s response it will be accepted that this is one thing that only a free-to-air, nationally funded organisation can do. Broadcasters driven by income from advertising will always have to ask if something has become big enough that enough people are interested in watching in order to justify taking it on. Those that rely on subscriptions and advertising will always lag behind. It needs a broadcaster with a public service remit to go on, or something that has already done enough to change things. I cannot see anyone other than the BBC taking this forward, and it has been something that has been good. We have proved that what is needed for this, is to make sure that people know it is coming and it is seen in its own particular position.
Rugby union has also taken a step forward with the Six Nations tournament—the oldest and most celebrated of all the national tournaments. The women’s competition was fitted in around the edges and around the sides. Even a rugby nerd such as me cannot watch three full games, highlights and something else over a weekend. We need to be able to concentrate on the Women’s Six Nations. Let us face it, old players such as me, do not feel quite so intimidated watching it. Having its own timeslot meant that people took time out to go and watch and it status went up. The way it was advertised on social media, with Tik-Tok being a major sponsor, has also helped. We know, when advertising sport, you have to hit the target audience. That often means, specifically, advertising in the right media and the right place.
I do not know if this is covered in the Minister’s brief, which will be a very wide one, but perhaps she could convey to her colleagues the importance of finding the right slot and support in social structures to make sure that women’s sport is taken seriously. Can she also convey to members of her own party that, unless those broadcasters that have the opportunity to cover this without damaging their economic model are supported, they will have great difficulty expanding this coverage in future?
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, very much indeed for giving us this opportunity to discuss a wide range of women’s and girl’s rights. I will touch on the welfare and safety of women. I am aware that the Minister will not be able to answer my rather detailed questions, and so I seek a meeting with her, and perhaps with other noble Baronesses, to discuss the topics that I raise.
My concern is that, on welfare and safety, we have gone backwards for the most vulnerable people. To refer to a statement made yesterday by Safe Schools Alliance, the introduction of graphic or extreme sexual material in sex education lessons reinforces the porn culture that is damaging our children in such a devastating way. That came from the Children’s Commissioner. I would add to that that it is extremely damaging to have, for example, a mentally handicapped boy in school being asked to understand and to agree that the man in front of him is in fact a woman.
All that rests on a misapprehension that you can change your sex. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, declared only yesterday on the Piers Morgan show, as reported in today’s Daily Mail,
“you can’t change your sex”.
And as Kellie-Jay Keen, another woman activist of great eminence, remarked, that is the “perfect headline”. Indeed, I suggest to the right reverend Prelate that that is rather useful for the Church of England, as it will be able to define a woman today, whereas it could not the day before. I will ask the Church to do so as soon as possible.
When we look at health boards, we see that the rights of women and children have gone back again. The approach to single-sex wards makes meaningless that name when one invites transgender people who are men who declare as women to take spaces in female-sex wards and then defines them in the records as women, it is no wonder that one cannot find the evidence of sexual assaults that I have mentioned in this Chamber before. I have that evidence, but the hospitals concerned have been informed by their trusts that if a man says he is a woman, he is woman and he goes down on that record, so it is not unlikely that the ministry cannot find those references. I am very sad to say that denial of sexual assaults goes as far as declaring “Remove the complainant from the hospital ward”. This is completely unacceptable; it is a wrong identity, and it degrades the woman disgracefully. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, says, you cannot change your sex.
This is affecting speech-impaired and paralysed patients. As Transgender Trend has remarked, sex-based rights are effectively under threat; I would say that they have been destroyed. Let us take the case of a 16 year-old girl, reported only yesterday. She is severely learning-disabled, autistic—therefore non-verbal—and entirely dependent on others for what is now known as “intimate care”. It is scandalous that the special needs place in which she is resident has removed “cross-gender consent from personal and intimate care policy”. I have an earlier case of this—I had thought it was a once-off—in a school in Surrey. It is no longer a once-off: I understand that 50% of local authorities have adopted that position. To be blunt, this means that behind the closed doors of a lavatory, male members of staff, without any necessary qualification, with no consent from the parents of the patient and with the patient unable to agree, can dress, undress, use tampons—I apologise, but I have to be accurate—and indulge themselves, if they so wish, with female genitalia. These are girls and woman who cannot object and cannot consent. I would suggest that there are plenty of female carers around. There are threats of rape. The Brent HIV case of a couple of years ago, involving a girl called Cassie, shows that this is no figment of the imagination; there are actual evidenced cases. Health boards’ approaches to single sex make such cases seem meaningless—“remove the complainant”—and sexual assaults are happening.
JK Rowling, our most eminent and wonderful author, with whom I have worked for acutely disabled children in eastern Europe either side of the same bed, calls it “this horror show”, whereas an NHS professional who works with patients who cannot move or speak declares it intentional cruelty. I believe it is illegal, because it is against the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the Act of 2014. I beg the Minister to allow me a meeting.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my great friend and colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for initiating this debate. She has worked tirelessly, both in her life in Wales with the Labour Party there and in this House.
Human rights are women’s rights. Women belong in all places where decisions are made, including at the peace table. This Government gave an undertaking prior to Covid that we would not go into any peace negotiations without both local women and women outside being at that table. Can the Minister give me an undertaking that this will continue? Should we become involved in peace talks in relation to Russia and Ukraine and Sudan and parts of Eritrea, it is vital that we know this today. Local women add to our knowledge of what needs to be done in their areas—about local schools, investment, further and higher education and the rebuilding of communities. Without women having been at the peace table, Northern Ireland would not be at peace, which has now lasted for 30 years.
The Government are considering moving away from the European Convention on Human Rights. This would be a great mistake for women and girls. Further, would we want to be lumped with Russia and Belarus? They are the only two European countries not part of the convention on human rights.
The WEF report published this morning makes depressing reading. It indicates that we are going backwards and that the political gap is huge. We need only look at the G20. We need to look too at our own Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. There are no women Ministers. This is the department that is meant to encourage companies to have more women on boards and in other places, but it has not had one woman Minister for some time. If we look at it clearly, it does not seem to want to fund the department’s work on women on boards. Again, the Minister should give us an undertaking that this will be looked at and the funding replaced. There is a person working there but no support staff.
I thank Prime Ministers Brown, Cameron and May, plus the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who started the whole initiative. Along with the Financial Times, the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, myself and other colleagues, they started the 30% Club to make the change for women on boards. This was by getting CEOs and financial directors and chairmen of major companies to work together to make the change. Diversity on boards is really important. We have seen from Parker report how some of these targets are now being met. But targets are not enough; we have to keep looking at the targets and going over them. We have seen that the financial rewards for boards and shareholders are enormous. We have seen that through the work of ShareAction, which has put pressure on shareholders to ensure that we have more women on boards. It is not just on boards; it is also right through from the C-suite up to the top. I like the situation we have in Great Britain, where people can serve on a board for only so long—two terms—and then they have to move off. The same happens for a chairman: they can do only a percentage. That ensures that we have turnaround, unlike in other countries, where once you are on, you are on for life. We see a huge amount of experience used and people giving it. We have to remember that a person on a board is a responsible for every woman’s pension, for every woman’s mortgage and for every woman’s wages, and it is vital that we have the right diversity on those boards. Women’s pensions in this country are not good at all; we need to ensure that more is done about that. We also need more teaching of finance in schools, as well as opportunities for girls to go into the C-suite and to aspire to be on a board and at a senior level.
Many Members of this House work with Speakers for Schools and the schools programme. When we go to schools, we have to explain to students that every door is open to them as it has been made open to us. Nothing is closed. Education also has to change to ensure that every girl knows. We can do that only by men and women working together to make this change. We have seen this change on boards in this country and a number of others. The 30% Club is not changing its name, because some of the countries in which we have our 20 chapters do not have the same percentages and the same way of working.
We believe in parity. It is on that basis that I want to go back to some of the opportunities that that Prime Minister Cameron mentioned when we first started. He said that all government boards should be 50:50. I would like the Minister to respond to that, to ensure that it is going to happen—there are plenty of people out there to take up these positions—and that we have a wider choice. We are working with head-hunters and investors through the 30% Club, and they keep telling us of really good people. KPMG has a whole list of people who are ready for this, but the Government still seem to be giving the positions to a very small grouping—it is not the same people; I would not say that—when we need women on those boards. That goes also for when we look at the departmental NEDs, charities and chairmen.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome this debate. It is an honour for me to speak after so many excellent speeches.
In the 1980s, I worked in financial services and was confronted by a world dominated by men, many of whom saw the arrival of women as a threat. Molestation and abuse were common. My promotion was once delayed because I refused to submit to my boss’s sexual advances. There was no point in complaining; if you wanted to succeed in a man’s world, you just had to put up with it. Today, this kind of behaviour is unacceptable—illegal, even. It has been a long struggle but it is not over yet. As many noble Lords have mentioned, misogyny still exists, but we women should be proud of what we have achieved in just over a generation.
I am also proud of the Conservative Party: we have provided two women Prime Ministers and, as my noble friend Lady Jenkin noted, of the six remaining candidates for the party leadership, four are women. However, this is no time to celebrate. No sooner had we demolished the barriers of misogyny, then others sprang up in their place. These are far more dangerous; they are based on bigotry and ignorance, and they send women’s rights back to the Dark Ages.
The fanatics of gender politics have perverted a worthy campaign to give transgender people the protection of the law; it is now a demented ideology which denies the reality of biological sex. It is now enough for a man to say that he feels like a woman to be treated as a woman, despite the plain fact that he is still a man. In just 10 years, gender ideology has infected a whole range of public and private institutions. It is playing havoc with our pronouns and grammar, and it invents words to give itself a veneer of pseudoscience. It despises feminism and even has homophobic undertones. It is no wonder that President Putin used JK Rowling’s battle with the trans fanatics to highlight the decadence of the world.
Women have been shocked to discover that what they thought were safe places—toilets, gyms, hospital wards, prisons and the like—now admit men with fully intact male genitalia claiming to be trans women. Free speech is damaged; the no-platforming of countless people who challenge trans identity is an offence to democratic values. I therefore warmly welcome the Government’s Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.
Most dangerous of all, the teaching of gender fluidity to pre-adolescent children can do harm for life. There are charities that encourage sex change treatments for children involving hormone blockers and mastectomies. Take the example of Keira Bell: by the age of 20, she had had her breasts removed and the treatments she took for years had given her body hair, a beard and a low voice, and had impacted her sexual functions—and none of it has helped her. The court ruled in her case that it was doubtful that children could be given informed consent to treatments which might affect the rest of their lives. I go further and say that it is child abuse, plain and simple; it is scandalous.
To be clear, I stand before noble Lords not as a womb carrier, a birthing person, a chest feeder, a cervix owner or an adult human, but as a woman and a mother. Can the Minister reassure this House that the Government will update the Equality Act 2010 with clear, biologically sound definitions of “men”, “women”, “sex” and “gender”? At the very least, this will help some bishops with their predicament.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Gale for introducing this debate, which is important not just for women but for men and for all of us in the country at large.
In May, we discussed aspects of the Queen’s Speech in this Chamber and I chose to speak on the subject of levelling up as it was taking place between men and women. At the end of the debate, when the Minister was making his remarks, he drew attention to my comments on levelling up between men and women and said that, of course, the Government are
“levelling up for women, for men and for everybody.”—[Official Report, 11/5/22; col. 96.]
At which point, I thought he had spectacularly missed the point: if people start off unequal, levelling everybody up means that they are still unequal. I hope that today we can get the Minister to recognise that we need to think about levelling up for women.
I concentrate, as always, on women in the world of work. First, back when we had a Labour Government, we had a programme that concentrated on recognising the continuing gender pay and opportunities gaps. As part of that programme, the Government introduced various positive action ideas. I ask the Minister today to say whether this Government will recognise that positive action is important and necessary. For example, we all know that many women find it impossible to carry on with their employment when faced with the extraordinarily high costs of childcare. Many women at that stage choose to work part-time; that is fine, but we need companies—the Government can play a major role here—to work together to identify better part-time opportunities. In the past, most of those women went to work in retail, but over the last five years, 650,000 jobs have gone from retail, so even those chances are no longer there. Many women with qualifications and the wherewithal to move on to better things ended up not being able to do so, simply because the job chances were not there.
Secondly, will the Government work with businesses to provide positive action training programmes for women? Many women go to work in all kinds of places, from food factories to the legal profession, doing different kinds of work. They often have the intelligence, wherewithal and determination to move on and do better things that will bring them better rewards, yet those chances are not there. Companies can provide those training chances; they have done it in the past. As I said earlier, it would be beneficial to the whole country to enable women to move forward in that way.
My final point is not about the world of work but about the fact that, through the limited opportunities in the world of work, many women end up with very little of their own money in their own pockets. We all abhor domestic violence; it is often mentioned in this Chamber. Many women are stuck in relationships where there is domestic violence because they do not have the financial wherewithal to be able to take themselves off and get out of that situation. Again, this is a very important issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has initiated this debate today, which will consider the status of women and girls in the UK. I am hugely honoured to be a Member of your Lordships’ House, a prospect that seemed completely out of the question to me as a woman when I was growing up. My selective single-sex grammar school did nothing to engender aspiration in any of us. The choices of careers were made clear to us: as girls we could as aspire to be a teacher or a nurse. Both are very valuable professions, but limited choices in a world that should have had so much more to offer.
It was a great pleasure to see the hugely improved opportunities in practically all walks of life for women and girls, and I share with others the pleasure that there are four women standing for the election of our new Prime Minister, showing how much attitudes have changed. Women can now move more readily, aim for the top, and actually reach the top in so many fields.
Having seen a generation of women growing in confidence and success in so many fields, I have at present a real worry that there is a very great danger that this is being seriously undermined. Obscure, dehumanising terms are frequently used to replace ordinary words such as “women”, “girl”, and “female”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has mentioned, we hear of “birthing people”, “menstruators”, “chest feeders”, and “people with a cervix”, and we have all heard the embarrassing interviews with leading politicians who were unable to define what a woman is. The Lancet, a trusted medical journal, on its cover in 2021 called women “bodies with vaginas”. Our so-called national treasure, the NHS, is removing words such as “mother” and “female” from its website, and replacing them with unacceptable, dehumanising terms such as “birthing people”.
Women most definitely are not a collection of sexual organs, bodily excretions and reproductive functions. Such language reduces women’s power as a political constituency. Women’s needs are erased by turning us into a series of micro-groups—“menstruators”, “birthing bodies”, “lactators”—when actually they are all the same group. All these things are done in the name of inclusion, making sure that men who identify as women are not upset by being reminded that women are a group with characteristics that no man can ever have, and making sure that women who identify as men are not left out when we talk about women’s issues. In the name of inclusion, all these actions and words actually exclude many more women. By using language such as “people with a cervix”, women and girls who do not speak English as a first language may miss out on important health messages. Older women, women with a history of sexual assault, teenage girls suffering sexual predation, women from certain faith traditions—all may have a greater need for privacy and women-only spaces.
It grieves me to think that girls are growing up in the United Kingdom and receiving such undermining messages about their status as young women. Having seen society recognise the valuable role that women and girls can and do make in society, we should use clear, polite language for the two sexes, ensuring the dignified provision of single-sex facilities, and keep all males, however they identify, out of women’s sport. These are all inclusion measures, ones essential to the dignity of women and girls, giving them status and full participation in society.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Gale on providing us with the opportunity to have today’s debate, and on giving me the chance to make a brief contribution from the Opposition Back Benches. The part of the Motion to which I draw the House’s attention is the reference to “opportunities”. To get straight to the point, I want to talk about women and girls and their opportunities to study science. Perhaps I should refer to my entry in the register of interests as president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.
I thank the Campaign for Science and Engineering, the House of Commons Library, and the Royal Society for providing far more statistics in this area than I could ever fit into the speech time available to me, but I want to refer to a few. The Higher Education Statistics Agency publishes data on student enrolment, and it shows that there are small increases in the proportion of women students in STEM subjects, but nothing dramatic. A Royal Society report in 2019 showed a 1% rise in the number of women fellows, from 9% in 2018; and 34% of researchers offered fellowship grants were women. The Royal Society also highlights that at the end of 2019 just 27% of the STEM workforce were women, although women in the workforce as a whole comprised 52%.
So there are still areas where progress needs to be made and where we may be going backwards. For example, take mathematics, a fundamental science that underpins all other areas. The latest figures produced by the Protect Pure Maths campaign, of which I am a supporter, show that the proportion of women enrolling in first degrees in maths actually fell from 39.3% to 37.7% in the space of seven years. This is not good news. The 1% of women enrolling in doctoral research in maths slipped from 29% to 28% over the same period—again not good news—and in the 2017-18 academic year 89% of maths professors were men while only 11% were female. In the chemical sciences, the retention and development of women into senior roles remains poor. The higher up the career ladder, the fewer the proportion of women. At professional level it even drops below that for physics; only 9% of chemistry professors are women, whereas the figure for physics is 10%.
There are many strategies that the science community could adopt to address the leaky pipeline. In particular we must do more to encourage women taking career breaks to keep in touch with their science, and to make it easier for them to return as soon as they want to, and not to positions clearly less senior than those they occupied before taking a maternity break, for example.
It is a well-known fact that female scientists frequently fail to get proper credit for their research. Rosalind Franklin—I agree that this example was 70 years ago—was the person whose X-ray crystallography made it possible for Watson and Crick to discover the double helix, for which they got the Nobel Prize. I am not saying that they did not deserve it, but she was not even referred to in their paper, which is a scandal. The problem remains. A new study published by Nature found that women were 13% less likely, on average, to be named as authors on scientific papers to which they had contributed. When it comes to the patents that emerged from the research, women were 58% less likely to be named as authors than men who spent a comparable time in the laboratory. In other words, at every level, women are less likely to get the credit, although they spent the same time at work as the men.
We must not forget that people can still suffer from a great deal of sexism. I remind the House of the experience of Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, probably Britain’s most distinguished living astrophysicist. As the House will know, in 1967 she personally discovered pulsars, a most remarkable discovery, for which she did not get sufficient credit—she has now, but not then. She was left off the paper, other people got the Nobel Prize, and she has written in a recent book, The Sky is for Everyone, about her experience. Her supervisor at the time—the press was very interested in the discovery—was asked about the astrophysical significance of the discovery. What was Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell asked about? Her bust size, her hip size, and how many boyfriends she had had—you could not make it up; it is astonishing. I like to think things have changed since then, but there will be many people in this Chamber who are not so sure.
Thank heavens, we have more women now active in science who can inspire. Anyone who has listened to Maggie Aderin-Pocock, who has presented “The Sky at Night”, will know how inspirational they can be. My time is fast running out so, with the indulgence of the House, let me just get in a reference to some more women scientists. For example, the first Briton in space was not Tim Peake but Helen Sharman. Then there are the women scientists at Oxford who spearheaded the development of the AstraZeneca vaccine, Sarah Gilbert, who was recognised with a damehood for science in public health, and Catherine Green, who received an OBE for the same contribution. You may remember the moment at Wimbledon when the crowd discovered that Sarah Gilbert was in the royal box, all stood up and gave her a standing ovation, which she certainly deserved. I understand that Sarah is now being celebrated by the toymaker Mattel, which is making a Sarah Gilbert Barbie doll, one of six to honour women in STEM.
I must not test the patience of the House, but this week, the James Webb telescope produced the most fantastic, beautiful images of deep space. I am very pleased and heartened to tell the House that the BBC interviewed the following people about what those images mean: Sarah Kendrew from the European Space Agency, Jane Rigby from NASA, and Becky Smethurst from the University of Oxford. If only the media had been present at the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee meeting—I am coming to the end—last week when we had two brilliant young women who were chief executives of start-up companies.
In conclusion, my message is very straightforward: our country cannot afford to waste the talents of half the population. Science needs access to the full range of talent, and women and girls need science.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind noble Lords that five minutes is not an advisory speaking time for this debate; it is actually a limit. If we go over, the Minister will not have as much time to respond.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I hear the word and will try to observe it. First, I must express an interest: I have a 20-year association with the Central Foundation Schools of London, for over half of that time as chair of its board. I retired in December but will make reference to this experience in my remarks.
I come at this subject from a slightly different angle. I want to honour those who have fought the fight. In the first instance, I refer to my indefatigable and noble friend Lady Gale, who has flown the flag for such a long time and reminded us constantly that this is not a debate that is finished but one that we are in the middle of. I attended a recent debate in Grand Committee on the Istanbul convention, to which my noble friend made reference in her remarks. Every single speaker in that debate paid tribute to my noble friend Lady Gale, and quite rightly too. When my noble friend Lady Hayter made her final remarks, she referred to the fact that my noble friend Lady Gale was always asking, “When are you going to ratify the Istanbul convention?” It is going to be ratified on 31 July, but I think she hinted that she will now continue by asking, “When are you going to erase the reservations?”, because it is ratified with reservations. It was also interesting to hear in her remarks today about the transference of her gaze, after 10 years asking about the Istanbul convention, to a 10 year-old commitment in the Equality Act that has yet to be dealt with. She is indefatigable. She is a terrier with a bone, and we all need to heed her words.
I want to choose another object for my remarks. Tomorrow, I will be making a speech at the Central Foundation Schools for the retirement of a headteacher at the girls’ school. It is a truly remarkable school in Tower Hamlets, with the strapline and mission commitment, “Educating tomorrow’s women”. The school has 1,500 pupils, 85% of whom are Muslim and hijab-wearing, and who are largely Bangladeshi by background, and a BAME quota of 90%. It is an extraordinary school which has risen to become the second in the attainment list of Tower Hamlets schools. Some 60% of its pupils qualify for the pupil premium and free school meals. English is a second language for so many of them—the noble Baroness opposite referred to instances of that kind—and cultural attitudes within the Muslim community add their own difficulties to finding educational, aspirational models in an outward-facing direction.
That is the school. The headteacher, Esther Holland, is a very remarkable person, and she will step down tomorrow. She has long Covid, and her doctors say that she can expect to suffer from that for many years to come. Her heroism in holding the tiller through this last academic year has been extraordinary too. She has built up a leadership team around her who make it possible for her, with her diminished energies, to have authority at the school while not letting its standards slip at all.
The year 2015 was particularly difficult for the school. In February of that year, three Muslim girls from the nearby Bethnal Green Academy went off to Syria. In July of that year, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act was passed, heightening our awareness of those possibilities for schoolchildren to be inculcated in the sympathies of terrorist groups. Esther Holland has overseen the implementation of the Prevent programme for early intervention in a constituency where the girls come from extremely difficult socioeconomic backgrounds, with extended families and all kinds of other factors. I wanted to use this debate—I hope I can ask for the sympathy of my colleagues here—to pay tribute to a remarkable woman, who in her way is educating women for tomorrow.
I know that I have gone over time and that I should not have, but I have a second slot on the speakers’ list, so I have let the clock run on for 33 seconds. I gladly renounce the time I am still entitled to claim when my second slot comes round, and I commend these wonderful women to the sympathy of the House.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gale for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. Clearly, in a weak economy and with a Government not exactly firing on all cylinders—although I exempt the Minister from that comment—the sharpest decline in living standards since records began in the 1940s will impact on men as well as women, but it will most affect those with the lowest incomes and in the least secure jobs, the majority of whom are women.
Women predominate in the lowest-paid jobs—caring, cashiering, catering, cleaning and clerical work—and even though employment levels may be recovering, the recent surge in job vacancies is entirely driven by low-paying occupations, according to the IFS. Wages are not keeping pace with inflation. Average wages today are no higher than they were before the financial crisis in 2008, which represents a wage loss of £9,200 a year. The UK lags internationally on hourly pay adjusted for purchasing power, and similarly for household incomes. We have a weak social security net. Basic unemployment support is now down to 13% of average pay, its lowest level on record. The Government’s policy of starving people back to work has been successful, and I hope that they are proud.
The employment rate of women is highest in the south-west and south-east, at 75% and 74% respectively, and lowest in Northern Ireland and the north-east, at 68%. Perhaps that 6% to 7% gap points a way to how real levelling up might take place, as opposed to dealing out occasional grants to favoured constituencies. Those 30% of women on the national minimum wage are still trapped in low-paid jobs: they must simply love it when politicians urge them to get a better-paid job.
The Covid pandemic had a particular impact on women, not just in terms of extra work caring for the elderly, home-schooling and being in jobs that made them particularly at risk of catching the virus. The number of black and ethnic minority women in work fell by 17% between the third quarter of 2019 and the third quarter of 2020, which is likely to lead to a further increase in gender and race inequalities.
The furlough scheme also had a gender impact. Women were less likely than men to have their wages topped up by their employer beyond the 80%, putting them at an economic disadvantage. Some 46% of mothers made redundant during the pandemic cited a lack of adequate childcare as the cause. According to the TUC, 70% of furlough claims made by women with caring responsibilities following school closures in January 2021 were denied. The Self-employment Income Support Scheme discriminated against women on maternity leave and, although statutory sick pay is only £95.85 per week, 15.5% of women do not even earn enough to quality for it. Women in employment were twice as likely as employed men to be key workers and experience high levels of exposure to Covid-19; they were therefore more reliant on that inadequate sum.
Fifty years ago, we talked about equal pay for women, the problem of job segregation, the importance of childcare and adequate benefits, and job security. Why do we still have to discuss these issues 50 years later? The gender pay gap is still stubbornly high, at 8%. We know that benefit increases can rapidly boost income and reduce poverty; they played an important role in cutting absolute poverty in early 2020 and most of 2021. It is a crying shame that they were reversed.
We know that the employment rate for disabled women is 53%, compared with 72% for full-time women. Just think of the loss of talent and opportunity that this figure represents for disabled women. We know that a public sector pay freeze will have a particular impact on women, who make up two-thirds of all public sector employees. We know that extending employment rights and investing in strong, effective enforcement will help to reduce insecurity among low-paid workers.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for the opportunity to join this debate. I want to focus on the safety of women and girls part of the subject matter. I feel slightly out of place here as a man among so many women—in fact, proportionately, it reminds me of my Pilates class—but it is the implications of a biological man taking part in a biological woman’s event that I would like to touch on briefly today.
I know that it may not look likely, but this old wreck standing before your Lordships today was once a keen rugby player. Rugby is a sport where no quarter is given or taken. I take the liberty of assuming that not many noble Baronesses here today have ever been rugby-tackled but, if they have, they will know that a rugby tackle is a form of uncontrolled violence where—in men’s rugby anyway—two big, beefy players run as fast as they can and the one from behind launches himself at the person in front with the simple intention of stopping him in his tracks and bringing him to the ground with as much force and as little subtlety as possible. The mind boggles at the damage that could be done by somebody like the person I used to be—15 stone of muscle and bone—launching myself flat out on to a 10-stone girl and bringing her down as forcefully as possible. At the very least, she would be battered and bruised, but it could easily result in broken bones or damaged brains.
It seems like madness that such a thing is permitted, yet this is exactly what England Rugby does permit, despite World Rugby being a pioneer in recommending that males are categorically excluded from female sports. England Rugby had to choose between fairness and inclusivity—clearly incompatible choices. It is obviously completely unfair that girls should have to compete in contact sports against fully developed biological men, yet they ignored fairness and common sense for the false god of woke inclusivity.
Other problems arise when the final whistle blows. Rugby is a sweaty and often muddy game; after it, we all repair to the changing and shower rooms. Typically, at club level, there will not be male and female changing rooms but just one room as, up to now, men and women have played the game separately and at different times. Most trans women still have their male equipment intact, so we now have a situation where women and girls obviously do not want to get undressed and shower with a fully equipped biological man present. At the very least, it is awkward and undignified. It is certainly uncivilised and potentially dangerous; it is amazing how it has been allowed to happen.
I must emphasise that this is absolutely not an attempt to dissuade trans athletes from playing any sport, including other contact sports such as kick-boxing where, unbelievably, biological men can kick-box women and girls. Rather, it is a plea that biological women play against biological women while there is a new third category—let us say, a form of open category—where trans athletes can compete for honours among themselves and win them fairly in the true spirit of sport.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Gale for securing such an important debate. It has thrown up many interesting issues already. I also congratulate my noble friend on a lifetime of service to her community, her party, this country and the continuing, vital cause of women’s equality. She is a veritable lioness of a woman, if I may say so; I send my congratulations to the Lionesses on their fantastic displays in Euro 2022. It is nice to be positive for a change because what those young women are doing on the pitch for little boys and girls in terms of their belief in equality and in what women can do has been so inspiring. I continue to be riveted and inspired by this tournament.
Less happily, I have to talk about rape. According to Rape Crisis England & Wales, one in four women has been raped or sexually assaulted as an adult. That is 5 million women in this jurisdiction. One in six children has been sexually abused. One in 20 men has been raped or sexually assaulted as an adult. In 2021, the police recorded the highest-ever number of rapes reported to them: 67,125. However, only one in a 100 of those reported rapes resulted in a criminal charge in that same year. Charge rates and conviction rates have dropped to their lowest in our country since records began. That is totally unacceptable in one of the wealthiest countries on earth in the 21st century. It represents a veritable pandemic of rape, in particular against women, and we are failing. After all these years of austerity, our criminal justice system is failing women when they are raped.
Half of these rapes against women are by a partner or ex-partner. There is a lot of talk at the moment about rebalancing the relationship between Parliament and the courts, wicked old judges and activist lawyers, but I remind noble Lords that marital rape was only outlawed in this country as late as 1991 and it was the House of Lords Judicial Committee—not a Government or a Parliament but the judges who stepped in—that did this. Let us just remember that when we are trying to put judges back in their boxes and be proud of ourselves for being parliamentarians.
Five in six rapes against women are by someone they know, 98% of prosecuted sex offences are against men and five in six women who are raped do not even go to the police. Some 40% of them say they are embarrassed, which is understandable, but 38% of those who do not go say they do not believe the police can help and 34% think it would be humiliating. Every year in England and Wales, 618,000 women are raped. That is based on the March 2020 crime survey, which is the latest crime survey. That is one in 35 women. Whether we realise it or not, each of us probably knows a woman who has been raped in the past year. This is the scale of the problem. I hope the noble Baroness has some notes from the relevant officials that tell us what the Government plan to do about this. We need a fundamental reset of policing and the justice system on these matters.
Noble Lords may remember a wonderful film from 1980 called “Brubaker”. Robert Redford played a prison governor who goes undercover as a prisoner to expose the corruption and abuse in that system. I wish the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner well in his task, but he might want to consider an investigation that drastic, because the situation is so bad.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Gale for all her work in favour of women over many decades. I also thank her for her excellent, probing opening remarks today. Most of us speaking see ourselves as second-wave feminists. We fought for equal pay and conditions and for universal childcare in the 1970s and 1980s. Some of us pitched up at Greenham Common; some of us burned our bras—not all of us, obviously. Fast-forward to the 2020s and we realise that we can never be complacent, as the status of women and girls continues to be a cause for great concern. You have only to listen to some of the extremely strong contributions made today from all sides of the House.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Labour Party has, perhaps more than any other institution, helped to feminise Britain. In 1997, more than 100 women were elected as Labour MPs. Less than a generation earlier, the number was just 10. Those years from 1997 saw the birth of the minimum wage, the rollout of tax credits, the introduction of Sure Start—all political decisions that did so much to assist the lives of women in low-paid jobs.
When Labour left government in 2010, we had made huge strides in maternity and paternity leave, thanks to a Labour Government working with EU standards. While things were never perfect in the history of Labour in government after 1997, from that year, according to the ONS, there was a steady decline in the pay gap, at least for full-time workers, to its position now of 8%. Thank goodness for the Fawcett Society for keeping alive the dream of equal pay for work of equal value.
There is so much more we could have done, but the last 12 years have seen women and girls in this country feeling more unsafe, having less trust in the police, being poorer in many cases and, in terms of girls, feeling more unsure of their identity and self-worth than ever before. Much of that is down to the unwillingness of this Government to tackle the internet giants where it hurts—in their pockets—despite the long-awaited Online Safety Bill, which of course has now been delayed.
The last 12 years have brought us to the point of being told in a recent study by Legal & General, reported last month in the Financial Times, that the average pension pot of a woman at retirement was found to be £12,000, compared with an average of £26,000 for a man. For all the talk of modern, well-off pensioners, older women earn less than their male counterparts and therefore face very weak personal pensions. They are seriously dependent on state provision to stay fed and warm. This coming winter must be terrifying for a lot of older women.
The coalition Government introduced some welcome gender equality initiatives, but the emphasis on austerity policy kept contradicting them. Most of that ongoing austerity policy in the last 12 years was directed at single-parent households, nine out of 10 of which are headed by women: the benefit cap, the two-child limit and the bedroom tax. Also, half of all single parents now receive no child maintenance at all, as Governments have continuously offloaded that responsibility. The list goes on.
The Domestic Abuse Act introduced by the present Government has indeed been an important step forward, but deep cuts to the justice system have had a hugely detrimental effect on women. We have only to look at the desperate situation with rape cases, as set out by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, to know that that is so. Covid saw millions of women taking more than their fair share of the consequences of that terrible pandemic. The Government may say they are not responsible for the arrival of the pandemic, and it cannot be blamed on them, but it is important to remember that all those years of austerity policies meant that the poorest women in the country were less resilient in coping with the pressures of the pandemic and, more recently, of this unique cost of living crisis.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I feel I must begin by asking the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, to reconsider some of his assumptions. As he was speaking, he was facing a female rugby player—me. Thirty years ago, I was playing informal but full-contact games against and with men. I suggest he looks at the distribution of the bell curve, because some of the men on those pitches were smaller and lighter than I was. I also suggest he reads a book called The Frailty Myth.
Since we are on sport, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in celebrating the women’s Euro 2022, which is happening now. I am hoping to make it to a match next week, but I point out that this is one of the last areas—probably the last area—of legal discrimination. In 2006 I wrote about a potential woman, whom I named Waynetta Rooney, who might have wanted to be selected by a Premier League team. She is not allowed to play for that team or to get the salary that would go with it because of her gender. All those wonderful players we are watching now are paid vastly less and are not allowed into teams where they could be paid more, because of their gender.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for securing this debate. I will focus briefly on a lifestyle economic analysis. We start with a girl in school who faces stereotypes about the subjects she should study and restrictions that will affect her lifetime earning potential. She will be expected to sit quietly and to be polite and compliant, something particularly difficult for neurodiverse girls.
A recent study by the charity In Kind Direct found that in some cities and towns period poverty affects two-fifths of girls and women. In Brighton and Hove it is 46% and in Oxford 40%. I am proud that Green councillors on Oxford City Council have just this week submitted a motion for free period products to be put in public toilets, town halls and community centres. However, the fact that this is necessary is a dreadful indictment of our society.
I note the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, about discrimination in science and work. Why do we have the Francis Crick Institute, named after a very controversial character, instead of the Rosalind Franklin Institute? Lynn Margulis is one of my scientific heroes. She is an evolutionary biologist who proposed a real change to the science of evolution. Her gender definitely had something to do with the difficulties she had in having that accepted.
Going back to economics, there is something called “sheflation”. Note that figures from the Living Wage Foundation show that 20% of women earn less than a real living wage. The figure for men is 14%; it is unacceptable for both. Every worker of whatever age should earn enough money to live on. Many people have referred to the situation of single parents, 90% of whom are women. The New Economics Foundation has figures showing that, in the current cost of living crisis, single-parent families have seen 50% more of their income lost to the crisis than families with two adults.
We come to middle age and the generation trap. So many middle-aged women are now caring for younger children and teenagers and providing support for older children and their own parents, or even grandparents. The slashing of government services has meant that the practical reality is that the overwhelming weight of that has landed on women.
I come to my worst figures. They are from the Health Foundation. A number of other noble Lords have referred to the situation of female pensioners and older women. Life expectancy for women in the poorest areas of the UK is lower than the overall life expectancy for every country in the OECD, except Mexico. We are doing worse in the poorest parts of the country than all but one other OECD country. That is a measure of the level of discrimination.
I shall make one final point. Sometimes this is seen as a zero-sum game—more for women, less for men. Actually, however, if we make a society that is fit, decent and caring for women and girls, we make a better society for everyone.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, the word “indefatigable” has been used about my noble friend Lady Gale. I say amen to that and thank her for today. Your Lordships will not be surprised that I will concentrate on the role of women and girls as carers in the years since 2010. I include girls because, as your Lordships know, there are many underage carers. What we have to say about caring is that there is more of it and more women and girls are involved. Since 2010, the number of women providing unpaid care has continued to increase and the average woman now has a 50:50 chance of providing unpaid care to a family member or friend by the age of 49, 11 years earlier than for any man and significantly ahead of the time they reach retirement age. This of course impacts on women’s ability to work in full-time employment. The lack of investment in social care, which I have brought to your Lordships’ attention many times, has served to exacerbate these challenges. The lack of an adequate social care workforce has placed additional pressure on carers’ lives. We must have a social care system fit for the future if we want all women to be able to participate fully in society and the economy. Is it not interesting that we have not heard one word about social care from the candidates for Prime Minister—not a single word about what they will do about social care, except that some have pledged to cut the levy that was going to fund it?
Overall, women are much more likely to take on caring roles than men. More than half of carers are women. Carers UK has calculated that the economic value of the unpaid care provided by women in the UK is a massive £77 billion a year. They are more likely to be around the clock carers, more likely to be sandwich carers—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to caring for young children and elderly parents—and more likely to have given up work or reduced their working hours to care. Is it not a pity that the promise made in the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto to bring in five days’ unpaid leave for those with caring responsibilities, a modest enough proposal when all is said and done, has not been carried out because of the lack of an employment Bill? There is a Private Member’s Bill in the other place that I hope may serve to rectify this omission.
If you do not continue full-time work, what do you do? You build up problems with your pension and build up poverty for the future, and that is without thinking about the cost of living problems. We hear that carers are having extreme difficulty in managing choices about whether they eat or heat their homes. Many cannot afford to do both. Just over half of all carers responding to a recent survey are currently unable to manage their monthly expenses. This is not sustainable without urgent intervention because it will lead to carers breaking down and being unable to continue caring for family and friends—instead, passing the cost of doing so to local authorities and the state.
I do not want just to whinge. Caring is necessary for and central to human relationships and a desirable feature of family and community life. It happens to all people and in all walks of life, although disproportionately to women. Most carers do not resent the care they give. They see it as their duty and family responsibility, but the quid pro quo of taking on the things they do, willingly and with love, is that carers suffer disadvantages and problems with their own health, including their mental health, and economic and financial insecurity. I have pointed out their difficulties with paid work. Their rights as citizens and voters also suffer if they are not able to pursue their own interests or have any free time. We must recognise and support all carers, but especially women carers. We should remember that, because the contribution they make to the economy far outstrips anything else, even the resources of the National Health Service, it makes very sound economic sense—as well as moral good sense—to support carers.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as all of us have said, we really appreciate this debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, in which we get to voice our concerns. Indeed, one way of framing our commitment to improving the status of young women is to help them find their voice and give them the skills and space to be heard. It is why campaigners complain about mansplaining or worry about young girls being bullied off social media by sexist trolls.
I want to talk about two categories of young women whose voices we seem happy to have muted because their stories offend contemporary political orthodoxies. Some women’s voices are definitely more equal than others. The demand to listen to women arguably reached its zenith with the #MeToo movement, even leading to the slogan “Believe all women”. This slogan sometimes dangerously dispensed with important principles such as innocent until proven guilty. Those who spoke out were often encouraged to elide serious sexual abuse with more trivial, if unpleasant, incidents of interpersonal advances.
Regardless, at the height of #MeToo, while Westminster and the media raged about predatory abuses of power, with acres of coverage telling those victims’ stories, the same politicians and commentariat ignored another group of young women at the heart of industrial-scale sexual abuse by grooming gangs operating across myriad northern towns such as Rotherham, Oldham and Blackpool. This week, the Telford inquiry revealed details of the horrendous catalogue of rapes and sexual degradation of thousands of young women over decades. When these largely white working-class girls turned to the authorities for help, schools, social services, councils and police officers dismissed the complaints, looked the other way, even victim-blamed. One survivor, Joanne Phillips described how they were dismissed as “child prostitutes”.
When one young woman went to Telford police about Shabir Ahmed abusing her, her complaints were ignored. Grotesquely, Ahmed went on to work for Oldham Council as a welfare officer, simultaneously leading an Oldham grooming gang now convicted of rape and sexual trafficking, crimes that could have been prevented if its original female accuser had not been contemptuously disregarded. More shamefully, despite inquiries, court cases and mealy-mouthed police and council mea culpas, polite society continues to sideline these young women’s stories. Is it not shocking that, despite these revelations, there is no clamour for Urgent Questions and emergency Statements about the issue here in Parliament? Where are those social justice activists taking to the streets chanting the name of 16 year-old pregnant Lucy Lowe, who died alongside her sister and mother in a house fire started by her abuser, Azhar Ali Mehmood?
Is this awkward silence due to political expediency? We know that the reason these horrendous incidents happened in plain sight was that those in authority feared that investigating the Asian male perpetrators could inflame racial and religious tensions. Council employees who tried to whistle-blow, with rare courageous exceptions, were silenced themselves by the threat that they would be labelled as bigots. Indeed, that message—“You can’t say that” for fear of being branded a hatemongering bigot—is silencing another group of young women who, ironically, simply want to discuss womanhood. In recent months we have heard of the 18 year-old who was bullied out of school by her fellow pupils, who accused her of transphobia. She was abandoned by her teachers for fear of guilt by association. Her crime was using her voice to challenge a noble Baroness who was speaking at her school when she quoted a debate in this very Chamber about the attempt to pass maternity legislation minus the words “mother” or “woman”.
While we all know about Professor Kathleen Stock, who was hounded out of Sussex University, less attention is given to those female students I have met who have confessed they were too scared to speak in support of Professor Stock in case of reprisals by activist tutors or having their academic prospects destroyed if dubbed a bigot. Such censorious intolerance of views that clash with identity politics has real-life victims. Today, law student Lisa Keogh should be attending her graduation at Abertay University, but after a two-month misconduct investigation for having the temerity to say “women have vaginas” in a gender and feminism seminar, she has been ostracised by fellow students, despite being cleared. Congratulations, Lisa—you should be there. No wonder the lesson of these and many other examples I could give is that young women in 2022 believe they should stay schtum and self-censor in order to avoid being branded a bigot. The old sexist dictum, “Be seen, not heard”, is back with a modern twist.
To conclude, here in this Chamber we must not simply proclaim our commitment to giving young women a voice. We must instead mount a vigorous defence of free speech; the freedom to voice dissenting, even unfashionable opinions. We owe it to the victims of grooming scandals to learn a bitter lesson: if we enable a culture that chills speech in case it offends or leads to demonising labels, it can lead to catastrophic, tragic results for women.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating and mixed debate, and I fear some of issues raised will pose some challenges for the Minister today. I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Gale on choosing this debate, although I doubt even she could have anticipated how relevant it would be in highlighting the shortcomings of this Government in dealing with the safety and security of, and need for trustworthiness for, women in the UK. My noble friend’s introduction to the debate was a tour de force and posed many of the questions the Government need to address. I particularly appreciated the tributes from my noble friends Viscount Stansgate and Lord Griffiths. They were very welcome and positive and needed to be said. Indeed, I have a small lioness in my own family: I am very pleased to say that my eight year-old granddaughter is in the football team this evening. She sees no reason at all why she should not be playing football and intends to do so.
I intend to focus on security for women in its broadest sense: economic, physical, and for families. Sometimes, those forms of lack of security are experienced all at the same time, because there is no doubt that the evidence shows that many women are in a much less secure position than they were in 2010. As my noble friend Lady Crawley said, we cannot be complacent, and as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, totally correctly, until we have, for example, comprehensive social care in the UK, we will not make women economically emancipated.
Some noble Lords have put as positive a spin as they can on the status of women and girls today, and without doubt there has been some very welcome progress in many areas since 2010. We have equal marriage and we now have equal pay statistics. My noble friend Lady Goudie mentioned the 30% Club. I pay tribute to the work she has done over many years in involving women and persuading them to play their part at a senior level in our lives; indeed, we have seen an increase in the number of women MPs, for example. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkins, for the work she has done over many years with Women2Win.
I also commend and recognise the diversity of the now shortening list of potential candidates for the Conservative leadership—even though their politics are still the same old, same old. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and my noble friend Lady Gale that we all have battle scars from trying to make our parties more representative and to get more women elected. That unites us. However, we must ask if the policies and programmes pursued by consecutive Conservative and Conservative-led Governments have substantially challenged the patriarchal nature of our society and whether women and girls are able to thrive in safety and opportunity.
I particularly enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Stansgate; had my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton been here, I know that he would have joined him on the importance of girls playing their part in science, maths and technology. As my noble friend said, it is the idle comments that have the deepest effect and discourage girls from taking physics to a higher level—an ill-judged quip that girls cannot do maths or physics or that it is too hard can lead to their making life-changing decisions that influence the subjects they study or the career they pursue. Noble Lords will know the person I am referring to who has made those idle comments, which can have such a devastating and negative effect.
The evidence suggests that tackling misogynistic conduct from the top of our society to its bottom has been patchy at best. I will come back to misogynistic matters and will look for a moment at investment in growth and the levelling-up agenda, which is an important political focus. The usual focus for an economic stimulus package after a downturn is on the construction industry or investments in physical infrastructure. Women make up just 11% of the construction workforce and 1% of the UK’s on-site construction workforce. When the Treasury issues a call for shovel-ready projects, it is actually saying it wants to invest in male-led occupations.
The ADASS is doing some very interesting work on the adult social care workforce, of which 82% are female. Modelling indicates that any investment in care in the UK would produce 2.7 times as many jobs as an equivalent investment in construction. I invite the Minister to pick that up and champion it, because that is how we will get growth and investment in our society and create jobs for women. My noble friend Lady Donaghy made a great case on issues of low pay; I cannot better it.
The truth is that Governments of the past 12 years have pushed women further into poverty. Noble Lords across the House have described the cost of that. I will not repeat what has been said, but one of the keys to women’s economic emancipation has always been childcare, which is important for the security of family life. The cost of a full-time nursery place for a child under two has risen by approximately £1,500 over the last five years. Some 98% of providers responding to a recent survey said cutting childcare ratios would not cut costs for parents.
This Government have knowingly underfunded free childcare hours, and Ofsted data shows that 4,000 childcare providers closed between March 2021 and 2022, limiting access to childcare and driving up price rises. Under the Conservative Government, soaring childcare costs are compounding the cost of living crisis and putting increased pressure on families while pricing people out of parenting. Labour’s children’s recovery plan would invest in childcare right now, with a more than fourfold increase in the early years pupil premium and before and after school clubs, ensuring that every child gets a new opportunity to learn, play and develop.
I turn to physical security and misogyny, which many speakers have mentioned. It is disappointing for us all—but must be particularly so for Conservative Members, the Minister and some of her colleagues—that so many Conservative MPs have been sexual harassers or worse over the last year. It would seem that the Prime Minister and his party were an outlier on misogyny and sexual harassment, if it were not so redolent of the standards recently prevailing in the Metropolitan Police.
The facts show that there is an epidemic of violence against women and girls under the watch of this Conservative Government. As my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Crawley said, women feel threatened in both reality and the virtual world. The number of women homicide victims is at its highest level for 15 years, rape prosecutions and convictions are at a record low and victims are abandoning their trials due to delay. Although I credit the Government for publishing the very welcome domestic abuse plan a few months ago, it commits only to “considering” and “looking at” a register for serial domestic abuse perpetrators. This side of the House and the sector have been demanding this for years, so why are they now only looking into it? This is yet another example of piecemeal steps instead of the widespread reform we all need. I ask the Minister to respond to a simple question: why is there not a RASSO unit—a rape unit—in every police force in this country? Can she explain why?
I will wind up with some questions for the Minister. Does she agree that it is time that misogyny is made a hate crime? Will she commit to the Government bringing forward the victims’ Bill? I look forward in particular to her response to my noble friend Lady Prosser’s remarks on levelling up and practical solutions to women’s work. When will we get the long-promised women’s health strategy? Will the Minister give a commitment, for example, to tackling the gender bonus gap, which in 2021 was 40%?
Labour has a plan. For example, we have a new deal for working people which will put women at the heart of our economic recovery. I think I just need to say: what this country needs, and what the women in this country need, is a Labour Government, and we need the opportunity for an election to have one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
I start by echoing many of the tributes paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for bringing forward this debate, and to all Members who have spoken and contributed to such an all-encompassing discussion. I would also like to pay tribute to those men who have joined us today and made very forthright contributions. It is great that you respect women, and their role and potential in the country. I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, gave five minutes of excellent value, and it was a very significant contribution which I will refer to as I go through.
One thing is as sure as eggs: I am never going to be able to answer everybody’s questions. If I do not answer your question, it is not because I do not want to, or I am disrespecting you, but I will, at the end, make sure I write to all noble Lords who took part in the debate, and make sure all your questions are answered to your satisfaction.
I had the great pleasure of being part of the International Women’s Day debate held in March, when again the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, made a very powerful and eloquent speech. While that debate was not all that long ago, I will never turn down a chance to highlight the great work taking place across government to ensure that everyone can access opportunities and reach their full potential.
I suspect that for most Members here, as is certainly the case for me, 2010 now feels like a very distant memory, although it was a momentous time for me, being the year that I first took my seat in this place. I am conscious that, while this Chamber still looks the same, the world around us has changed immeasurably. A great number of things may be different, including those currently in government. However, one thing that has remained constant is our commitment to achieving gender equality. Each successive Government have reaffirmed their resolve to make the UK a place where women and girls can access all opportunities on an equal basis and be able to thrive.
We know that this is not something that can be achieved overnight; there are no quick fixes or silver bullets, much to the frustration of probably everybody in this Chamber. It can often feel as though the pace of change is too slow, and progress is always just out of reach. But this week I have more than one reason to step back and appreciate just how far we have come since 2010.
On Monday, we celebrated—and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, was there—10 years of the Women’s Business Council, and I was overwhelmed to hear what it has achieved within that time. In 2010, the gender pay gap was 19.8%, and in 2021 it was 15.4%. There are nearly 2 million more women in work since 2010, and the number of women in FTSE 100 boardroom roles has jumped to 39% from 12.5% 10 years ago. At the 2010 election, 143 women were elected to the other place; in 2019, it was 220. We have got some way to go on this, and more about that later. While we can all agree there is more to do, and my ministerial colleagues and I are certainly not complacent when it comes to tackling that challenge head on, it is remarkable to see the strides that we have already made in such a short space of time.
I do not believe that we should dwell on the past or rest on our laurels, so I want to focus on the exciting work that we are doing now to ensure that this progress does not stall but in fact is accelerated. The underpinning principle behind government work undertaken since 2010, is that women should have the economic freedom to make choices about their lives and careers, unconstrained by inequalities or expectations. We want women to be economically empowered, and to remove the barriers that prevent them from reaching their full potential.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Prosser and Lady Thornton, all talked about the importance of women in careers where they could really achieve their potential, not least of all construction and science. I am pleased that one of the ways in which we are doing this is by ensuring women can enter into higher-paid sectors and positions. The STEM world is calling for people with the right skills to come and help them meet the needs of our future economy, yet women currently make up only 24% of the STEM workforce. If we are to meet those challenges, then we need to first tackle this occupational segregation.
Of course, much of this relies on inspiring girls to consider STEM careers and study STEM subjects from a young age. We are already making some progress here, with girls representing 44% of all STEM A-level entries in 2021, and the proportion of women entering full-time undergraduate courses taking STEM courses having increased to 42.2%. The Department for Education is currently supporting a number of initiatives to encourage a more diverse uptake of STEM subjects and pathways. To name but a few, it funds the Inclusion in Schools project and the Stimulating Physics Network, it is researching interventions to tackle the barriers young women encounter to studying STEM, and it is enhancing mathematics teaching through a national network of 40 school-led maths hubs and funding the Advanced Mathematics Support Programme.
However, it is not just getting young women interested in STEM that is important; the real challenge is how we get them into STEM and keep them there. On International Women’s Day, I announced a programme to encourage more women to return to STEM careers after taking time out for caring. The pilot will give them the opportunity to refresh and grow their skills in sectors where their talents are most needed, and will build on what we have learned from previous government returner initiatives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, also mentioned women and diversity on boards and women in leadership. We are not just supporting women into higher-paid STEM careers; it is also about helping them to reach the top within their chosen profession across a range of sectors. Over the last 10 years, the Government have lent support to successive reviews, most recently the FTSE Women Leaders Review, to drive progress on female representation at the top of our biggest companies. This business-led framework has had fantastic success. In 2021, the UK FTSE 100 ranks in second place compared with 11 similar counties. But it has now turned its attention to fixing the pipeline of talent, making sure that this level of representation spreads through the entire leadership team and across a wider range of companies.
When the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, speaks to that school tomorrow, will he pass on the very best wishes of everybody in this Chamber today to that head teacher, who has given and given, and thank her on our behalf?
We also want to help women to realise their entrepreneurial aspirations. As it stands, only one in three UK entrepreneurs is a woman—a gender gap equivalent to 1.1 million missing businesses. That is outrageous, and we must do something about that. Our aim is to increase the number of female entrepreneurs by half by 2030, so we will look very closely at that.
Many noble Lords mentioned the gender pay gap. One of the ways we are helping women in every workplace, regardless of how senior they are, is by driving transparency on pay. We will not have the situation where a woman goes for a job and is asked, “How much did you earn in your last job?” We do not want that. We want a salary on the advert so that women can negotiate the pay that shows their worth. We recently announced that we will take this transparency one step further. We will provide women with the information they need, making it easier for employees to understand whether they are being paid fairly.
However, as many of my noble friends have noted today, the world of work does not exist within a vacuum. So much of what goes into getting work right, not just for women but for everyone, is about making sure that workplace culture and practices fit with the lives that people lead outside of them. All the effort we put into empowering women and girls throughout their lives and careers goes to waste if we do not also remove the barriers that can prevent them being able to fully realise their ambitions.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Prosser and Lady Thornton, touched on the subject of childcare. This is something that is vexing me. I am on it. I cannot make promises, but I can promise to try getting to the bottom of some of the things that we can do to enable women to get the childcare that they need so that they can fulfil their potential in the workplace. The Government have doubled free childcare and have done much on tax-free childcare. But we want to help parents with the cost of childcare so we have introduced, as I have said, tax-free childcare, providing working parents with up to £2,000 of childcare support a year for each child. Much has been done on flexible working and parental leave. I am really proud that we extended the right to request flexible working to all employees with 26 weeks of continuous service with their employer.
Half the time has gone already, and I will not be able to answer everything, but let me turn to some of the other points that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, spoke about the remit of the Government Equalities Office being reduced. The equality hub will move beyond the narrow focus of protected characteristics and drive real change that benefits people across the United Kingdom. We have announced a new approach to equality, which will extend the fight for fairness beyond the nine protected characteristics covered by the Act, to include socioeconomic and geographical equality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, raised Section 106. If the aims of Section 106 are to be realised, all political parties must be truly committed to it rather than be forced to do something. It is our job to drive that change to come naturally. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, raised the Istanbul convention. We are delighted to be ratifying the convention. This will send a clear message, not only within the UK but overseas, that Britain is committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Whatever the differing views on the two reservations, we can all agree about the vital importance of ratification. Ratifying will make it easy for us to hold to account those countries elsewhere in Europe that are pulling away from the convention.
Many noble Lords have raised the cost of living crisis and the impact on women, particularly lone parents. We understand completely that millions of households across the UK are struggling to make their incomes stretch to cover the rising cost of living. That is why the Government have provided an extra £37 billion this year. On a point of difference that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised about giving one-off grants as opposed to fixing the system as one would like, the Government are not standing there watching people struggling. We are adding vast sums of money for people as quickly as possible. Our Plan for Jobs campaign is working, as is the Way to Work campaign, which got over half a million people into work. As my Secretary of State, Thérèse Coffey, an outstanding woman, said, we want people to be in work. Once they have a job, it is easier for them to get a better job and then into a career. I cannot say more about the benefits system than I have said and said yesterday. We are doing all that we can to support people.
On the point raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Gale, about what we are doing to improve rape prosecutions, protecting women and girls from violence is a key priority for this Government. We have made it clear that we need to make improvements to restore victims’ faith in the criminal justice system. We published our rape action plan setting out clear measures to more than double the number of adult rape cases reaching court by the end of this Parliament. However, there are no holds barred here. There is still work to be done, still progress to be made. We will not stop driving actions forward to rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system to pursue justice for rape victims.
My noble friend Lady Jenkin, the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and others mentioned women in politics. If I may, I will take a moment to congratulate my noble friend on the work she and others have done on Women2Win. She does not take her foot off the pedal at all on this. We have more women MPs than ever before and political parties, as I said, are responsible for their candidate selection and should lead the way in improving the diversity of representation. Let us all redouble our efforts to see whether we can get to that 50:50 target. I would also say that we need to understand why people do not want to enter politics. I had a conversation with someone about this earlier and if we can address the reasons why people do not want to do it, perhaps we will inspire some younger people to take it up.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, got us off to a great start about the football. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is obviously very excited about the performance of our wonderful team. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, a rugby star in her own right—
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Oh, she has changed her mind. Noble Lords are absolutely right that these women are doing a great job.
I was at the football on Monday in Brighton. I have never been to a football match in my life. Before I went, my other half said to me, “Please behave. Don’t start shouting out and telling people what to do. You know nothing about football.” I had been there about 10 minutes and I was alive with it. They were like rockets running round the field. They were absolutely fantastic. I just wondered why I had not seen them before. They are doing a great job and if they get to the final at Wembley, I will be pleased to represent all noble Lords and shout. I started to get excited and then realised that I was sitting next to the Duke of Gloucester and I had to calm down. I take on board the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I will speak to my noble friend Lord Parkinson about investment in sport.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, raised the issue of transgender athletes participating in sport. All sports which compete internationally must comply with their international federation rules on that level and the Government are clear that a way forward is needed that protects and shows compassion to all athletes while maintaining the integrity of the competition. I heard the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and others in the Chamber today. I am very happy to commit to meeting the noble Baroness and other noble Lords to discuss this.
The gender pensions gap was raised. We take this very seriously. Our reforms, including automatic enrolment, have helped millions more people save into a pension. Pension participation among eligible women working in the private sector was 86% in 2020, up from 40% in 2012.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, on her 30% Club. I will have to write regarding 50% of women on government boards because I do not have that figure to hand. The noble Baroness also mentioned women and girls in the Ukraine conflict. To mark International Women’s Day this year, the UK was proud to launch new funding for women’s rights organisations and civil society actors working to support the critical needs of women and children both inside and displaced outside Ukraine. There is more information, but I will include that in my letter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, mentioned levelling up for men and women. I thought her explanation of the fact that if we levelled up, it would still be unequal was really quite interesting—
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
I did not say that if we levelled up for everyone, it would still be unequal. I said that the Minister who responded to the debate seemed to think that levelling up for women, men and everyone was the answer. My point was that we start off unequally so we end up unequal at the end. My point is that we should level up for women and make it equal.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying that and I agree with her.
My noble friends Lady Meyer and Lady Eaton raised the issue of the protected characteristic of sex. This is a subject that we shall have to come back to and debate. As I have said, everyone must be free to express what they feel about it, but everyone must be respectful and tolerant when some people have different views from theirs.
I am afraid my time is up. I knew this would happen and I am sorry, but I am incredibly grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As such, I will write, as I promised, and have the meetings that we so need to have.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
I thank the Minister very much for her response to the debate. We met only yesterday; she is always willing to meet and have discussions, and I thank her for that.
I thank all noble Baronesses and noble Lords for their contributions today. There is no doubt that we can say that this has been a wide-ranging debate. Today we have covered a whole range of political life: women on boards; women in science; women in peacemaking; the gender pay gap; women in sport; the very low incidence of convictions for rape; domestic abuse; pension pots; carers; and young women victims. It has been a really good debate in that sense, but I think we all recognise through the debate that we still have a long way to go.
There is no doubt that we are getting there. There have been many improvements in women’s lives. Certainly since 1918, when women first got the vote, we have seen a gradual increase of women in political and public life, although we know that there are still many barriers. That is something that we will no doubt come back to, but we all know what the campaign is and we will keep on.
It has been great to hear women and men with experience speaking in this debate today. I thank your Lordships very much.
Royal Assent
Thursday 14th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 July 2022 - (11 Jul 2022)
China
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to respond to the long-term security challenges posed by China.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Chinese threat and the actions we need to take to counter it have been brought to prominence by two recent events. First, in June, the declaration agreed at the NATO Heads of Government summit in Madrid, referring to the specific threat posed by China and establishing a new strategic concept, said:
“The People’s Republic of China’s … stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values. The PRC employs a broad range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global footprint and project power, while remaining opaque about its strategy, intentions and military build-up. The PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security. The PRC seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains.”
That is pretty damning stuff but a good reflection of Chinese behaviour over many years, despite Prime Minister Cameron’s good but somewhat naive push in 2015 to befriend China, encouraging trade and business investment with it.
The second event was the unprecedented MI5 and FBI joint address on the threat from China on 6 July this year. The FBI director said China presented an immense threat— indeed, the
“biggest long-term threat to our economic and national security”.
The director-general of MI5, Ken McCallum, said the most “game-changing challenge” came from the Chinese Communist Party. In particular, he referred to the surge in illegal procurement of
“tech, AI, advanced research or product development”.
He said that MI5 had
“doubled … previously-constrained effort against Chinese activity of concern”
and is
“running seven times as many investigations”
into Chinese threats compared to 2018. However, these two events just emphasise something we were already aware of. There have been numerous actions by China over several years that are of concern, and China has steadily become more assertive and dangerous. Let us list some of them.
As CDI in 2000 on a visit to China, I was instructed to give a warning to my opposite number that they should stop using cyber techniques to steal our intellectual property—which they were doing on a vast scale. Unsurprisingly, my interlocutor denied that it was happening, although, interestingly, later that day it stopped and did not start again until I left five days later. Since then, it has been done on an ever greater scale. There are about 40,000 Chinese working in the area of cyber to do things such as stealing IP; it is unbelievable.
Then there is the belt and road initiative, which is clearly aimed at gaining control of vulnerable countries—we mentioned Sri Lanka and its port, but this is happening all around the world—and opening up grand strategic options for the Chinese. There is also the deepening of the strategic partnership with Russia and attempts—there is no doubt they are trying to do this—to undercut the rules-based international order because it does not suit China. They are both attempting to do that.
There are actions that have led to democratic regression in south-east Asia. There have been threats of activity on the Indo-Chinese border and threats to maritime security in the Indo-Pacific region, including in the Korean peninsula, Taiwan, the East China Sea and the South China Sea. Noble Lords will be interested to know that I am not going to bang on about maritime issues and demand more ships.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Mind you, we do need them—but that is a different issue.
We will move on to the erosion of China’s “one country, two systems” policy towards Hong Kong, which is extremely worrying. I note it has come to the attention of this House a number of times. There is the human rights abuse of the Uighur community in Xinjiang, which is a terrible situation. There are also broader security challenges related to climate change, including increased food and water insecurity, and—particularly in central Asia—forced migration and displacement.
It is hardly surprising that there was action, if somewhat late, over the involvement of Huawei in our 5G plans based on all these aspects and, more generally, concern over the takeover of UK-based technology firms by Chinese companies. Of course, the Chinese also have huge involvement in our nuclear programme. There are concerns about Hikvision; I said that I was very surprised that we were going to establish it on the Parliamentary Estate. From cameras such as those you can get amazing intelligence, which I know from my intelligence background.
This is all symptomatic of our conflicted relationship with China. We have still not resolved how we wish to deal with it and we need to do so quickly. Xi Jinping has articulated very clearly that he has a very clear agenda for China to become the most powerful nation on earth, setting its own rules for global behaviour. What is clear is that the integrated review provided no guidance on balancing ambition for increased economic engagement with China with the need to protect the UK’s wider interests and values.
The Lords International Relations and Defence Committee recommended that the Government publish a strategy on China. May I ask the Minister whether now, in view of the NATO conference, warnings and all these other things, such a document will be produced? There is no doubt that clarity is required, as uncertainty is damaging to businesses and detrimental to our partnerships and alliances in the region.
On the subject of agreements and alliances, I welcomed the recent AUKUS agreement, which gave China a clear message of intent. I have to say that there are some huge question marks over the cost of a nuclear submarine programme for Australia, but I will put that to one side.
The UK is already part of the Five Power Defence Arrangements between Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore. That is something we have in the Far East, where no other European has something similar. We have also recently joined the Partners in the Blue Pacific with Australia, Japan and New Zealand.
China’s behaviour needs to be confronted, not least its establishment of a base on a South Pacific island, for instance. Why would it do that? No wonder the Australians are concerned. The Indo-Pacific Quad is a significant new alliance. Is there any intention for the UK to join the Quad?
My concern is that although we are beginning to understand more completely the threat presented by China, we are constrained because of its economic importance. China is not an immediate real and present danger like Russia, whose dreadful actions present a real possibility of world war by miscalculation in the near term. As an aside, wars tend to happen in August, as do international crises, and I am pretty worried that we do not have a proper Government at this stage. In the long term, however, China is far more dangerous. Unlike most, I do not think the current war in Europe means that the Chinese will invade Taiwan barring some very dramatic change. I have spoken to Chinese leaders over the years, and know that they have seen the outcome of wars as far too unpredictable. Putin told Xi Jinping that his attack on Ukraine would not be unpredictable, and it has proved very clearly that the Chinese are right in their assessment that wars are unpredictable. However, they believe time is on their side and world hegemony assured. They have been building up large armed forces, and they will be willing to use them unless confronted by proper alliances. It is crucial, I believe, that we have a clear road map of how we counter this Chinese ambition.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord West, on bringing us this short debate on an enormous subject. He really is one of the few experts in this field who understands the new realities. I am afraid it is rather few as well; we need more debate and more understanding.
I will make two quick points in the limited time. First, we should be far more aware of Chinese encroachment on Commonwealth member states—and others of course, but particularly Commonwealth member states—in the global south, Africa, the coastal states and the Caribbean. In the South Seas, their wish to have a naval base in the Solomons Islands is just the latest example. This involvement is not just commercial—unrepayable loans, infrastructure and so on—it is becoming military as well, with officer training and weapons training. This has security implications for this country.
Secondly, China now controls port facilities in 53 countries round the world, and has belt and road initiative memorandums of understanding with 141 countries, including 38 Commonwealth members. As part of its desire for hegemonic control of Asia, and getting the Americans, whom they loathe, out, it is eyeing the Taiwan takeover opportunity and assessing whether Ukraine is an encouragement or a reason for delay—fascinating scenes. There is also, as the noble Lord reminded us, the Chinese hacking activity. Military intelligence people now tell us that it exceeds those of all other countries combined. This is a part of the invisible war. The war in Ukraine is very visible and very primitive. Maybe it is the last of its kind—who knows? Meanwhile, quiet, invisible wars are taking place and beginning to undermine our structure and our desire to reposition ourselves in an entirely changed world.
I am not Sinophobic, but we are heading for major foreign policy failure if we ignore these developments and allow the Commonwealth network—a worldwide alliance of like-minded countries—to crumble away and align itself with autocracies and those who flout international law.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant non-financial interests.
If we look through the lens of Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Wuhan or Xinjiang or through the lens of Xi Jinping’s support for Putin in Ukraine, we see that the security threat posed by the CCP is both stark and self-evident. Let us consider, as the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, has invited us to do, the stark and unprecedented public warning from the director of MI5 and the FBI director last week, which stated that the Chinese Communist Party is
“covertly applying pressure across the globe”,
including through “covert theft”, “technology transfers” and “interference” in our political systems. Such interference was illustrated by the case of Christine Lee, the Chinese spy, who sought to influence Members of this very Parliament, boasting that she had even secured amendments to a Bill before this House. It is just the subversive tip of an iceberg.
Too many among the political and business elites have naively considered the CCP and Chinese state-owned enterprises as benign, welcoming unprecedented levels of Chinese investment into strategic sectors of our economy and research partnerships with institutions linked to the People’s Liberation Army, and even considering a free trade agreement between the UK and China. This week alone, Treasury officials were reported to be scrambling to ensure the restart of the UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue, despite Parliament and the Foreign Secretary stating that China’s treatment of the Uighurs is “genocide”.
Take public procurement. In a variety of sectors, we are far too dependent on Chinese companies, from NHS PPE to surveillance technology cameras in numerous government departments. The Cabinet Office told me that there are more than 1 million Hikvision cameras, referred to by the noble Lord, in the United Kingdom. This is a Chinese company that the Government openly admit is a security risk, that receives nearly half its funding from the state and that has been blacklisted in the USA—our Five Eyes ally—for its active complicity in gross human rights violations in Xinjiang.
Then there are long-term security concerns regarding Chinese takeovers of strategic UK industries, from the attempted takeover of the UK’s biggest manufacturer of semi-conductors, Newport Wafer Fab, to that of the graphene maker Perpetuus. We must strengthen resilience, protect cutting-edge technology and safeguard our research facilities. Universities must get off the gravy train and be more vigilant about their partnerships and theft of sensitive academic research. It is indefensible—even worse, a betrayal of our national interests—for UK universities to be working with, and providing sensitive research on, hypersonic missiles to companies and research institutions linked to the People’s Liberation Army.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that the International Relations and Defence Select Committee report to which he referred will be the subject of a debate in your Lordships’ House soon.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I have spoken on numerous occasions about the ongoing tragedy in Xinjiang province. I have also spoken on various occasions about the worrying issues of surveillance and hacking of businesses and individuals in this country. It is very helpful to hear other noble Lords picking up on some of them. However, in the very limited time I have, I want to make a few comments building on some of those made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, about China’s relationship with the Commonwealth. In particular, I want to focus on the soft power which maintains strong international bonds, bolsters our influence in the world and commends our western culture, rooted in an understanding which draws on Christian tradition.
Last year, Barbados decided to end its ties with the monarchy. The chair of the UK Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted:
“China has been using infrastructure investment and debt diplomacy as a means of control”—
he was referring to Barbados. In April this year, the Solomon Islands signed a security pact that could pave the way for a Chinese naval base there. China is also increasing its investment in Papua New Guinea with the recent $30 million purchase of a special economic zone. These events are happening at a time when we have cut our international aid—our practical involvement with many countries in great need of support. Surely this is the very time when we need to increase our involvement in the wider world and in the Commonwealth, to nurture strong relationships, not least through increasing the number of students and looking at trade. That helps those countries which, if we do not work with them, will look elsewhere, and China is all too ready to respond to the opportunities. This is particularly true and important in the South Pacific, where the ability to project naval dominance holds the key to curbing China’s ambitions in relation to Taiwan and the South China Sea. I therefore ask the Minister: what is the UK, alongside its allies the USA, Australia and New Zealand, actively doing to counter Chinese influence in these nations?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, we are still waiting for the Government’s strategy for managing relations with China. I know that it is complicated because China is, at the same time, a partner, a competitor and an adversary. It invests in our airports, microchip companies and universities, but it challenges our values at every turn.
Earlier this month, the heads of MI5 and the FBI said that China was an “immense” threat. It is not hard to see why: China seeks to replace the US as the dominant superpower, it has suppressed democracy in Hong Kong and it supports the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A key reason for maintaining Western solidarity in the face of Russian aggression is to make Ukraine a deterrent to, not an incentive for, any Chinese attack on Taiwan.
We have allowed China to worm its way into the inner workings of British life. We have all heard of Huawei’s grip on the manufacture of equipment for UK communications companies. Something similar has happened with our surveillance cameras: as we have heard earlier, there are approximately six million CCTV cameras in the UK and most of these are supplied by Chinese companies to public bodies. I do not have to spell out the dangers, but we can do something about it. Last year, the US Government banned federal agencies from installing equipment supplied by Hikvision and other Chinese companies. I therefore welcome the recent banning of Hikvision from competing for new business in the Department of Health and Social Care. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure this House that this is part of a coherent strategy across the Government and not just a piecemeal reaction to the concerns of that department?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
I congratulate my noble friend on his prescience because there have been two unprecedented events recently, one of which was the reference to the threat from China in the NATO strategic concept set out in Madrid and the other was the similarly unprecedented appeal by the FBI and our own MI5. This puts us on guard. There has been a certain naivety in our attitude to China in the past—I think of George Osborne’s view of China’s “golden era” in 2015. Since that time when agreements were made, there have been the threats and takeover in Hong Kong, the situation with the Uighurs, which has already been mentioned, and the general threats of Chinese malign activity that have been revealed. Surely a wake-up process is now under way.
This sadly comes at a time when much of our attention has been focused on the attack on Ukraine. We hope that President Xi will perhaps see the robust response in terms of sanctions and feed that into his own calculations on Taiwan.
That said, we must recognise that there is a certain professional deformation in the response of our securocrats in the FBI and MI5. There is a much broader canvas in terms of China; this was recognised in the integrated review, of which I commend page 26 to your Lordships. The IRDC report, which my noble friend referred to, called for a “coherent strategy” regarding China.
In terms of understanding China, I think, for example, of our response in the early 1960s to Russia, when we had the Hayter report on an increased focus in our universities. Of course, it is not only in terms of industry, but also in our universities, where we must look at the China question. We know, for example, that there are now 144,000 Chinese students in the UK—a 50% increase in five years—and they are studying applied science, not chorus endings from Euripides. In short, yes, we need vigilance, but we also need balance and a better understanding of the middle kingdom—China. President Johnson once said of another relationship, “Keep your hand out, but your guard up”. I know this is a difficult posture, but I would commend it to your Lordships.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, today takes us back to the report last September, The UK and China’s security and trade relationship: A strategic void. It says it all: a singular lack of understanding of China, its mentality and future plans.
Indicators point, I fear, to China triggering an invasion of Taiwan to assert its one-China policy. This presents two conundrums: first, Taiwan having been delisted as a UN nation state in 1979 and, secondly, liberal democracies believing that steps to strengthen relations with Taiwan would instigate retaliatory measures from Beijing. The ripple effects that would extend across the region, however, should not be underestimated, with China having to spend years pacifying Taiwan, both militarily and politically. China must believe that sanctions represent deterrence and an existential economic threat by Western countries curtailing trade while being challenged in parallel to protect vital logistical supply routes before China ends dollar-based transactions.
The US maintains a position of strategic ambiguity. It pursues a deterrence and reassurance strategy and deliberates on how to reduce the possibility of war by exploring conflict contingency plans, notwithstanding the Taiwan Relations Act, by which the US provides Taiwan with defensive capabilities. It juggles that by leading in the applying of economic, political and cultural sanctions, with the retaliatory freezing of Chinese assets, confiscation of Chinese-origin organisations and decoupling of information technology companies.
Sanctions are not the only deterrent, however. Any invasion would hinge on intricate military and logistical planning, requiring an amphibious assault across the large sea gap to reach Taiwan. It is fortified by heavily forested mountain ridges running the length of the island and is, crucially, mostly urban, which would present China’s forces with significant losses. China would likely resort to activating kinetic strikes using long range hypersonic ballistic weaponry with the spectre of threatening to go nuclear or, at the very least, escalating cyberspace activity and targeting a range of critical Western infrastructure by secretly deploying Trojan horse missiles in shipping containers positioned in Western ports.
Concluding on a less gloomy note however, a window still exists to pour oil on troubled waters, but Western policymakers and diplomats need to up the game and face the gravity of the situation with a supercharged, innovative carrot-and-stick strategy. I have just one question, which follows the initial remarks of the noble Lord, Lord West. The other day, I asked for comment on the background to NATO leaders agreeing to a
“strategic concept, which addresses China and its systematic challenges to collective security”—[Official Report, 7/7/22; col. 1151.]
at the recent NATO summit. Was the statement designed to be ambiguous?
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Chinese have a long memory. We have to cultivate the same sort of long memory; that will be one very important weapon if we are going to fight the Chinese. First, they all remember the opium wars, because before that China was practically the number one country in the world, and they want to get back to that time.
I think we occasionally have to do a sort of role-playing. Suppose I was China—how would I feel about Taiwan? Why would I accept that Taiwan is an independent country of any sort, and why should anybody think that it does not belong to China? I see no reason for that view if we look at it from the British point of view of its being a British province or island, and another country is pretending that it belongs to it. I am saying all this because we have to remember that the Chinese do think differently, and they are not going to go away.
Secondly, look at the contrast between the Soviet Union, which tried to establish a powerful league of friendly nations, and China. China has obviously thought about all the Soviet Union’s defects very carefully and built its camp not on ideology or preaching Marxism but on giving money to other countries and getting them into debt with China—originally on very friendly terms but ultimately, it is quite ruthless at capturing those debts.
Thirdly, China has not rejected capitalism like the Soviet Union did. It has not only adopted capitalism but invested massively in cybertechnology, artificial intelligence and all the new directions of science. We should take China seriously, and I advise Her Majesty’s Government to carry out this role-playing exercise, which will tell us how the Chinese are likely to think about the challenges we pose to them.
I end with this. France was our enemy between, let us say, 1750 and 1850, and later on became a friend, while Germany became our enemy. The same situation exists between us and Russia and us and China: Russia will very soon stop being effective, and China will continue to be the enemy.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we should all be grateful to my noble friend Lord West for initiating this long-overdue debate. As he said, the directors of MI5 and the FBI pointed out in that unprecedented speech that our traditional defence architecture is no longer suitable for dealing with the major threats from China, because although it is developing its weapons, its major threats are hacking, as has already been said, and economic coercion.
On the hacking front, it is vital that we continue to invest heavily in cybersecurity. As others have said, we must make sure that any Chinese investment in our technology sector undergoes thorough scrutiny, and, wherever possible, reliance on Chinese technology in essential industries should be kept to an absolute minimum—if not kept out altogether.
The war in Ukraine has highlighted the dangers of any form of dependence on authoritarian regimes, so we should be concerned that in 2021 we ran a total trade deficit with China which amounted to just over £30 billion, making China our third largest trading partner. As has already been mentioned, while much of the recent debate around dodgy London property owners has understandably focused on Russian oligarchs, China continues to quietly buy up the city. Over 200,000 London-based properties are owned by Chinese buyers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, rightly said, we sometimes forget that Chinese investors own British football clubs, airports, landmarks such as the Cheesegrater and, even more worryingly, strategically important infrastructure in our oil, gas, water and nuclear industries.
One of the many unfortunate consequences of Brexit is that we are now in a less favourable position when it comes to picking trading partners. But if you compare UK regulations to the strict FDI laws that operate in China, we should be tightening our restrictions on Chinese investment, even in non-strategic industries, as China could use this as leverage in areas such as climate change.
As my noble friend Lord West said, a new approach to UK-China relations is long overdue. When was the last one? The last clearly defined strategy paper was published by Labour in 2009; that shows how long overdue this is. One point I want to raise is that we need more British people, such as graduates, speaking Chinese and understanding China and its civilisation a lot better. This begins in the classroom with the promotion of Mandarin and lessons about Chinese civilisation and other similar subjects. I hope that the Minister will agree to tighten regulation of Chinese investment in this country, and that he will support a nationwide attempt to build a China-literate and China-aware workforce through increased education programmes at school level and across all government departments.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord West, on securing this timely debate, in which I declare an interest as the proud co-chair of the British-Taiwanese All-Party Parliamentary Group.
Taiwan is a country that I have visited many times since 1972. I have always been impressed by the kindness, generosity and dignity of its people. However, it is a land that feels under constant siege because of the aggressive words and actions of China. Beijing has increased the number and scale of patrols of bombers, fighter jets and surveillance aircraft in Taiwanese airspace and close to Taiwan itself. It has sailed its warships and aircraft carriers through the Taiwan Strait in shows of force. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, alluded to, it has also launched thousands of cyberattacks against Taiwanese government agencies, with new assaults coming every day. The authoritarian Chinese regime hates the freedoms enjoyed by the people of Taiwan. By his aggressive actions, Xi Jinping believes that he can wear down the population and lead them to conclude that unification with China is in their best interests. I must tell your Lordships that he is very much mistaken.
I regard it as shameful that the United Kingdom does not recognise Taiwan as a state and has no diplomatic relations with the country. We must ask why. Is it because successive UK Governments have chosen to placate the dictators in Beijing rather than stand up to them? However, despite this, China has continued to sabre-rattle and issue thinly veiled threats to attack Taiwan. Only last Thursday, a Chinese official told a government-controlled newspaper that “reunification” of the two countries was approaching.
His comments were made 24 hours before the assassination of the former Japanese Prime Minister, one of the most ardent opponents of Chinese militarisation in the Pacific and a great friend to the people of Taiwan. Shinzo Abe’s funeral was held on Tuesday but, rather than express condolences on his passing, Beijing lodged “stern representations” with the Japanese Government in protest at the attendance of Taiwan’s vice-president, William Lai. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman claimed that Taiwan is a part of China and
“does not have a so-called vice-president.”
Shinzo Abe’s stance on the security threat posed by China was both admirable and correct. As the contest to choose a new UK Prime Minister continues, I hope that the victorious candidate, whoever he or she may be, chooses to follow the strong lead on China of Shinzo Abe rather than the somewhat weaker position adopted by recent occupants of Downing Street.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we are all very much in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord West, but this must be a prelude to a proper debate on one of the most important subjects before the world. I urge my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip, who is sitting on the Front Bench, to take this message from this debate: we must have a full debate on China very soon. Indeed, with all the expertise in your Lordships’ House, we need more foreign affairs debates.
It is often said that democracies think in terms of the next election, despotisms in decades. The real problem here, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is that we do not have a strategy. We must decide whether we wish to continue to be a world power. If we do, those who wish the ends must wish the means. This issue needs to be at the very top of the new Prime Minister’s agenda, whenever he or she takes office, which I hope is in the next week or so: do we wish to be a world power?
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to how we are cross-party. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred earlier to how the Opposition totally support us on Ukraine. We need a national council, consisting not only of the Prime Minister and inner members of the Cabinet but of the leader of the Opposition and others from the other side of the House, so that we can plan a strategy together that we know will be supported by both. There is no point in thinking merely in terms of the next election; we too have to think in terms of decades.
The Chinese have been doing that, with their belt and road policy, by taking an option on a port in the Solomon Islands and by taking over Piraeus in Greece. We need an effective answer, spearheaded by the Government and supported by the Opposition, and we need to discuss it fully in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord West on procuring this debate and I wholly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, just said about the need for a much deeper discussion of these issues. My own two-pennorth is a plea for a little nuance in this discussion of China. Yes, it is an autocracy and does terrible things. Yes, it is investing massively in military force and, yes, we have to be wary of its technological ambitions. But we should not lump it together with Russia. It is not like Russia.
In my view, the legitimacy of the Chinese regime fundamentally depends on its continued success in raising living standards at home, and that depends on its continued engagement with the world economy. The West should continue to engage with the Chinese to manage globalisation better. For example, without Chinese involvement we will make no fundamental progress on the crucial question of climate change.
I do not want to see an attempt to isolate China in order, as it were, to start a new Cold War. I do not agree with that. When I was chair of Lancaster University, I supported investments in Chinese campuses and promoted, along with my council and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, a lot of Chinese students coming to our university.
The second point of nuance that I would like to make is that we have to be realistic about our defence commitments as a country. I am a strong supporter of an increase in the defence budget, but I remember the Labour Government having the debate, back in the 1960s, about withdrawing east of Suez. Do you know how much we were spending on defence in 1968? We were spending 5.9% of our GDP to maintain that global defence role. I ask Members of this House whether, in our present reduced economic state, we really think Britain is in a position to go back to that level of global defence commitment. We have to be very careful about what commitments we make.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for initiating this short but vital debate. Increased aggressive rhetoric combined with human rights abuses in Hong Kong and Xinjiang illustrate the long-term security challenges which the Government of China pose. It is now clear that President Xi is intent on controlling Taiwan in some form, even if he is reluctant to go to war like Putin has in Ukraine. Our relationship with China must therefore centre on pragmatism and be alert to the security risks which it poses.
I was very pleased to read the report by the International Relations and Defence Committee, published last year, which laid out the clear case for a consistent written strategy setting out the Government’s security relationship with China. As long as Ministers maintain their policy of ambiguity, we cannot be confident that they are properly balancing the need for economic engagement with the importance of the UK’s interests and values. Unfortunately, the response to the report gave no further indication of a wide-ranging strategy—far from it. Instead, there were only piecemeal points about the UK’s interests and values. It focused on things such as it being important to avoid strategic dependency on China.
The Government argued that the National Security Council provided a clear direction for the their China policy and that it was supported by the work of the integrated review. I have no criticisms of the direction of the pathway of the integrated review, although we have some issues in terms of the tilt in the light of Russian aggression. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who wrote a follow-up letter in which she said that the ambiguity and uncertainty was
“damaging to businesses and detrimental to our partnerships and alliances in the region”.
In particular she wrote that it was unclear how the Government intended to balance human rights issues with its economic relationship with China,
and
“how it will prioritise when these considerations clash.”
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, Amanda Milling said:
“We will uphold our values and protect our national security while promoting a positive and reliable trading relationship.”
Can the Minister tell us exactly what is the extensive programme of engagement with UK businesses to ensure that the UK’s policy is fully understood? I think most noble Lords want to hear from the Minister some concrete examples.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, for tabling this debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions.
Before I respond to the points raised during this debate, I have to declare an interest. I lived in Hong Kong for the best part of a decade and I am a former member of the APPG on Hong Kong. I should also say at the outset that, when I refer to China in this debate, I am referring specifically to the Chinese authorities and not to the Chinese people. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made a similar point in his remarks.
My noble friend Lord Howell made the fair point that this is an enormous subject. He is obviously quite right. It will be difficult to do justice to all the contributions in the short time I am allowed, but I will study Hansard and if I miss anything I commit to write.
The scale and reach of China’s economy, the size of its population, the speed of its technological advancement and its increasing ambition to project its influence on the global stage have profound implications worldwide, including for UK interests. The UK’s integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy sets out the Government’s commitment to respond to the systemic challenge that China poses to our security, prosperity and values and those of our allies and partners. At the same time, we are committed to maintaining a robust but functioning relationship. We must try to manage disagreements and preserve space to engage where our interests align.
My friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked about the economic and financial dialogue. No date has been agreed for it. Arrangements for it sit within the Treasury.
We are both permanent members of the UN Security Council, and members of the G20. There are mutually beneficial reasons for us to work together, from increasing trade and co-operation in science and innovation to tackling climate change and rebuilding the global economy. As we work to understand and respond to the long-term security challenges arising from China’s increasing assertiveness and the modernisation of its military, we are in good company. As many noble Lords noted, including the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Alton and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, there was an unprecedented joint address by MI5 and FBI heads in the last couple of weeks, I think it was. They have a mandate to speak out about threats to our countries and there are serious and well-evidenced concerns. The speech was clear that engaging China is in the UK’s interest. We want UK organisations to be able to engage safely, and they can do so only if they are aware of the potential risks arising from China’s actions.
As the noble Lord, Lord West, noted, in June the Prime Minister joined other NATO leaders to sign off a new NATO strategic concept. To answer the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, I do not think it is ambiguous. For the first time, it recognises that China’s ambitions and coercive policies challenge the alliance’s interests, security and values. The Prime Minister also met G7 leaders in June, when they renewed their commitment to stand up to China’s efforts to undermine freedom, human rights, and the rules-based international system. For China to be a responsible power requires transparency, good faith and confidence building, and maintaining lines of communication in order to maintain stability and reduce tensions. We encourage China to take its international responsibilities seriously; for example, engagement as one of the permanent members of the Security Council in the P5 nuclear risk reduction process.
The integrated review sets out the Government’s commitment to reduce our vulnerabilities and improve our resilience to persistent threats. Most noble Lords referred to the specific issue of a published strategy. Our approach to China is co-ordinated across government. The FCDO is at the heart of the cross-Whitehall strategic approach to China, but led by the National Security Council, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. The integrated review highlights that we will do more to adapt to China’s growing impact, managing disagreements, defending our values and co-operating where our interests align, but it remains the case that we do not publish NSC strategies on China or other issues. We continue to implement a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to China, which identifies and pursues UK interests in these areas, engaging international partners as we do so.
A number of noble Lords, including, powerfully, I thought, the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord Collins, mentioned Taiwan. The UK, like our international partners, has a clear interest in enduring peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. The UK’s long-standing position on Taiwan has not changed, as the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have made clear. The numerous Chinese military flights that have taken place near Taiwan recently are not conducive to regional peace and stability. We consider the Taiwan issue one to be settled peacefully by the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait through constructive dialogue, without the threat or use of force or coercion. In June, G7 leaders confirmed their shared perspective on this issue. We support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite, and as an observer or guest where it is; for example, at the World Health Organization.
The noble Lord, Lord West, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked some very pertinent questions around issues in the South China Sea. We remain seriously concerned by militarisation, coercion and intimidation in the South China Sea, and we are opposed to action that raises tensions. We believe in the primacy of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and in freedom of navigation and overflight. We are clear that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is the legal framework for all activities in the oceans and seas. That is why we set out our full legal position on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the South China Sea to Parliament in September 2020. We have objected to China’s claims based on the so-called nine-dash line, and the “offshore archipelagos” concept, and believe they are unfounded in UNCLOS. We agree with the findings of the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award in this respect and we are supporting ASEAN partners to strengthen maritime law and security capacity, including by delivering law of the sea training in February.
The Royal Navy, as the noble Lord, Lord West, will be delighted to hear, continues to operate in the South China Sea and the wider region, with the Carrier Strike Group having navigated the South China Sea in July and October last year. Building on this deployment, HMS “Spey” and HMS “Tamar” have established a permanent Royal Navy presence in the Indo-Pacific. They have also operated in and around the South China Sea and have been working hard to deepen our relationships with allies and partners throughout the region.
I turn to China’s economic and political influence around the world. It is an authoritarian state, with different values from our own. Our aim is to bring more countries into the orbit of free-market economies. We have launched British investment partnerships as part of the international development strategy, which will contribute to the G7 partnership for global infrastructure and investment. We aim to mobilise up to £8 billion of UK-backed financing a year by 2025, including from investors in the private sector. Additionally, we will invest £1.5 billion to £2 billion a year through British international investment in private sector companies, expanding into the Indo-Pacific and the Caribbean.
A couple of noble Lords referred specifically to the Solomon Islands. As I think I referenced earlier, the UK is committed to and strategically focused on the Indo-Pacific region, as set out in the integrated review. As a long-standing partner and friend, the UK works to support peace and prosperity for the people of the Solomon Islands and across the Pacific region. Our recent deployment of the UK Emergency Medical Team demonstrates our commitment to the Solomons.
We have also taken steps to protect domestic security and increase our resilience. These measures are not targeted at China specifically; they shield us from all potential external threats. We have introduced the National Security and Investment Act to prevent predatory investment that undermines our national security. The noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Meyer addressed the domestic operations of certain Chinese companies. The National Security Bill will make it even harder for states to commit hostile acts against the UK. In specific answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, as he will know, the Business Secretary has decided to call in the acquisition by Nexperia of Newport Wafer Fab for a full national security assessment.
The National Security Bill will modernise our counter-espionage laws and provide our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies with new tools to protect us from evolving threats, including from China. It is worth pointing out that we have also enhanced export controls and strengthened measures, including visa vetting, to prevent the transfer of sensitive technologies through academic collaboration.
A number of noble Lords asked about Hikvision cameras. As we have said before, we take the security of our citizens’ systems and establishments extremely seriously and have a range of measures in place to scrutinise the integrity of our arrangements. It remains our long-standing policy not to comment on the detail of those arrangements, but I can say that we are taking robust action to help ensure that UK businesses and the public sector are not complicit in the human rights violations occurring in Xinjiang.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked about the extent of the economic threat from China; in particular, coercion. China’s scale of economy, population and ambition means that it will contribute more to global growth than any other country, but it also presents the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security. As an open economy, we welcome foreign trade and investment, including from China, where it supports UK jobs and growth in non-strategic areas, but we will not accept investments which compromise our national security and must make sure that trade is reliable and avoids strategic dependency.
I am running out of time, so will try to race through the last couple of pages of my speech. On cyber, widespread and credible evidence demonstrates that malicious cyberactivity emanating from China poses a threat to UK security. In response to the various cyberthreats we face, we are pursuing a new £2.6 billion national cyber strategy, which will cement the UK’s place as a leading cyber power. We will also continue to raise our concerns with China in private and call it out publicly, as we did alongside 38 like-minded partners in July 2021.
On all these issues, we will continue to co-operate with our allies and like-minded partners. As a European power with global reach, we will continue to play a leading role in the continent’s security. Through our Indo-Pacific tilt, we will continue to deepen our ties with the region, as we have by obtaining ASEAN dialogue partner status and through our AUKUS relationship.
The noble Lord, Lord West, asked about membership of the IP Quad. The UK recognises the need to be flexible in building new partnerships in the region to realise opportunities and manage risks. The Indo-Pacific Quad is an important means for four of the UK’s closest partners in the region—the US, Australia, India and Japan—to work together more closely. The UK is looking at options for closer practical co-operation with the Quad members in these areas, bilaterally and collectively, supplementing our important bilateral partnership.
My noble friend Lord Cormack made an extremely good point: this is a very large subject and deserves a much longer and wider debate. To conclude, the UK is well-prepared to respond to the long-term security challenges emanating from China; we have strong relationships, partnerships and alliances, including through the G7, NATO, ASEAN and other multilateral groups. We have strong security architecture to protect us as the threat from China and other states evolve. We have a permanent regional presence and growing ties in the Indo-Pacific. Underpinning all of those, we have a long-term strategic approach, as articulated in the integrated review. We believe that these collectively equip the UK to adapt to the changing international environment and to China’s increasing international assertiveness.
Human Rights Act 1998
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Whitaker
To move that this House takes note of the practical impact of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, may I first acknowledge the contribution to human rights of my dear friend of many years, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, a founder member of our Equality and Human Rights Commission, whose work for the rights of older people, among others, was so very effective?
I am grateful for the opportunity to explore what the Human Rights Act 1998 has achieved by way of impact on ordinary people’s lives—not, I hasten to say, as a legal expert, though I should perhaps declare that I have been a magistrate and a member of employment tribunals. More to the point, I am proud to be a member of the British Institute of Human Rights advisory board, and it is there that I have learned much about the very many examples of redress for breaches of human rights. What these amount to is, essentially, disregard for the dignity of our fellow citizens and a lack of respect for them on the part of public authorities. May I invite the Minister to congratulate the British Institute of Human Rights on the work it has done over the years to train public services in the application of the Human Rights Act to their functions?
I will first give some examples of what I mean by impact on people’s lives. Secondly, I will say a few words about what the Human Rights Act has not done. I will conclude by suggesting some of the lasting principles that have informed the Human Rights Act. My remarks are premised on the assumption that, although professional lawyers and judges at every level are essential for the interpretation and implementation of law—we are lucky in this country to have such a distinguished and honourable corps of practitioners—the law is meant for people, for everyone, so that they should understand their obligations and be clear about what they are entitled to. It follows that law should be intelligible, as far as possible, and that redress should be accessible.
Some examples of what our domestic courts have achieved for people through the Human Rights Act are well known. We have heard about the elderly couple who had their wish to live in the same care home respected. People must be allowed to wear religious symbols at work. Siblings should not be arbitrarily placed in separate, distant foster homes. Do we also all know that the police now have a positive obligation to protect women from domestic violence? This has achieved a change—somewhat—in police priorities and practice. There are several cases of children with learning disabilities who were subjected to damaging isolation, harsh restraints or unexplained evidence of violence, whose parents were able to use the Human Rights Act to obtain changes in their treatment, often resulting in an improvement in a child’s behaviour. We should also remember the case of Corporal Anne-Marie Ellement, whose family were finally able to obtain a full investigation after she took her own life following rape and bullying; that of the incontinent patient forced to use a bucket to urinate in and carry it along the corridor to empty it herself; the safeguarding of trafficked children as a result of the 2013 case of L, HVN, T v R; the Northern Ireland decision that same-sex couples can adopt children; and the use of the right to be free of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment after tragic deaths in mental health institutions.
All these cases relied on the Human Rights Act to achieve lasting improvements in their situation. Is it really plausible that all the people bringing these cases could have managed to get to Strasbourg for a hearing, also knowing that they would have to wait the customary four to five years? I suggest that the domestication of the rights in the European convention, through the Human Rights Act, was essential for justice to be done in these and many other cases.
I think it is important to remind ourselves that uses of the Human Rights Act do not necessarily involve going to court. One of the significant effects of domestic law is that well-meaning people—most people—want to comply. Carers have raised the specific human rights issues of their charges with the public service concerned, which has then responded positively. Conscientious public servants have been helped by discussions with, for instance, the British Institute of Human Rights to think again about how they can adapt their practice. The British Institute of Human Rights has trained over 40,000 people in the last 20 years in the application of the Act to their functions. I am reminded of the dictum of the great Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, the founder of the concept of crimes against humanity:
“the well-being of an individual is the … object of all law”.
The law can achieve that by simply being there.
To take this down to specific instances, a housing association specialising in people with offender backgrounds has been able to reduce their violent behaviour and thus improve the safety of residents through training in interpretation of the Human Rights Act; young people in mental health institutions have similarly been protected from grooming while still having their mobile phones for access to their families; students have secured protection for girls against sexual harassment at school; countless advocates and carers, both volunteer and professional, have obtained the exercise of rights essential to well-being for the people they look after.
There are several things that the Human Rights Act has not done, however. It did not vindicate the relationship with a pet cat as a reason not to be deported, as a reading of the judgment will show, contrary to the claim made by Theresa May MP. Unlike the original Daily Mail story that a “suspected Iraqi insurgent” “caught red-handed with bomb” had won £33,000
“because our soldiers kept him in custody for too long”,
the Iraqi, who was neither an insurgent nor a terrorist, and had no bomb, was unlawfully detained, beaten with rifle butts, punched in the face and subjected to sleep and sensory deprivation by soldiers while in custody. Fortunately, in this case, the Daily Mail, which had attributed its false interpretation to the Human Rights Act, was obliged by IPSO to make a full apology and retraction. The Human Rights Act has not supported a contention that a right to hardcore pornography exists for prisoners. There are quite a few other examples of these misleading and pernicious myths. Some of these centre on difficulties with understanding the import of Article 8, on the right to private, home and family life. This is an area where jurisprudence may be evolving—and we should try to clarify the balance that it is intended to strike.
There are some important principles in the Human Rights Act. Perhaps the first is that our judges have full discretion in determining human rights cases in the United Kingdom. The UK is the primary forum for deciding on the application of human rights to its citizens. Secondly, the Human Rights Act reflects the devolved settlement for the nations of the United Kingdom. This is of concern to the peace process in Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who regrets that he cannot take part, has encouraged me to point out that under the Scotland Act, which also gives effect to the convention rights, there is no wish to alter the arrangements and that any changes would, of course, need the consent of the Scottish Ministers. I hope that the Minister can give me the assurance that that consent would be sought.
The Human Rights Act has also been helpful in defining a public authority as one which carries out public functions. This inclusive definition acknowledges the public/private partnerships which underpin our modern public services. The Human Rights Act also establishes judicial discretion about decisions on whether the Government acted fairly in restricting our rights. It stipulates positive obligations to act in accordance with human rights, thus making them a reality; to apply laws whenever possible in a way that upholds human rights; to underline the centrality of the interests of the individual citizen; to enable modern concepts such as belief to be understood together with religion; and, most significantly, by creating a system for hearing cases in the UK rather than in the Strasbourg court it enables access for all to justice. Domestic jurisprudence will encourage the development of clarity about proper limits to non-absolute rights, so that people can understand where the balance ought to be struck. So, while there is always room for updating, these are some of the principles of our modern legislation which should be maintained.
One other effect of having the Human Rights Act as part of domestic law deserves mention: the culture that it promulgates of respect for the dignity of our fellow citizens within public services. Sadly, this is not always present, not necessarily because of callousness but because the constraints felt even by dedicated public servants of expenditure, time and targets can be allowed to prevail over what should happen. The Human Rights Act is often cited as a practical tool to support public services in their work. Thus, we are in a position to create public ownership of rights values. To entrench this, we need to teach and debate them in schools and in citizenship education generally. We can explore what the balance between conflicting rights should be and how responsibilities are a necessary corollary of rights. In a diverse society, with different faiths and backgrounds, we can cohere better around human rights.
There is another reason for promulgating a domestic human rights culture. In this country, we prefer to enable equality of opportunities rather than equality of outcomes. But the inadvertent consequence of that is that it assumes that those who fail to benefit from equal opportunities were simply not up to it and lacked the necessary qualities of one sort or another—it was their fault. We need a human rights culture to ensure that scorn for the failures in our society does not undermine a humane and compassionate approach. Respect for the individual human being is the core of human rights. Human rights are a recognition that everyone is of equal worth.
In conclusion, in his writings on the theory of justice, Amartya Sen quotes Pip in Great Expectations, that
“there is nothing… so finely felt as injustice.”
Professor Sen adds,
“and there the search begins. The idea of justice calls for comparison of actual lives and iniquities.”
That is what I hope an exploration of the impact of the Human Rights Act can uncover. I look forward with keen interest to the contribution of learned and distinguished speakers in this debate, and very much to the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, whose speech in the crime reduction debate I very much admired.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the chance to engage in this important debate on this important statute. I begin by declaring my interest as chair of research at the Society of Conservative Lawyers.
Experience of the Human Rights Act has revealed structural flaws that the Bill of Rights would go some way to remedying. Our time today is short, so I will focus on just three matters. The first is Section 2, which directs a court determining a question in connection with a convention right to “take into account” any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. That has led to unfortunate results, with our courts sometimes doing more than just take account. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said in a lecture in 2013, Section 2 should be amended to make it plain that in this jurisdiction, the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court is, at the very least, a court of equal standing. Thankfully, Clause 1 of the Bill of Rights addresses this.
Next, I turn to Section 3. Under this, our legislation must be interpreted as far as possible in a manner compatible with the convention. This displaced conventional approaches to statutory interpretation. The House of Lords in the case of Ghaidan made that worse. It held that this meant the court should adopt any possible interpretation of a statute to give effect in a way compatible with convention rights, even if “the interpretation is unreasonable”. That is extraordinary.
This has led to strained interpretation, unintended by Parliament. Then, because the provision in question has not been ruled incompatible, as it could have been under Section 4, it is not sent back to Parliament to address. This has taken away from Parliament decisions that are rightly for it. Such decisions often involve balancing exercises. Our parliamentarians, for better or worse, represent society. They are likely to have access to information—and better information than people arguing it in the courts—about the issues involved to balance what matters.
Let me explain. Policy is essentially for those who make the law. Policy choices have to be made between compensating individuals and protecting the budgets of public services. Of its nature, a balancing exercise presupposes a situation in which the factors are not all one way. A stark example is the case of Quila, decided in 2011. In 2008, the Home Secretary changed the Immigration Rules to deter forced marriages. The change raised from 18 to 21 the minimum age of the person entitled to be granted the right to settle by reason of marriage.
The worthy aim was to deter forced marriages, but the Supreme Court found a violation of Article 8, the right to family life. It ruled that the interference with family life was not proportionate. One might feel, and I suggest, that there was scope for more than one view on this sensitive matter. The Home Secretary’s policy was supported by 50% of the respondents to a government consultation and by the largest NGO concerned with the evil of forced marriages. That was a matter for Parliament, not for second guessing.
Finally, Section 12 has given insufficient weight to freedom of expression. Incorporation into domestic law of the two qualified rights, Articles 8 and 10, gave direct domestic effect to Article 8, creating a right to privacy. That has protected the rich and powerful with insufficient weight given to the public interest in free speech.
Fortunately, under the Bill of Rights and the forthcoming Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, free speech will be given greater weight, but I should add as a footnote that the Online Safety Bill will wrongly create a serious threat to free speech. What we can legally say or write, we shall be stopped from putting online—a strange concept of “legal and harmful”.
Without leaving the convention, there is plenty to be done to improve its incorporation in domestic law.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for drawing attention to this important subject, and for finding an opportunity to note the many improvements to life in the UK brought about by the Human Rights Act 1998. Her comments are a timely reminder of how much the HRA has achieved for all UK citizens.
Unlike other distinguished contributors to this debate, I am far from being a legal expert. I come at it from a general sense that the HRA has had a positive and enlightening effect on the way the UK perceives justice and has had a particularly beneficial impact on public services. The HRA compels public organisations—the Government, the police and local councils—to treat everyone equally, with fairness, dignity and respect.
The HRA is now embedded in the work of public authorities. Instances of this have been highlighted by my noble friend, but I also note that it was a humans rights case that finally decriminalised male homosexual acts in Northern Ireland, in 1982, and it was a violation of human rights under the HRA that led to a change in UK law that allowed gay members of the Armed Forces to be open about their sexuality.
The HRA has achieved lasting improvement in individuals’ lives by helping to develop an everyday human rights culture across the UK. It is not just the stuff of high-profile and often controversial court cases; indeed, it often acts to stop cases before they go to court. Despite that, criticism of and antipathy towards the HRA run throughout public and political discourse. I believe this to be misplaced. Indeed, when reading for this debate, it was instructive to see how much of the opposition to the HRA is based on mythology. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, highlighted this in his oral evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this month. He busted the myth that the HRA has reduced the power of Parliament to legislate as it sees fit. European Court of Human Rights judgments are not binding on our courts, so why do the Government feel the need to include provisions that assert parliamentary sovereignty in their proposed, and rather unhappily titled, Bill of Rights Bill? There is also a myth that, because of the HRA, courts may be interpreting laws in ways that were never intended by Parliament, thereby undermining parliamentary democracy. But what court judgments exist to give substance to that view?
As others have observed, much of the mythology surrounding the exercising of human rights stems from media misrepresentation, not least the tabloids’ obsession with the HRA as a “chancers’ charter”. I can add to my noble friend’s litany of things the HRA is not responsible for. The HRA is not the reason why the police cannot put up wanted posters. A UK judge on the European Court of Human Rights did not call for axe murderers to be given the vote; in fact, he said it was important for the UK to implement the Hirst judgment that the blanket ban on voting by convicted prisoners was unlawful. Myths about the HRA may start in the Daily Mail but they become part of the popular discourse about human rights. To counter that, we need a better understanding of our fundamental rights, how the UK’s human rights framework works and how our rights are enforced.
An important recommendation from the independent HRA review was for an effective programme of civic and constitutional education on human rights and individual responsibilities. That was touched on recently in this House in an Oral Question on citizenship education, which in recent years has been allowed to fall away in our schools. We need to do better. Does the Minister agree that a good start would be to extend the statutory entitlement to citizenship education to primary schools?
The Human Rights Act helps to protect the most vulnerable in our communities, but it serves us all. How human rights are applied and how competing rights are balanced may vary depending on the context, but that does not affect their universal nature. Human rights apply to everyone. They are the deep foundations of our lives and of our laws, and they exist because of our humanity, not because of what we have done in our lives. Does the Minister agree that, much as my noble friend Lady Whitaker said, human rights recognise that everyone is of equal worth?
May I further ask the Minister whether, in these troubled times, when the UK is seeking to ask other countries to respect human rights and international law, he will acknowledge that many of the Bill of Rights proposals would put the UK in breach of its international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights? That would be a shameful state of affairs.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for this important debate. I am delighted to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in his place after the jollifications of last night when he so generously invited us all to his party. He has obviously got great stamina.
I am most grateful to the organisations that have sent us material: the British Institute of Human Rights, Amnesty, Liberty and one new to me which has the apt acronym of POhWER—People of Hertfordshire Want Equal Rights, equal rights being very much the theme of this debate.
The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act have enabled many ordinary people in this country to secure their rights in many sectors and aspects of their daily lives. This is a very different narrative to that pushed by some politicians and commentators, mainly but not all on the right of politics, who have spent years criticising and misrepresenting the convention, the Strasbourg court—which gets confused with the EU court, deliberately or negligently—and the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the convention into UK law.
These human rights instruments have been demonised as benefiting only criminals, illegal immigrants and the generally undeserving. That accounts for the distasteful provisions in the Bill of Rights whereby human rights have to be earned and are contingent on conduct, undermining the principle that rights are universal and attached to a person by virtue of their humanity.
This debate is a welcome chance to redress the score and acknowledge the myriad ways in which human rights provisions protect all of us. Over the past two decades the HRA has given individuals a mechanism to enforce their rights in practice, challenge unlawful policies, be treated with dignity by public authorities and to secure justice for their loved ones. It has ushered in—not least through the positive obligations provision that the Bill of Rights will undermine—a culture of respecting human rights in hospitals, schools, care homes, local government, housing providers and the criminal justice system, helping to ensure that people who may be vulnerable are given the support they need to flourish and thrive.
Most recently, the Government whinged mightily about the interim measures—a sort of injunction—from the European Court of Human Rights to put a hold on Rwanda deportation flights until the UK courts substantively determine their legality. Similar interim measures have also been served on Russia—which is still subject to the jurisdiction of the court for another couple of months, even though it has been expelled from the Council of Europe—to stop the executions of the two British prisoners of war it is holding.
In fact, the Human Rights Act has provided justice and accountability for soldiers and their families in several ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned the case of Corporal Anne-Marie Ellement. I would also mention the families of the 37 military personnel who died in Snatch Land Rovers, dubbed “mobile coffins’” as they were so unsuited to and unsafe for this role, in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. The families used the HRA to challenge the Government and in 2013, the Supreme Court ruling that soldiers do not lose their rights when fighting overseas prompted an apology from the Ministry of Defence and a commitment to no longer use them.
In its inquiry on protecting human rights in care settings, on which the Joint Committee on Human Rights is about to report, our committee heard examples of people being cared for turning to the ECHR to seek respect for their needs through Article 2, on the right to life; Article 3, on protecting against torture and inhumane or degrading treatment; and Article 5, on the right to liberty and security. As I do not have time to discuss it further, I invite all noble Lords to read the report, which is about to be published.
An example not from the JCHR but from the British Institute of Human Rights is that of Kirsten, a mother who used the HRA to challenge inhuman and degrading treatment of her autistic son, who was held as a teenager in mental health hospitals under the Mental Health Act. He was subjected to mechanical restraint such as metal handcuffs, leg belts, being transported in a cage and long periods in a seclusion cell. As Kirsten said:
“My child was not a criminal, he was in distress, frightened and alone.”
She used the Human Rights Act to get meaningful change to her son’s care and treatment.
I have time only to mention that, in the criminal justice system, it was the Human Rights Act that enabled the victims of serial “black cab rapist” John Worboys to hold the police to account for their failures to investigate him. There are many other examples.
This rapid canter has, I hope, helped to demonstrate the relevance of human rights law to all the ordinary people of this country. I regret that the Government have refused to allow pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill of Rights Bill, so that Parliament could expose its myriad flaws. Indeed—this is now public because the JCHR has published its letter—the Lord Chancellor has cancelled his agreed 20 July appearance before the Joint Committee on Human Rights to answer questions on the Bill. I hope we will at least get another date.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for initiating this debate. I read her contribution in a debate that took place 11 years ago. Her wisdom and compassion shone out then as it did today. I quote one extract from her contribution:
“Enemies of red tape and bureaucracy should welcome the Human Rights Act. It is there to give a human dimension back to state operations. It is not … primarily for lawyers any more than water is for water engineers. It is for citizens to rely on and public servants to have regard to.”—[Official Report, 19/5/11; col. 1507.]
In the same debate the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said:
“one of the central purposes of human rights law is to protect the interests of those sections of the community who lack political power, who Parliament has failed to protect against unfair treatment by the majority … Parliament remained sovereign on all these issues … tempting though it is for politicians to try to win support by fighting a battle of Parliament Square against the Supreme Court, the current Administration need to be reminded that there are many issues where the dispassionate assessment of public policy by an independent judiciary, and by a reference to standards of fairness and proportionality, serve a valuable public purpose.” —[Official Report, 19/5/11; cols. 1502-03.]
Of course, we now know that the current Administration, the same Conservative Government, have yielded to that temptation 11 years later.
Before I continue, I echo the tributes that were made at the time to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who led that particular debate and, more importantly, steered the Human Rights Act 1998 through this House. His contribution to this country is immense. He reminded the House then that although Britain was the first state to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951, failure to incorporate the convention into our domestic law meant that our own citizens could not argue for their convention rights in our own courts, but had to take the long and expensive road to Strasbourg that some noble Lords have already referred to. It took another 47 years to resolve that, and he paid tribute to Churchill’s Conservative Government for ratifying the convention and referred to a publication by Norman and Oborne entitled Churchill’s Legacy: The Conservative Case for the Human Rights Act. In attempting to dispel many of the myths about the Human Rights Act, Norman and Oborne concluded:
“it is unlikely that reform of the HRA would be on any political agenda, were it not for the potent advocacy of the most powerful media groups in the country”.
The noble and learned Lord pointed out that the convention and the Act had
“enhanced protection for journalistic sources”,
and seen
“a dramatic reduction in the level of libel damages, and the right to report on a much wider range of court proceedings”.—[Official Report, 19/5/11; col. 1494.]
The Government’s Bill of Rights is actually a rights removal Bill. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights found that the Bill could weaken human rights protections across the UK. How will the Bill reconcile with the rights available under the Scotland Act and the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland? The Scottish Human Rights Commission and many other organisations pointed out that the Government ignored their own independent review, which concluded that there was no case for widespread reform. The commission is quite clear that the Government’s Bill of Rights will undermine rights protections for people in Scotland. The director of Liberty, Martha Spurrier, said that the Bill would make it harder for people to access justice. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede said the same thing on 23 June. Incidentally, I am a member of Liberty. I ask the Minister whether he could satisfy my questions on the issue of the Good Friday agreement and the Scotland Act.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, some 40 years ago—that is, some 20 years before the 1998 Act—I used to appear for the UK Government in Strasbourg. I regularly—almost invariably—lost their cases. My record there was: played 12, lost 10, drew 1, won 1. That counted as not a bad record in those days.
I then spent some 30 years on the Bench, roughly half of it before the 1998 Act came into force in 2000 and half afterwards, dealing with cases of a human rights nature. There are some who question whether the convention was ever necessary for us, and whether our own laws were not ample and well able to secure our basic rights and liberties. Indeed, one prominent member of the Tory party just a few weeks ago in this House, in an HRA debate, raised that very question and asked the Minister to identify any specific advantages that had come to this country as a result of our adherence to the European convention. Five minutes is just about enough for a riposte to that, to show that the convention has proved over the years invaluable in liberalising and modernising our laws and practices, but it does not allow time to discuss the impact of the 1998 Act in intensifying, accelerating and facilitating the process. Still less does it give time to discuss the more nuanced and altogether more topical question as to the effect of the proposed replacement of the 1998 Act with Mr Raab’s current human rights Bill. As to that, I shall say no more than that, while I regard much of it as window dressing—or in the words of Sir Robert Buckland, as a solution in search of a problem—I am less sceptical than many as to whether it is all bad or whether it is designed, as some would suggest, to limit our human rights in future.
Turning therefore very briefly to the benefits of the convention over the years, here are just a few. These first are drawn from the cases that I lost in Strasbourg. First, on prisoner rights, we used to censor all prisoner correspondence, in and out, even with their lawyers. The Home Office, to its credit, wanted to liberalise, this regime, but the Prison Officers’ Association, a militant union, would not allow it. We duly went to Strasbourg, fought and, of course, lost the cases, and the Home Office was then in a position to confront the union with these adverse decisions, and we made way forward.
We similarly happily lost the closed-shop case to the then Government: there is as much a right not to join a union as there is to join one. Other cases I lost were about telephone tapping practices and the security service intrusions where there was no legal authorisation. In later years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, mentioned, our adherence to the convention prevented the MoD outlawing all service personnel with homosexual tendencies, and prevented the Executive, as opposed to the judiciary, in life cases determining the actual length of tariff sentences and prisoner release dates. One could go on and on, but there is no time.
Despite my general support for the convention, I should not be taken as applauding all the court’s decisions or as opposing all that is now proposed by way of what the Minister calls the recalibration of the legislation—there are aspects that need it. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned the Aguilar case where the Supreme Court made a contentious decision on forced marriage—I dissented.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I am proud to speak in this debate and it is always a pleasure to follow my friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for this important and timely debate and for her far-reaching introduction. I thank Professor Paul Johnson, the executive dean of the University of Leeds, for his invaluable advice and briefings from Justice, POhWER—including a coalition of charities—Amnesty and the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which warned us about the Government’s intention to replace the HRA and the negative consequences that could follow. I note with concern the absence of a briefing from the English Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I apologise for being blunt, but when I think about the practical impact of the Human Rights Act it is personal, because the impact of the Act has been deeply profound for LGBT people like me. Indeed, the very concept of equality, in which our legislation later developed, began with the equal age of consent. I think back to when the Labour Government introduced the Bill that became the HRA, and of the great promise made in this House by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that:
“This Bill will bring human rights home”,
so that
“the human rights of individuals and minorities should be protected by law”.—[Official Report, 3/11/97; cols. 1228, 1234.]
As a minority, I take the protection of my rights by the HRA very seriously indeed. I remember when, year after year, decade after decade, LGBT people and other defamed minorities were forced to go through extremely lengthy and costly proceedings to reach the European Court of Human Rights to gain protection under the European Convention on Human Rights in the United Kingdom. Even though the United Kingdom, as we have heard, was a signatory to the convention, individuals had limited mechanisms before the Human Rights Act to enforce their convention rights in full in the domestic courts. This produced the disgraceful situation in which domestic courts often acknowledged that LGBT people suffering discrimination would win if they advanced a complaint under the convention in the Strasbourg court but were powerless to help them in the United Kingdom.
In this respect, I need mention only the so-called gays in the military case, in which my friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, then sitting in the High Court, noted the extreme limits created by the lack of the convention not forming part of domestic law, resulting in litigants having to pursue their claims in Strasbourg, where of course they won.
The Human Rights Act gave LGBT people like me and other minorities a vital cloak of protection that we never had before. It is a protection that is in operation every single day, both in the private and public spheres. The Government’s plan to repeal the Human Rights Act in the Bill of Rights Bill should horrify anyone concerned with the development and protection of human rights in the United Kingdom. It is an act of vandalism.
It should be realised that the Bill of Rights Bill is probably a staging post for the ultimate aim of some in this Government to remove the United Kingdom from the convention itself. Indeed, provisions in the Bill of Rights Bill, which will create a damaging disconnect between the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights, have the great potential for once again forcing LGBT people and others to go to Strasbourg when the UK courts are less responsive to protecting their convention rights. This will potentially result in a rapid rise in violations against the United Kingdom in the Strasbourg court, which I fear will be used by a Government of this type down the line to make the tired and obscene claim that a foreign court with foreign judges is meddling in our domestic affairs and that the UK should leave the convention system.
I hang my head in shame at the kind of country we are becoming; a country where once again rights are seen as unaffordable, and people are being depicted as a threat from which others should be protected. It is happening now. Look at trans women and trans men; we have seen the casual and unacceptable dehumanisation of an entire minority, with dangerous consequences. Ultimately, any civilised country is judged by how it treats the most disfavoured and how it treats those who seek sanctuary and justice. In this regard our country has been brought low and is sinking further.
I conclude by reminding noble Lords that the Human Rights Act brings rights home and that is ultimately good for everyone. I resolutely oppose taking away the vital protection of the HRA. We are all diminished and debased by such squalid intentions.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for securing this debate, and for setting out so clearly many of the great benefits that have been achieved through the Human Rights Act. I will not repeat or elaborate any of those here, and perhaps save a moment or two in so doing.
As neither a legal nor constitutional expert, I am not going to delve into the technical side of the matter, but it is clear to me that this is a discussion not simply about the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998 but about many of the concerns—already raised from different Benches in this House—that noble Lords have with the proposed British Bill of Rights. Before I mention some of my concerns, I commend the introduction of the right to a trial by jury in the updated Bill of Rights Bill. But aside from this one welcome measure, it strikes me that there is a very real danger that the new Bill of Rights may remove levels of accountability from government, particularly in areas such as immigration, which I have an interest in.
Interim decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, such as that which recently prevented the deportation of refugees to Rwanda, will, it appears, become a thing of the past once the 1998 Act is replaced. This Bench has been particularly critical of the Rwanda policy. Recently, the Lords spiritual signed unanimously a letter that spoke of our Christian heritage, which should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, and, above all, that when they arrive on these shores they are given due process so that their claims can be examined.
This emphasis is important when we remember one of most influential architects behind the Council of Europe, which drafted the original European Convention on Human Rights. Robert Schuman, drawing on Catholic social teaching, saw the convention as the foundation on which to base the defence of individuals against all tyrannies and against all forms of totalitarianism. What concerns me is that the emphasis on areas such as national sovereignty and the “will of the people”—although there are obviously aspects of those that are good in themselves—means we lose sight of the original impetus behind the foundations of institutions such as the ECHR, which was to protect individuals against abuses from their Governments, something that at the time they were tragically aware of.
The defence of each human being should apply just as much to refugees, even to foreign criminals, and to individuals who have suffered at the hands of the Armed Forces as anyone else. Either they are human rights—universal and overseen by a supranational authority—or they are national rights. I sense that our Government may want to argue for both, when actually we are moving towards the latter.
Our adherence to the 1998 Act is a national choice that Parliament has made, but it is also a convention respected by successive Governments. We can all recall the huge frustration of former government Ministers at not being able to deport individuals they deemed dangerous, but their reaction was not to leave behind this well-established convention that bound us to a higher authority. A convention like this holds weight only so long as it is genuinely respected and supported.
My fear, along with that of many others I know, is that in altering or tinkering with the convention, a precedent is being set that would encourage future Governments to further tinker with our human rights legislation when it conflicts with other agendas. In the UK, Parliament is sovereign, yet it is that sense of long-established convention that prevents any overextension of its authority. Once that convention disappears, there is nothing holding back that sovereign power from acting in the sort of tyrannical manner that Schuman and many others were determined to avoid.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and to take part in a debate so excellently opened by my noble friend Lady Whitaker.
During the pandemic, Sir Robert Buckland asked a very good friend of mine, Sir Peter Gross, to chair a commission looking into the operation of the Human Rights Act. This very distinguished commission included a Member of your Lordships’ House—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—and came up with very sensible and useful suggestions. For example, the commission said that greater use should be made of Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights. It concluded that the Human Rights Act was generally working well but that it could be improved. There is nothing wrong with any of that, but a later Lord Chancellor—the current one—decided along with the Government that the commission did not go far enough, and that there should be a Bill of Rights. That there is some scepticism about the European Convention on Human Rights was pretty evident in the reaction to Sir Peter’s commission’s report. I do not need to remind your Lordships that Winston Churchill and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe were behind the European Convention on Human Rights.
My noble friend Lady Donaghy referred quite rightly to Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Commission, with its opposition to this. She also referred to the fact that there should be legislative consent Motions from the Scottish Parliament, and indeed from the Welsh Senedd. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on whether that will have any bearing at all on the decisions the Government might make. They cannot get one from the Northern Ireland Assembly yet because it is suspended. It is not meeting now, but I hope that it will be by the time that these matters are debated later in the year.
However, the greatest impact of the changes which have been brought about and are predicted to come will indeed be on Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement—I have it here—which was signed 24 years ago. In the same year that the Human Rights Act was passed by Parliament, I was taking the Northern Ireland Act 1998 through the House of Commons as a government Minister. That Bill incorporated the Good Friday agreement, both of which had within them huge aspects of human rights and the discussions that we had. I had to deal with those when I was dealing with the talks.
If the Minister eventually looks at the human rights recommendations in the Good Friday agreement, as I am sure he will, he will see, for example, the ECHR, which should be incorporated into Northern Ireland law; direct access to courts; remedies for the breach of the convention; powers for the courts to overrule the Assembly on the grounds of inconsistency; the establishment of the new Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland; similar changes in the Republic of Ireland; and, of course—although this has never happened—the establishment of a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights. I imagine that the Government propose that their new Bill of Rights will incorporate a bit on Northern Ireland but that was not the agreement signed in Belfast a quarter of a century ago.
This agreement is an international treaty. It has been the basis of peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland for the past two or three decades. It will be difficult to persuade those in Northern Ireland who deal with human rights issues, on both sides of the community, that the Government’s proposals will not affect the findings of that agreement or the international nature of the agreement itself. The British Government and the Irish Government are joint guarantors of the agreement. It is facing enough trouble as it is. The Government pray in aid the Good Friday agreement to support their views on the Northern Ireland protocol. In so doing, they must also understand the importance of human rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and, indeed, the European Court of Human Rights for the people of Northern Ireland. We have enough trouble in Northern Ireland at the moment; we do not need any more.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare that I was a lawyer in the Home Office in the late 1990s during the preparation and passage of the Human Rights Act. I also worked on the Good Friday agreement, to which my noble friend Lord Murphy referred. I am a council member of Justice and was the director of Liberty for some years, during which I had the privilege of publishing Jesse Norman and Peter Oborne’s wonderful pamphlet, Churchill’s Legacy: The Conservative Case for the Human Rights Act. I commend that document to all noble Lords, particularly those opposite.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on securing this debate and on all her wonderful human rights works. Of course, it is always an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. His record speaks for itself but I wholeheartedly support everything that he said about the importance of the Human Rights Act in our constitutional settlements, including our devolution settlements and the precious Good Friday agreement, in particular.
The Human Rights Act is both a progressive, contemporary Bill of Rights and an exquisite British constitutional compromise. I do not mind the word “compromise”; it is a good word. It preserves parliamentary sovereignty via Sections 3, 4 and 6 while still allowing an independent judiciary to protect both the will of Parliament and the fundamental rights and freedoms of all people, not just citizens, from executive abuse and outmoded, discriminatory laws.
I was slightly surprised by some of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because I had not taken him for an originalist, as the Americans refer to people who use very literal interpretations. It is only right to share with noble Lords the facts of the Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza case that he found so outrageously creative. It concerned a same-sex couple who had lived in rented accommodation for many years. The person whose name was on the rent book died. His partner would have been evicted but for the Rent Act having to be reinterpreted under the Human Rights Act Section 3 duty so that the words “living together as man and wife” could be applied to a same-sex couple. That is the outrage of interpretation to which, with respect, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, was referring.
The Human Rights Act is very British in that compromise, but internationalist in incorporating the European convention, which was itself drafted, in no small part, by Conservative lawyers after World War II, as we heard from many noble Lords—particularly from my noble friend Lady Donaghy, in her fantastic history lesson of a speech. Section 2 requires our courts to take accounts of the decisions of the Strasbourg court, but they are not bound by them. That has now been fully accepted by our Supreme Court, as we have heard. This facilitates, therefore, a wonderful judicial conversation—a continuing judicial dialogue—between national and international jurists. This is so important and to the benefit of both. It benefits our law here and means that great jurists, such as the friend of all of us, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, have contributed to the breadth of jurisprudence in Europe as well as here. That is so important: we do not want to break that dialogue and vital link.
Section 19 statements by Ministers have also been important to parliamentary scrutiny of the human rights impact of legislation. Would the noble and learned Lord tell us how many times, even in the last few years under the Johnson Government, Ministers have actively relied on Human Rights Act obligations and interpretations when justifying things such as the CHIS Bill, as was, and the Nationality and Borders Bill, as was—now unfortunately Acts? Ministers have frequently stood there and said, “Do not worry: this power looks broad, but it will have to be exercised in a way that is compliant with the Human Rights Act.” Presumably, all that goes out the window now.
As we have heard, positive obligations, which are now to be trashed, have helped so many victims, but I have one final point on free speech. The Human Rights Act in Article 10 created the first enforceable right to free speech in this country. That will, ironically, be undermined by this rights removal Bill. Finally, I wonder if the noble and learned Lord agrees with me that the greater threat to free speech in this country does not come from the Human Rights Act; it comes from super-injunctions sought by wealthy and powerful people, including in government, relying on Article 8 and on a lot of money. That is hypocrisy: one rule for some and another for everyone else.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I agree with what she said and defer to her experience in dealing with matters under the Human Rights Act. The background to this debate is in six stark words in paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Bill of Rights Bill:
“The Human Rights Act … is repealed.”
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, opened this debate in that context, with great self-control and temperance. I thank her for keeping the subject so cool, when it could be extremely emotive. If that Bill is ever debated in this House, the Government will face a serious fight, because it is not a manifesto Bill in the form in which it has been presented to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, is an admired legal colleague, and I hope he takes what I am about to say in good part. In my study at home, I have approximately 100 years of Criminal Appeal Reports. Let me take the first Birmingham Six appeal as an example: I could take pages from those reports and say to your Lordships, “These decisions were just wrong”, but I do not present that as an argument for abolishing the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. Courts are not perfect places and, as has just been illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, there will be subjects on which we disagree, but they are not an argument to abolish a jurisdiction.
The quantity of cases that have come before the European Court of Human Rights in recent years is deeply connected with this argument, as Suella Braverman happens to have said this morning—I may return to that in a moment. There have been only five cases before the European Court of Human Rights against the United Kingdom since October 2017. I doubt if any Member of this House or member of the Conservative Party could present a respectable argument for disagreeing with the decision reached in those cases.
So I look forward with interest to hearing the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, in due course. I had the privilege of serving as one of his part-time chairs when he was president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Brilliantly knowledgeable, he was a very good teacher, and, heavens, did I need it in that jurisdiction. The House will often benefit from his great intellectual skills and persuasive voice, and I hope he will use that persuasive voice in his customarily logical way to try to persuade the Government that they are wrong about this issue. We will not blame him if he fails; we will blame him only if he does not try.
The absurdity of Her Majesty’s Government’s position was illustrated this morning by Suella Braverman who is, of course, the current Attorney-General—she is not a random Back-Bencher standing for the leadership of the Conservative Party—who said that one of the reasons why we should abolish the Human Rights Act and take no part in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights is because that is the way we would prevent refugees crossing the English Channel. I have been struggling with that one all morning. It has absolutely no intellectual or—can I put it this way?—even political credibility. I hope at least that we will hear the Government saying that tropes of that kind will not be used in argument against the Human Rights Acts.
We will have full debates on this issue, I fear, if the new Prime Minister, whoever they are, decides to proceed with this Bill or something like it. I simply ask them to bear in mind some words of James Madison, the founding father of the American constitution, who wrote:
“Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty, as well as the abuses of power”.
That proportionality test is well worth some deliberation before presenting legislation as intended at the moment to this House at least.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on introducing the debate and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti on ending her powerful speech with some extremely pertinent observations.
I want to step back a little and think about the concept of human rights in this country and what we have done with it. For centuries, our legal and political culture was centred on the idea of liberty. After the Second World War, and especially after the formation of the European Union, the culture of liberty was replaced by the culture of rights. The language of rights became more dominant and with that, obviously, the language of human rights. We helped to formulate the European Convention on Human Rights, we signed it in 1958 and we brought it into domestic law in 1998. During that period, the convention has been embedded in various aspects of our public life, various institutions and in organisations such as the NHS, universities and prisons so that one can easily predict how the principle of human rights is instantiated in a particular context. It is easy for an ordinary Briton to predict how human rights are going to be applied in a particular context.
Now there is a proposal to change the situation yet again. One needs to step back and ask what the change is for and what it is likely to achieve. I have no objection to changing anything, including the idea of human rights. Human rights are defined differently in different societies depending on their conception of human well-being. For example, in China human rights include the right to be maintained by your children in your old age and to be able to go to live with them, and in Germany human rights include the right to dignity so that no defamatory remarks will be made about you. So human rights can be defined differently and the question is: when we look back at our record on human rights, what are the acknowledged deficiencies? What are the improvements that the new Bill will make? I do not see many.
We are told, for example, that Parliament should be sovereign and far more important than the courts of law, and that the Human Rights Act gives far more importance to the courts than to Parliament. I do not see that this is particularly significant because I do not think that a culture of human rights is incompatible with the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Or we are told that, in particular human rights cases, our courts are superseded by the European courts. Again, this is an idea of nationalism—of national sovereignty—and I do not see that it is particularly significant.
My simple concern is that when we look at the proposals, they seem to remove all constraints, moral and political, on the power of the Government to do what they want to do. The new proposals are intended to be a template for permitting the Government to do what they wish to do, as is obvious, for example, in the case of our refugees and asylum seekers being sent to Rwanda. What is objectionable about the proposal to reform the Human Rights Act is that, rather than strengthening or reinforcing constraints on government power, it releases those constraints and allows the Government to get away with anything they wish to do.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I start with a warning. This Government do not want scrutiny. It will not matter who becomes the new leader of the Conservative Party and, on the vote of only 160,000 people, our new Prime Minister—the Government do not want scrutiny. That is why they want to repeal the Human Rights Act, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing this debate and for her humanity over the years in promoting human rights.
I remind everyone—I see here the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Carlile, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, people who have been involved in these issues over a long period—that it used to take us six years to get a case to the European Court of Human Rights. When we took a case about the cruel and inhumane treatment being used in interrogation practices in Northern Ireland, it took six years to get the case to the European court. The business of bringing rights home in 1998 was to say, “Look, this is ridiculous; we ought to be able to make some of these decisions in our own courts”. What is being said now is that we want to constrain these terrible foreign judges, but let us be very clear that this is about constraining our judges even more. Do not be taken in by the rhetoric.
Human rights, as we know, are about respect for the humanity of another, irrespective of whether that person is male or female, whether they are a person of colour, whether they have one religion or another or no religion, whether they are gay or straight or trans, whether they are an asylum seeker or an economic migrant, whether they are a prisoner who has forfeited their liberty because of bad things they have done: they are still human beings who deserve to have their humanity respected. A person’s status should not reduce their humanity in our eyes; their human rights should not be contingent on their conduct or have to be earned. Those things, we have to hold on to.
I reinforce what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Parekh: decision-making by public bodies that undermine human rights should not be above challenge. Unfortunately, this business of repealing the Human Rights Act is precisely as he said. This is about a grab of power to the Executive, so we should be very clear about what is underpinning this. It really is about saying that members of the public will not be able to say, “These decisions being made by public bodies or by government policy are going to take away some of my human rights”. They do not want that, and that is what will mean significant inroads into the powers, not just of an international court but of domestic courts, to review the legality of what the Government do.
It must be remembered that the law develops by bringing test cases. To reinforce something said by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, at the heart of this assault on rights is the division between lawyers who believe in the “living instrument” doctrine—the idea that law has to live and breathe through generous interpretation of rights because society changes and becomes different, so we want our judges to do likewise—and lawyers who want to cling to the original meaning of a text. They insist that common law is the great tradition and does not need any additional elements from outside, or the outside eyes that can often help us look at our system and see where it might need bettering. This idea of the original text comes from the US Justice Scalia school of lawyering, which insists on what the drafters of law had in mind and takes no account of changing norms or culture. It maroons society in a romance with the past, which is one of the things that we have to guard conservatives against, instead of moving into contemporary times and respecting the humanity of all.
We should be very clear about what the Government have in mind. This is why they are so dismissive of consultation or bringing in experts, as we had with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on judicial review and my noble friend Lord Murphy’s friend reviewing the Human Rights Act. They were dismissed by the Government because they do not want external reviews; basically, they just want to stick to an ideological position—to attack human rights. The objective of this Bill is not to restore parliamentary sovereignty or bolster rights, but the very opposite: to reduce rights, consolidate executive power and resist scrutiny.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for introducing this debate. I suspect it will be the first of many in which the Government will find it hard to defend the position they are in. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cashman, who reminded us of not just how far we have to go but how far we have come. That is a sign of positive progress. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I have been on it before and am on it at the moment—and will say a little about the recent visit we paid to the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg a few weeks ago.
Before that, I think it was Robert Buckland, the previous Lord Chancellor, who coined the Government’s approach to the Human Rights Act as
“A cure in search of a problem”.
Never were truer words uttered. Dominic Grieve, a previous Attorney-General, said:
“Did I ever feel that government was being rendered ineffective by Human Rights Act claims? No, I did not.”
There are very few defenders of the Government’s position, although I missed Suella Braverman on the television this morning. The Joint Committee on Human Rights looked at all this—indeed, we await the Justice Secretary coming to give us evidence. He was supposed to come next Wednesday but cancelled a few days before. I wonder whether there is a hint that things are changing in government on this; I have no evidence beyond his saying that he does not want to come at the moment.
I hope these debates will render one misconception obsolete. In some of our newspapers, there is still a misunderstanding between the European court and the European Court of Human Rights, which has sometimes bedevilled some of the discussion.
When the Joint Committee on Human Rights went to Strasbourg, the people we spoke to were taken aback by the idea that this country would significantly weaken our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, they were full of praise for both the way in which we approached human rights and the Human Rights Act, which they emphasised to us is viewed internationally as a gold standard and a model example of how human rights can be effectively embedded into domestic law and practised. It was almost embarrassing how full of praise they were for our position at the moment; they were dismayed at the thought we might withdraw from that position.
But it is nice, at a time when this country’s reputation, internationally, is not of a high order, for us to be so well regarded—we were of course founder members. It is true, as has been said, that our record, in terms of the European Court of Human Rights, is better than that of any other country in relation to size of population. We come out best because we do it so well, and because our courts have a good relationship with the European Court of Human Rights. That link would be cut by what the Government are proposing to do.
I was a colleague of my noble friend Lord Murphy for a time—in a more junior position, I hasten to add. I remember when the Northern Ireland legislation was going through, I had to certify that the Bill conformed to the Human Rights Act. I had never been a Minister who had sign this sort of thing, and I checked with officials. I said, “Please convince me now, I want to be absolutely sure what we’re doing”, and they did assure me. It was a healthy process for a Minister to have to go through that and be assured that what I was signing was absolutely right.
When the prisoner voting rights issue came up some years ago, I went with the human rights Select Committee to Strasbourg. There was dismay in Strasbourg at the thought that we would breach a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which we had never done before, because that would encourage the countries of the notorious abusers of human rights to say, “Well, if the United Kingdom can do it, why shouldn’t we?”
I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Murphy about the damage that this will do to the perception of human rights, whether it is the Good Friday agreement that would be weakened in Northern Ireland, or the position in Scotland. We are embarking on a dangerous path. I hope, even at the 11th hour, the Government will see sense and not pursue this path.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to participate in this debate, with so many moving and informative speeches. I want to mention in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, which I thought graphically highlighted the way in which minorities, particularly the LGBTQ+ communities, have been assisted by having to go to Strasbourg—but, before the Human Rights Act came into force, at tremendous cost and with an inevitable delay.
Mention has been by a number of people of the now celebrated case of Smith and Grady, and a second case, Lustig-Prean and Beckett, against the United Kingdom, in which the brave claimants, all of whom had served in the military, had been dismissed from the military simply because they were of a homosexual orientation, not because they committed any sexual acts. In Strasbourg they successfully challenged the decision and policy of the Government, having failed, inevitably, before the divisional court and the Court of Appeal in this country. It was with great prescience that my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who gave the leading judgment—in fact, the only judgment—in the divisional court, said that the Ministry was fighting against the tide of opinion, and it was only a matter of time before the policy would be revoked at an international level—and that is indeed what happened. But it took six years for that to be achieved, and at great cost.
I want to reinforce and support everything that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about this remarkable Act—and the Human Rights Act is a remarkable Act. It melds together all sorts of apparently conflicting aspects of our constitution, and it works in a way which is not reflected anywhere else. She described it as a unique British invention. I would say it is a masterpiece, when you look at the way it is worked, of statutory provision.
I just want to reinforce that by looking at the three objectives that the Government set out for what they wanted to achieve through this Act and the way that they have been very effectively achieved. The first, on which almost everybody here has spoken, is bringing rights home. They have been brought home in the form of the obligation in Section 6 of the Act that:
“It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”
We have to remember that before this Act, you could challenge the actions and policies of a public body by judicial review in our domestic courts only on the basis of so-called irrationality—the Wednesbury principle. There was no ability here to claim damages or an injunction for breach of a convention right.
However, “bringing rights home” here was to be achieved in a way that would ensure that the United Kingdom observed its international obligations as a member of the Council of Europe. There was to be a high degree of alignment between domestic law and the convention, and no major gaps. That is what has been achieved by Sections 3 and 4.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in his criticisms of either Ghaidan or indeed Section 2. That section says that the courts, when considering a convention issue, are to take Strasbourg into account. This has served to our advantage to enable what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, described as judicial dialogue, which has worked in our favour in cases where Strasbourg has failed to appreciate particular features of our own domestic courts and has then subsequently changed its jurisprudence.
As regards interpreting our provisions consistently so far as possible with the conventions concerned, it has always been open to the Government—and it is still open to the Government in any case, always—to put through Parliament legislation overturning decisions that they do not like.
Finally, and most importantly, parliamentary sovereignty was to be retained and reinforced. That is the effect of Section 4 of the 1998 Act, which provides for the courts a discretion to make a declaration of incompatibility but not to strike down or render invalid a piece of legislation.
At the end of the day, I would simply say that, as Sir Peter Gross said, having received 150 written submissions and held numerous meetings across the country, very little is wrong with this legislation. Anything that is found to be wrong can be corrected. The proposed new Bill of Rights is not moving forward; unfortunately, it will be moving, retrogradely, backwards.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, like I think every previous speaker in the debate, I regard the repeal of our Human Rights Act as a backward and indeed reactionary step which would greatly harm this country. Only one other country in Europe, Belarus, has hitherto repealed human rights legislation, and I do not think we particularly want to keep company like that.
It is worth pointing out, as have various other speakers, that it is a concept with a great deal of all-party consensual agreement. The initial pressure for the European Convention on Human Rights came from no less a figure than Winston Churchill, although I do not think that it figures too prominently in the current Prime Minister’s work on that great man. The charter was written largely by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, with the assistance of Sir Samuel Hoare, and much valuable work was done by the Society of Conservative Lawyers—I gather that the noble Lord opposite is a member, and I congratulate him—which pressed for the European convention to be enforced and incorporated into domestic law. The original movement towards having a European charter was of course under the aegis of Ernest Bevin, Labour’s Foreign Secretary. The Liberals were always very enthusiastic for this, as were the nationalist parties of Scotland and Wales. It would be extraordinary and tragic if Britain were the first country to withdraw its signature from this Act.
Many noble Lords have pointed out how minorities, people with very little power or authority of their own, have required the assistance of the Human Rights Act. In what is left of my five minutes, I would like to point out, as my noble friend Lord Murphy did, the damage this policy will do to the unity of the United Kingdom. If we continue with it, we will be a very disunited kingdom. The Scottish Parliament and Scottish legal system are deeply intertwined with the human rights charter and the general concept of human rights. The Scottish Human Rights Commission is very active and, as my noble friend Lord Murphy pointed out, drawing on his own matchless experience, this policy is extraordinarily damaging in Northern Ireland at a time when, with its Sinn Féin Government, it is on the cusp of a very perilous period in its history. In Scotland there is now a serious proposal for a referendum on independence. This is a gratuitous and quite unnecessary way of juxtaposing different visions of justice and therefore throwing relationships within these islands back into conflict. Wales is less closely involved because Welsh jurisdiction is not devolved, which I regret. The report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, argues strongly for that; even so, human rights legislation has, for example, has been involved in the advancing of the Welsh language.
This is not a serious proposal. There are grounds for looking at the British constitution, but this is not one of them. It is taken out of a spirit of revenge. It is trying to deal with opponents, institutions and individuals who have opposed this Government and it is a policy taken for the wrong reasons. We have a Government who are close to the point of collapse, and a Prime Minister who has already passed that point. It is tragic that the result of these confusions and misunderstandings is that humane freedom, a staple of British culture—I am tempted to say of British civilisation—is now threatened. I hope very much that your Lordships’ House will reject this.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I too warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the Labour Party on initiating what has been an excellent debate. I am not normally here at this time on a Thursday, as my noble colleagues know.
I have particular interest in this issue as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We oversee the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the court.
First, I remind the House that the Human Rights Act was passed by our Parliament, as the Labour Party said at the time, to bring rights home, enabling UK citizens to take alleged breaches of ECHR rights before UK courts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, rightly said. That is being misrepresented by people opposite.
It now seems that the Government are intent on ripping up the HRA and introducing this new, weaker, so-called Bill of Rights in order, sinisterly, and among other things, to make it harder for asylum seekers to make Britain their home.
Despite the best efforts of the right-wing press to convince us otherwise, the court in Strasbourg and the convention were not designed by some European Union bureaucracy; they were designed by us, as others have so rightly said. In fact, the UK initiated the convention project out of a shared belief that human rights throughout Europe should be common to all. It is particularly vital, as many of us here know, for the countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union.
The court in Strasbourg is clearly still a place where the UK has influence, and all of us who are delegates to PACE elect the judges to the court after very careful scrutiny. I can tell noble Lords that it is a large bench of very distinguished judges. I have met our own British judge, who is a very distinguished member. They are all like that; we look at things very carefully.
Attempts to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill which will limit our accountability to the ECHR, combined with recent suggestions that we should entirely remove ourselves from the court, from the convention and presumably from the Council of Europe, severely diminish our standing as a leader on human rights in Europe. I think it is Suella Braverman who has been promoting that. I think many of us will be glad to see that she is out of the race to be leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister.
We should be under no illusion as to the effect these proposed changes will have. Without the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR to protect basic human rights, the most marginalised groups in society will suffer. Article 8 protects the right to respect for family life and has been successfully used to prevent the deportation of migrants and refugees when it has been deemed that deportation would put their family members at risk. The new Bill proposes tightening the definition of risk to “extreme harm” and limiting its application to children, not all family members. Beyond the risks of regressive reinterpretations of the ECHR, the new Bill also seeks to introduce the concept of individual responsibility, which would seem directly to undermine the idea that all should be equally entitled to human rights. The Bill of Rights would also require individuals seeking to make a human rights claim against a public authority first to seek permission from a court, which would create yet another barrier for vulnerable people.
A number of Members mentioned the excellent memorandum from the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I say as a former Member of the Scottish Parliament that I agree with it and strongly support what it has said to us. In summary, it says that in its view, the UK Government’s proposals threaten to damage protections available under the Scotland Act,
“unsettling the Scottish devolution and introducing confusion and uncertainty for Scotland’s public authorities.”
A number of Members have asked the Minister to deal with this in his reply. I reinforce that and ask him to do so clearly and explicitly.
If the Human Rights Act needs reform, it certainly should not be driven by populist policies targeting people who have in many cases already suffered human rights abuses. The Government should instead consider much-needed reform of our criminal justice system, which is a much more pressing priority, given that current failures in the court and prison systems are encouraging rather than preventing crime, as we see in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.
If the United Kingdom is to remain at the forefront, as we should be, of the defence of human rights around the world, the Government need to make a rapid U-turn as quickly as possible, and I hope this is done under whoever is the new leader of that party opposite.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, not just on introducing this debate but on her lifelong attention to human rights. I am very pleased to have heard her speech today.
The ECHR, passed in 1950, set out a series of articles for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In the last 70 years, there have been just 16 protocols that have added to or amended those original articles. Unlike Parliament, which creates or amends statutes at will, it is clearly an impossible task to keep up with all the changes in the communities and societies of the disparate 45 countries represented in the Council of Europe. That this would be so was realised by the original drafters of the covenant, a team led by British lawyers. Their answer was to use the European Court of Human Rights not just to resolve human rights claims but, by its decisions, to keep the convention up to date.
From the very beginning, therefore, the European Court of Human Rights has frequently delivered decisions that were outside the original 1950 language of the articles. The technique that the judges of the court employ is called the teleological interpretation of the texts. That methodology has always been the predominant mode of interpretation in civil law jurisdictions and in public international law. No other approach is practicable if the law is to be kept up to date.
A former English judge, Sir Humphrey Waldock, who served as the president of the court for eight years, said in 1981:
“The meaning and content of the provisions of the Convention will be understood as intended to evolve in response to changes in legal or social concepts”.
That is the living instrument to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred. For example, the court in recent years—by reference to Article 2, the right to life, and Article 8, the right to family life—has developed the concept of a human right to clean air. That is the context in which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, presented her Bill last Friday, seeking to embed such a right as a human right expressly into the domestic legislation of the UK. The court’s judges continuously and conscientiously research the developing principles worldwide, whether from United Nations human rights committees, conventions or elsewhere, in order to establish a European consensus. There is nothing arbitrary about their method; they do not pluck things out of the air.
The purpose of the Bill that the Government have introduced is to turn the clock back. While not resiling formally from the convention, Section 3 (2) of the Bill says:
“A court determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right … must have particular regard to the text of the Convention right, and in interpreting the text may have regard to the preparatory work of the Convention”.
That work was done in 1949 and 1950. That is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, termed it, the originalist approach par excellence—and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, would not find reference to LGBTQ+ rights in the preparatory work done in 1949. Similarly, under Clause 3(3), the UK court:
“may adopt an interpretation of the right that diverges from Strasbourg jurisprudence”,
while under Section 5:
“A court may not adopt a post-commencement interpretation of a Convention right that would require a public authority to comply with a positive obligation.”
Post-commencement? It commenced in 1953.
Last October, the Lord Chancellor Mr Raab told the Telegraph on his appointment:
“I don't think it’s the job of the European Court in Strasburg to be dictating things … whether it's the NHS, whether it’s our welfare provision, or whether it’s our police forces … We want the Supreme Court to have a last word on interpreting the laws of the land, not the Strasbourg court”.
As he must know, UK courts are under no obligation to do more than take into account judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. They are not binding; the court does not dictate. What it does is set the standard of human rights for the 45 members of the Council of Europe.
It is the empty and useless rhetoric of the Tory party which lies behind this proposed British Bill of Rights, a false and dangerous belief in British exceptionalism. The Attorney-General Suella Braverman—I will not be as cruel as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with regard to her recent deposition—displayed her narrowness of vision and total lack of understanding when she demanded in the course of her approach to becoming premier that the UK withdraw from the European convention altogether. What understanding of the law is that in our Attorney-General?
A much nobler cause is surely to promote and support a common standard of human rights—the universal rights to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans referred. That is the reason why Russia has been expelled from the Council of Europe, as my noble friend Lady Ludford mentioned. It is the cause which Winston Churchill, a Conservative premier who—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, will agree—never lost his Liberal roots, took up in the aftermath of the Second World War. This Government are turning their back on history.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, there have been so many moving and informative speeches today. I think I am right that the only noble Lord who has spoken in favour of the Government is the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. All other noble Lords have spoken extremely eloquently against the Government’s proposals. I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for the way she introduced some of the practical benefits of the Human Rights Act and some of the myths promoted by parts of the press. I also echo her tribute to Baroness Greengross, who spent a lot of her working life promoting human rights as well.
I open by quoting Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society of England and Wales:
“The erosion of accountability trumpeted by the justice secretary signals a deepening of the government’s disregard for the checks and balances that underpin the rule of law. The bill will create an acceptable class of human rights abuses in the United Kingdom – by introducing”
under a new permissions stage
a bar on claims deemed not to cause ‘significant disadvantage’. It is a lurch backwards for British justice. Authorities may begin to consider some rights violations as acceptable, because these could no longer be challenged under the Bill of Rights despite being against the law. Overall, the bill would grant the state greater unfettered power over the people, power which would then belong to all future governments, whatever their ideologies.”
That is the view of the Law Society, but we have heard the views of many other equally respected bodies which provide close to a united opposition to the Bill proposed by the Government.
Over the past two decades, the HRA has given individuals a mechanism to enforce their rights in practice. It was originally introduced to bring rights home by incorporating the ECHR into UK law. As I have said on other occasions, I was a delegate to the Council of Europe at the time that that legislation was going through. It has enabled people to challenge unlawful policies, to be treated with dignity by public authorities and to secure justice for their families without having to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. We have heard from noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, about the practicalities of getting to Europe before the Human Rights Act was introduced.
The Government are seeking to repeal and replace the Human Rights Act with a new Bill of Rights, a move that exceeds the Government’s manifesto commitment—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The Bill ignores the recommendations of the independent panel of experts as well as other expert groups. Such a change to our constitution—to the rights afforded to individuals across the UK—demands careful analysis and debate, including of its impact on the devolved nations. We have heard particularly informative contributions today from people who have been involved in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They have asked the noble and learned Lord a question about whether those authorities within the United Kingdom will be asked for an opinion on the Government’s proposal and what sort of consultation there will be with the devolved Administrations.
I have noticed that there is no date for the Second Reading of the Government’s Bill in the House of Commons—at least, that I could see on the parliamentary website. It may well be that the new Prime Minister will not share the current Lord Chancellor’s enthusiasm for the Bill. I was going to make similar points about Suella Braverman and her comments, but my comments are a couple of days out of date. Things have obviously moved forward quickly since then. I hope that the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, did not precipitate her withdrawal from the Tory party leadership contest.
Nevertheless, when will the Government accept that it is not possible to legislate domestically to change international treaty obligations? These obligations are binding and we are part of the fabric of those international agreements in the first place.
The Lord Chancellor has claimed that 70% of successful human rights challenges are brought by foreign national offenders who cite a right to family life, in the first instance, when appealing deportation orders. This figure is highly contested by legal professionals I have spoken to. They say that the figure is unknowable. What is not contested is that the number of foreign criminals deported by this Conservative Government is down by a quarter on last year. Is it not simply the case that the reason these criminals are not deported has less to do with the Human Rights Act and more to do with the Government’s incompetence in seeing through that process?
The Labour Party is proud of the Human Rights Act. A number of people in this debate played a part in it as it was introduced through this House, and in how it has developed over the last 20 years. The Conservatives’ Bill of Rights divides the nations of the UK and weakens the rule of law during an international crisis. On top of that, it increases red tape for British people seeking justice. The Conservatives are more interested in picking a fight and sowing divisions with this Bill, rather than tackling the cost of living crisis, which we have heard about, and the crisis in our criminal justice system. These are surely the most important issues that we should be dealing with in this Parliament. I understand that the noble and learned Lord is in an impossible situation when I ask him what he thinks will happen to the proposed Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank and pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for bringing this very important debate to this House, and indeed to all your Lordships who have spoken so eloquently this afternoon.
First, I note that there seems to be a remarkable degree, perhaps to one’s surprise, of common ground. The Government entirely agree that the domestication of the Human Rights Act was an extremely good thing. We have heard today many good examples of the positive impact of the domestic Human Rights Act. I want to make it clear that we do not want to throw those out of the window, as has been suggested. We are not “abolishing a jurisdiction”; we are not “withdrawing”; we are not “ripping up”. We are remaining in the convention; the convention rights continue to apply; public authorities continue to be bound. Once that premise is accepted, we can perhaps get on to the more pertinent debate, which is exactly how we balance the various competing considerations that arise in the application of the Act. I say again: the Act itself and the principle are fully accepted. I associate myself with the tributes paid earlier to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who introduced the Bill, to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was closely associated with the development of human rights in this country, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who was also extremely prominent, to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and to a large number of other people here and elsewhere who have contributed, rightly, to the development of a human rights culture.
I am happy to accept the invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, to pay tribute to the work of the British Institute of Human Rights. Much of what is good about the Human Rights Act comes from its everyday application, in which training and guidance by the BIHR and many other organisations have been vital. That training will continue to be applicable to the Bill of Rights, as we want to ensure that the positive enjoyment of human rights in this country continues unabated.
Having, as it were—I hope—cleared away that ground, perhaps I may next refer to the pertinent question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as to exactly what the timing of the Bill now is. As your Lordships are aware, the parliamentary timetable has in recent days become somewhat squeezed. As I understand it, the Second Reading in another place is now planned for September, so that detailed consideration of the Bill in this House is unlikely before the autumn. It is true that, by then, a new Prime Minister will be in post—we do not yet know who—but, as of today, I am unaware of any relevant change in the Government’s plan to bring the Bill forward as I have just outlined.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Has the Minister given further consideration to the proposal by a number of committees in both Houses that there should be pre-legislative scrutiny?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Not as far as I am aware, is the direct answer to the noble Lord’s question. The original Bill of Rights was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny as far as I know. However, I would myself like to use the extra time we now have in a process of outreach to your Lordships’ House and to other interested organisations—I saw Sir Peter Gross yesterday; I have plans to visit each of the devolved legislatures shortly—to explore and understand all these points and see how far we can narrow the differences between us. I respectfully suggest that there are issues that we need to grapple with here and we need to grapple with them sensibly. This Bill clearly arouses very strong feelings and quite a lot of anxieties, but I hope that we can resolve a lot of them and quite a lot of other problems in the course of sensible and reasoned debate.
At one end of the spectrum, there seems to be an almost entrenched view that the 1998 Act is more than perfect and that the slightest change will bring the whole edifice crashing down, or at least give rise to unacceptable risks. At the other end of the spectrum, which has been mentioned several times, there is the point of view that we should withdraw from the convention altogether. The latter is not the Government’s position, and whatever may be said by someone in their capacity as candidate for the leadership of a political party is not relevant for today’s purposes. The position of the Government is quite clear: to stay in the convention and to reconfirm the rights that flow therefrom that are clearly set out in the Bill. From the Government’s point of view—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Would the noble and learned Lord be kind enough to help Members of your Lordships’ House, Members of another place and, above all, the public by informing the remaining candidates for leadership of the Conservative Party of what he has just said so that they get it right during the TV debates that will start tomorrow?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
With respect, I do not think that I have any channel of communication with the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party, but what I have just said is on the record and may be referred to. That is the Government’s position.
As your Lordships have observed, I personally find myself—as do the Government—with cannons to the left and cannons to the right. So in the valley of calm reasoned debate in this House, I would like to explore with your Lordships the centre ground to which this Bill is directed. In my repeat of the Oral Statement on the Bill on 23 June, I used the phrase “constructive balance”: balance between the roles of the legislature and the judiciary; balance between the domestic courts and the Supreme Court, on the one hand, and the Strasbourg judges, on the other, having regard to subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation; and balance between rights and responsibilities. To that theme of balance, I add three related themes: constitutional clarity, the separation of powers and reinforcing the fundamentals that underpin human rights.
I will address constitutional clarity first. After 25 years of the Act in operation, it is important, in the Government’s view, to restate certain basic principles. These include the following: that the convention rights are an integral part of the domestic law of the United Kingdom; that the ultimate judicial authority in interpreting those rights is the Supreme Court, taking into account our domestic legal traditions in particular; and that the possibility of divergence from Strasbourg is recognised—that is not in dispute; it has always been there, as has been pointed out already. Those basic principles are effectively recognised in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, which are declaratory of the existing position.
It is important that the convention retains a very special and unique constitutional status: no other Act of Parliament provides a machinery where another Act of Parliament, even a subsequent Act of Parliament, can be subject to a declaration of incompatibility under Clause 10. However, when that arises, it is the Government’s view that the separation of powers must prevail. At the moment, under Section 3, we have this curious provision whereby the courts can read down the Act to have a different meaning to that which Parliament intended. The Government wish to clear up that constitutional muddle, if I may put it that way, and put the responsibility for bringing the legislation in question into line with the convention back where it belongs—that is to say, the legislature that first enacted the legislation in question.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I apologise for taking up the House’s time but just to clarify: the Minister is referring to a balance, but it seemed to me to be a balance between the judiciary and the Executive, and the role of Parliament was not clear in what he was saying. I wonder whether he could clarify that. It seemed to be a power grab for the Executive.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My understanding is that, in these circumstances, any necessary change to the legislation will be brought back to Parliament through the machinery of a statutory instrument, and required to be laid before the House by affirmative resolution. There is every ability for Parliament to determine what should then be done, so it is a balance between the legislature and the judiciary, and not, in the Government’s view, between the judiciary and the Executive, but let us explore that point further in due course.
Secondly, public authorities remain bound by the convention, as is set out in Clause 12. The main change here is in relation to this question of “positive obligations”; that is a conceptual issue which is being addressed in Clauses 5 and 7. Essentially, the underlying issue is: should human rights law under the convention develop a kind of de facto legislative or quasi-legislative content, with potentially serious implications for public expenditure or giving one policy objective priority over another, or are those kinds of decisions for the elected Members of the legislature? Where does the balance lie between the electorate, the whole process of elections, and democracy, on the one hand, and, as it were, judicial interventions on the other hand? That is, in my submission, a conceptual issue, which we should in due course grapple with. That is going to be, and is, the issue of the separation of powers.
Finally, in this brief response I draw attention to a third theme, hardly mentioned today, which is the reinforcement in the Bill of the Government’s commitment to freedom and human rights in the widest sense: freedom of speech under Clause 4, jury trial under Clause 9, the protection of journalists’ sources under Clause 21. There are many points that could be made, but I hope that that brief and admittedly high-level summary at least helps convey why the Government argue for the constructive balance that the Bill aims to achieve. It is not, in the Government’s view, weakening human rights; it is enhancing public confidence in the whole structure. One has to realise that not everybody is as convinced of the value of the Act as it now stands as are some of the noble Lords who have spoken today. This will, in the Government’s view, enable greater public confidence to be maintained in the human rights structure. This is not a new issue—
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
To what would the Minister ascribe this lack of public confidence? Is it the sayings of the Lord Chancellor, or of Suella Braverman? Why is there a lack of public confidence in human rights in this country?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
There is, as far as one can tell, an important part of public opinion that is very doubtful about the role of this legislation and the Strasbourg court in our constitutional settlement. Why that is the case is not for me to speculate, but it does seem to be difficult to say that it is not the case that there are sections of the public that have less confidence in this legislation than Members of this House.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for the patience and courtesy with which he is responding to this debate, but I am concerned about one very important element. The Minister said that the Government’s position is that we stay in the ECHR and that we are committed to it; that is the Government’s position, which cannot be overturned by a leadership candidate. But what if that candidate happens to be the current Attorney-General of England and Wales and legal adviser to Parliament and the Cabinet? That is not any old candidate, is it? Ms Braverman surely speaks for the Government, as their Attorney-General. In due course, would the Minister address my question about all these recent powers in the police Act, Nationality and Borders Act and so on, which were justified to us from that Dispatch Box by Ministers who said, “Don’t worry: there is the Human Rights Act as the safeguard, and these powers will have to be exercised in a manner compatible with that”.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
In further testing the patience of the Minister, and no doubt the House, does he really think that the constant repetition over decades of certain politicians and sections of the press that it was only undesirable people who were getting the benefit of human rights law—criminals and whoever—has had no effect whatever? That and the lack of civic education in schools about the benefits of the Human Rights Act has helped us arrive at this situation. Perhaps there is only a slight silver lining to the pandemic, which otherwise, obviously, has been horrible: that while not being able to visit their relatives in care homes, some people might have realised or had perhaps a glimmer of understanding of the relevance of human rights to protect family life, the right to life and all those other issues.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
To take the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about the Attorney-General first, we seem have a somewhat unusual constitutional position here. It appears that the convention that all government Ministers speak collectively on behalf of the Government is de facto in suspense when there is a leadership contest going on. I am not really able to comment any further, except to say that it is a very curious position that has arisen. If I may, I will leave that point there.
On the general question of where all this disquiet comes from, I would say that this issue is not new. In 2008, Jack Straw, the very Home Secretary who introduced the Act, commented that it did not seem to have a very good balance between rights and responsibilities. There is no greater doughty fighter for liberty in this House than the late Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who favoured a domestic Bill of Rights. A number of retired judges—Lord Sumption, to mention only one—have expressed concerns. The Brighton declaration, which was effectively brought about by the United Kingdom under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and assisted by my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to whom I also pay tribute, was intended to address this question of exactly how the margin of appreciation and doctrine of subsidiarity worked. It has now taken 10 years for even that modest step to finally come into force. So it is not accurate to say that there have not been rumblings in the background about this Act. The Government’s purpose is to try to put the existing Act on to a better footing.
On the important points that have been made in relation to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, it is perfectly accepted that the relevant consents of the devolved Administrations should be sought. We are particularly concerned about the position in Northern Ireland and to make sure that, so far as possible, all those concerns can be satisfied. I am embarking on discussions with the various devolved Administrations in that regard. They do not agree with the Government at the moment; we shall see how we get on, but that is the position and we are well aware of that problem. The convention rights remain embedded in all the devolution enactments. It is certainly the Government’s position that what is being put forward is compatible with the Good Friday agreement and that the suggestions in this Bill of Rights do not in any way put the United Kingdom in any breach of its international obligations.
To sum up, once the tumult and the shouting die down, the fact is that the UK remains in the convention. We are taking action to restore or enhance public confidence in the existing framework, to strengthen free speech and associated rights, and to have an open debate about the balance between elected power on the one hand and judicial power on the other. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to Pip in Great Expectations. I am sure that Nicholas Nickleby, David Copperfield and Oliver Twist would have greatly welcomed a Human Rights Act had it existed at that stage of the 19th century. I commend to the House the Government’s expectation that this Bill will produce a better balanced and enhanced respect for human rights than is currently the case.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it may not be often that one is instructed by one’s own debate, but I have learned much. I am extremely grateful to all the speakers who have put their wisdom, expertise and conviction to the service of one of the most important discourses of our time, perhaps of any time—one that crosses the boundaries of human nature, cultural concepts and ideas of what justice really consists of. It would be invidious, and would certainly take too long, to go through all the interesting contributions; in any case, as noble Lords have said, these debates will of course continue.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for his considered and thoughtful response. It opens up more grounds for debate, to which I look forward, not least on my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s point. When Ministers say that a Bill’s proposals will be perfectly all right because they are bound to be compatible with the Human Rights Act, what will happen if that Act has been substantially amended? But we can leave that for the next round of debates.
I have just one very quick thought. I shudder to think what the noble and learned Lord the Minister would be obliged to say if we proposed the adoption of the United Nations convention on economic and social rights. But anyway, I beg to move.