House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to today’s business, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in expressing our horror at the attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Paul is a stalwart support for Speaker Pelosi and I enjoyed getting to know him at the G7 Speakers’ conference in Chorley. All our thoughts and prayers are with Speaker Pelosi, Paul and their family. The incident demonstrates once again that we can never rest in our mission to keep parliamentarians, their families and their staff safe.
I can now announce the arrangements for the elections of the Chairs of the Education and Transport Committees —I think they have already started. Nominations for both elections will close at noon on Tuesday 15 November. Nomination forms will be available from the Vote Office, Table Office and Public Bill Office. Following the House’s decision of 16 January 2020, only Members of the Conservative party may be candidates in either election. If there is more than one candidate for either election, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 16 November between 11 am and 2.30 pm in the Aye Lobby.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also associate myself with your remarks regarding Paul Pelosi and the Speaker in the United States. Our thoughts are with them both.
It is a huge honour to stand here as the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. In so doing, I pay tribute to all those who have preceded me, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who was an outstanding Secretary of State and also an outstanding Minister of State for disabled people.
The cold weather payment’s design ensures that support reaches those most vulnerable. The energy price guarantee is supporting millions of households with energy costs from now until April 2023. This is on top of the cost of living support worth more than £37 billion for around 8 million households on means-tested benefits.
Nick Smith
Mr Speaker, may I associate myself with your remarks about the Pelosi family?
I congratulate the right hon. Member on his appointment. The £25 cold weather payment rate has not been updated since 2008. In today’s money, it should be worth £37. Parts of Blaenau Gwent are more than 1,000 feet above sea level, and the constituency itself is one of the most deprived in the UK. Will the Secretary of State look again at the criteria for this scheme? Surely areas with bad weather, higher energy costs and lower incomes should get a fairer deal.
Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, because these are very important payments. They are automatic, as he will know. Typically, they are received within 14 days and they are targeted at those who are most vulnerable. His point about the particular local conditions and the elevation of parts of his constituency are well made and I would be very happy to have further discussions with him about that. I should point out though that I believe there are 72 different weather stations to serve as reference points for different temperatures, so it may be that there is one very close to the area he describes.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. Will he tell the House what progress his Department is making to increase the uptake of pension credit, which means that more vulnerable elderly people will be eligible for cold weather payments?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is right to raise this very important benefit, pension credit. He will be aware that the Department has been fully engaged in encouraging pensioners who will qualify to take up this benefit, and it is important that they do, because it is worth more than £3,000 a year and it is a gateway benefit for other benefits in turn. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has done a great deal to push greater uptake, including a week of effort back in June when the uptake increased by 275% in that week.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The labour market has recovered strongly since 2020, with payroll employment up on the pre-pandemic level in all 12 regions of the United Kingdom. We have comprehensive support in place to help people to find, progress and stay in work, with additional support for groups we know are more likely to be inactive, such as those aged 50-plus and people with a disability.
Sally-Ann Hart
Work is the best route out of poverty, and it is concerning that claimants of, and public spending on, working-age benefits have increased significantly since 2019. There is more that the Government can do beyond the conditionality regime, so can the Secretary of State confirm that implementing universal support, which is designed to help those facing barriers to work and to overcome the complex challenges holding them back, will be considered?
Mel Stride
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that work is the best route out of poverty, and in that regard I commend her for her private Member’s Bill, which the Department is pleased to support. Our low unemployment rate demonstrates our extensive support for those moving into work; universal support has been replaced, as she may know, by Help to Claim, which provides tailored support to individuals making a universal credit claim across England, Scotland and Wales.
Daniel Zeichner
The economy is plagued by labour shortages, from care to hospitality. On Saturday, 200 bus services in Cambridge were cancelled because of a lack of drivers, leaving health workers unable to get to and from their places of work. After a decade of zero-hours and short-term contracts, it is no surprise that people want out—they do not want to be at work because it is too tough. Is it not time for the Government to recognise that good workplace rights are not just good for workers, but good for employers and good for us all?
Mel Stride
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to raise the issue of economic activity. That will be a major focus of mine as Secretary of State: we have 9 million people who are economically inactive, and we desperately need to get as many as we can into the workforce, not least because under this Government we have very low unemployment, very high levels of employment and 1.25 million vacancies in the economy.
Stephen Crabb
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and send him my best wishes for his time in this important job. May I suggest that he has a look at some research published earlier this year by the Prince’s Trust, which found that there are hundreds of thousands of young people not in education, employment or training, many of whom are economically active? They want to work, but many of them are living with physical or mental disabilities. Does he agree that the right support would enable them to stay in touch with the labour market and prevent patterns of worklessness from setting in at a very young age?
Mel Stride
I recognise the great work that my right hon. Friend did as a Secretary of State. There are 820,000 young people out of work and not in full-time education, and he is right that there are many things this Government can do, and indeed are doing, with our youth offer. That includes our youth employment programme, youth employability coaches and 150 youth hubs across Great Britain.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman, who is one of my neighbours, to his new post and congratulate him on his appointment. What estimate has he made of the number of people who would like to work but currently cannot do so, because they are among the hundreds of thousands waiting on record-long NHS waiting lists?
Mel Stride
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his warm words. That is a question that would probably be best answered by the Department of Health and Social Care, and I would be happy to look into that for him. We know that there is a long tail of people who would otherwise like to work but who are long-term sick—some 2.5 million in total—and, to go back to my earlier answer, it will be a prime focus for our Department, working with the Health Department, to see how we can assist and support them back into the workplace.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I wish my right hon. Friend and his team every success in leading this vital mission in Government, helping people into work and protecting the most vulnerable. As he says, with more vacancies than people unemployed, and with 9 million people—and rising—economically inactive, does he agree with British business that labour shortage is one of its greatest obstacles? What is his plan to unlock the talents of those who have not recently looked for work?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend’s analysis is entirely right. We have an overheated labour market and a high number of vacancies, and the key issue that businesses up and down the country constantly raise is a lack of staff to be taken on. Broadly speaking, economic inactivity breaks down into several sectors, although I will not go through all of them; we have already touched on the 2.5 million long-term sick, and we have 900 disability employment advisers within the Department for Work and Pensions. We also have 1.2 million people who retired early, for whom we do have some schemes, but we need to give further attention to coming up with new ways forward for that group.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
At last week’s Work and Pensions Committee meeting on the plan for jobs and employment support, Tony Wilson from the Institute for Employment Studies highlighted the role of Scotland’s local employability partnerships in providing tailored support that reflects local circumstances. In the light of recent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing that health-related economic inactivity in the working-age population has had its largest increase since the end of 2019, will the UK Government consider following Scotland’s approach of providing more customised support and helping people into work, instead of the Department’s punitive sanctions regime?
Mel Stride
We already have a local skills improvement plan, but I would be delighted to listen to the hon. Lady’s thoughts; we are always happy to share best practice, and to learn from her experience and that of the devolved Administration in Scotland.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I welcome the new Secretary of State and all the new Ministers to their positions. We have heard Conservative Ministers, not least the many Prime Ministers we have had in recent months, crowing about low unemployment, but the new Secretary of State will know from his time chairing the Treasury Committee that sometimes it is important to look at the figures yourself. There are 1.2 million people unemployed in our country, but also 1.8 million inactive people who say they want a job. Taken together, that is a disaster for our country. I want to know what it is about years and years of Tory misrule that always leaves 3 million people on the scrapheap.
Mel Stride
I have taken a personal vow not to engage in too much Punch and Judy politics with the hon. Lady during Question Time, so I will not talk about what happens to unemployment when different parties get into power; I will leave that for another day. She is absolutely right about the key challenge around economic inactivity. That is why the Department doubled the number of new work coaches in the last two years; there are an additional 13,500 people working to support the exact people whom she rightly identified as needing that assistance to get into work. As I said, I intend to put considerably more energy into the whole issue of economic inactivity, and to bring announcements on the subject to the House in due course.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
No assessment has been made. Emergency measures brought in during covid meant that the sanctions rate was artificially low. We always expected the rate to increase when we reintroduced face-to-face appointments and conditionality in order to help fill record numbers of job vacancies.
Dan Carden
I am disappointed with that answer. The current high rate of universal credit sanctions is unprecedented. Right now, twice as many people on universal credit are being sanctioned and having their benefits cut as did before the pandemic, three years ago. At this very moment, families face the reality of hunger and freezing homes because of soaring food prices and energy bills, as well as rising rents. Instead of making things harder for those who are struggling, and punishing those on the lowest incomes, will the Minister commit to raising social security in line with inflation and end the sanctions regime, which will only inflict more hardship and homelessness this winter on those in areas such as mine?
Mims Davies
I am afraid that I do not agree. People are sanctioned only if they fail to attend appointments without good reason, and fail to meet the requirements that they have agreed to meet. Conditionality is an important part of a fair and effective welfare system. It is right that there should be a system to encourage claimants to take reasonable steps to prepare for and move into work. I reiterate that claimants with severe mental health or wellbeing conditions are not subject to work-related requirements or sanctions.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has indicated that there will be a difference in tone in the Department. There is a way that he can demonstrate that. The Department conducted an examination of the effect of sanctions and conditionality that his predecessor refused to publish. He has the opportunity to allow us to have an informed debate in the Chamber on the effectiveness of sanctions. Will he now publish that report?
Mims Davies
Sanctions are incredibly important to support the work coach in doing their job. This really matters, because engaging with the work coach is important where there can be underlying issues—if an individual is a care leaver or there is something going on at home. Sanctions do not apply to all claimants. As I said earlier, if an individual has limited capability to work or there are issues around how they can work, work coaches will use their full discretion to ensure that people are supported, but not engaging is not the right option.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Tom Pursglove)
We published an impact analysis for the Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill, which estimated that, in the Isle of Wight constituency, 18,300 families are eligible for the means-tested benefit cost of living payment and 17,300 individuals are eligible for the disability cost of living payment.
Bob Seely
I congratulate all the Ministers on their new roles and thank the Minister for that information. Regarding the cost of living, what reassurances can the ministerial team give me that pensioners on the Isle of Wright, and indeed throughout Britain, will be looked after this winter, considering that they are on fixed incomes?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is always a passionate advocate for people on the Isle of Wight, raising the issues and concerns that are relevant to them. We have a Prime Minister who has consistently demonstrated that he is on the side of vulnerable people and hard-working people across the country. That will continue to be the case. We have put in place a £37 billion package of support to help with these cost of living pressures, and of course we always keep the appropriateness of that under review.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Our dedicated work coaches engage with claimants to determine what additional support they may need to enter or progress in work. Where skills gaps are identified, claimants will be encouraged to access skills-related employment programmes such as sector-based work academies, skills boot camps or appropriate local training provision.
Simon Baynes
My constituent in Clwyd South, Kerry Mackay, recently wrote to me saying:
“There’s lots of talk about getting people back into work and those on low incomes finding a better job, but I think the government is missing a trick by not highlighting how much they will help people, single mothers and mature students like me, to get a decent education and ultimately pull themselves out of poverty for good.”
Will the Minister advertise as effectively as possible how universal credit can support people like Kerry to study for their degrees?
Guy Opperman
We want to support our constituents like Kerry, and I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I suggest that he writes to me with the specific details, but I can assure him and Kerry that recipients of UC can take part in training without compromising their benefit entitlement. Generally, there are great efforts being made to ensure that people who want to get into work can do so.
Anna Firth
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and the whole of his new Front-Bench team. I am sure that we can expect great things. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that apprenticeships and further education are a key way of upskilling our young people? Will he visit Southend West soon and meet some of our successful apprentices, such as Holly at Guardian Exhibition and Display in Eastwood, and Ipeco in Southend, which also offers fantastic apprenticeships?
Guy Opperman
All roads lead to Southend as far as I am concerned. My hon. Friend is proving to be a fantastic champion and successor of our good friend Sir David Amess. I would be delighted to visit. I welcome the great work of the companies she mentioned and believe very strongly that we need to improve skills through the package that we are taking forward.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
May I start by sending my condolences and thoughts to all those who were tragically killed in Seoul, South Korea, at the weekend? I am sure that we will all be thinking of them at this time.
Education, formal and informal, is vital to developing a highly skilled workforce. Adults with neurodivergences such as autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may require personalised support with their learning. What assessment has the Minister made of the efficacy of the support currently in place, and what steps are the Government taking to improve it?
Guy Opperman
Skills and education are a devolved matter. I echo the hon. Lady’s worthwhile words about South Korea. Obviously, great work is being done in youth hubs in particular, which I recommend to her.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
I begin by recognising the important work that the right hon. Gentleman carries out as Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee and thank him for the co-operation that he showed me when I was a fellow Chair of a Select Committee. I look forward to appearing before his Committee before too long.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, universal credit is but one factor in addressing food insecurity. The Government have provided significant support with the £37 billion cost of living package.
Sir Stephen Timms
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment and warmly welcome him. We already have a date in the diary for him to come before the Committee and we look forward to that.
Current large-scale food bank dependence is shameful. It was up by 46% in August and September on a year previously, according to the Trussell Trust, and it is reported in the press today that hospitals are seeing a big rise in malnutrition cases. The family resources survey also says that food insecurity among universal credit claimants fell from 43% to 27% after the £20 a week uplift was introduced. Does not all that show how crucial it is that the Prime Minister keeps the promise he made as Chancellor to uprate benefits next April by 10.1%?
Mel Stride
I am not going to pre-empt my decision on the uprating of benefits or indeed the triple lock. We will need to wait until at least 17 November when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will come to the House with his autumn statement and those details will be known at that point.
The right hon. Gentleman raises the family resources survey. One statistic that caught my eye was that the percentage of households with UC claimants who are in food security rose from 57% in 2019-20 to 73% in 2020-21. Any element of food insecurity is too much—I recognise that—which is why this Government and this Prime Minister are absolutely determined to use whatever we have at our disposal to work on those figures and to improve them. That includes the various interventions that we have already discussed during these questions.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We have already taken decisive action to make work pay by cutting the universal credit taper rate to 55% and increasing UC work allowances, which mean that on average low-income households have about an extra £1,000 a year. In addition to that, two cost of living payments, which total £650, are being paid to more than 8 million low-income households on UC, tax credits, pension credits and legacy benefits. There has also been extra help for pensioners and those on disability benefits. That totals more than £37 billion this year.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that if social security does not get uprated with inflation, it will be the
“largest permanent deliberate real-terms cut”
to the basic rate of social security by a British Government in history. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, that would push 200,000 children into poverty. Even the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights warns that it will mean that “lives will be lost”. What will the Minister do to stop that?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I note that he will be visiting his Dumbarton Jobcentre Plus shortly, which I am sure will help him to see the range of interventions in jobcentres, as well as the benefits calculator and the cost of living interventions on gov.uk. I remind him that the Scottish Government have a range of powers, including the ability to provide their own welfare benefits to people in Scotland using existing reserved benefits. The Scottish Government can see how they would like to use their powers and budget themselves.
Alison Thewliss
Happy Hallowe’en, Mr Speaker. Many of my constituents have found social security payments inadequate, because they have not kept pace with the cost of living. For William Thompson and Anne McCurley, however, it is even more frustrating because they narrowly miss out on pension credits and all the passported benefits—Anne misses out by only £3 a week. Will the Minister review the cut-off so that as many people as possible can access the support that they badly need this winter?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for the point, and I have mentioned two particular websites that I think are incredibly important for people to make sure they get every single bit of help they need. There is always a cut-off point, which is very challenging. I understand there is a huge amount of work going on in her own community to support people, including getting people into work and progressing them, and working with local employers. Of course, the pensions issue is something that the Secretary of State has just answered and will be further updated on 17 November.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the answers she has already given for those people meeting the costs of living on social security payments. A big concern many of my constituents have is about the cost of energy over the course of the winter, and the Government have a plan for the next six months to support people. Can my hon. Friend give my constituents reassurance that that plan, when it comes towards its end, will be under review to see what ongoing support could be offered, if required?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I worked with the Prime Minister on the plan for jobs, and he has been very clear that he wants to protect the most vulnerable, which is why we are providing families with direct payments worth at least £1,200 over the winter. We will all look with interest at what the Chancellor does on the 17th.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Too many disabled people have been disproportionately hit by the cost of living crisis, with extra costs of over £600 a year. Sadly, we have seen too many unable to cope with this. The Information Commissioner ruled that the DWP unlawfully prevented the release of over 20 reports into the deaths of benefit claimants. We must be able to scrutinise whether the actions taken by the DWP were sufficient or timely enough to prevent the harms identified from happening again. So will the new Secretary of State agree to publish these and all other secret reports—and a yes or no would actually suffice?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I understand the Opposition have an interest in such reports. However, my role at the DWP is about people—helping people up and down the land—and that is what we are doing for people with disabilities. With the extra costs part of the disability payment, about 6 million will be helped by the extra one-off payment of £150, ensuring that we all across the DWP are focused on the most vulnerable.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I welcome the new ministerial team to their place. I hope to meet the new Secretary of State in early course; it was quite difficult to secure a meeting with some of his predecessors, unfortunately. The new Prime Minister spoke of the difficult decisions that will have to be made, but the real difficult decisions are those being forced on our constituents—people on low incomes struggling to afford the basics, pay their bills, heat their homes or feed their children. Let us not forget the reality of the tragic human cost of over a decade of Tory austerity, which urgently needs to end. Does the Minister agree that uprating benefits in line with inflation is not a difficult decision, but is instead the only moral course of action?
Mims Davies
That is not a matter for me, but I would like to reiterate at the Dispatch Box that the Government fully understand the pressures we are all facing. We all have constituents facing these matters, and it is absolutely right that we take that decisive action to support people with their bills. Members are talking as if we are not supporting people, but there is £37 billion of help with the cost of living, including the £400 of non-repayable discounts to eligible households provided by the energy bills support scheme. In addition to the benefits calculator and the cost of living webpage on gov.uk, I would ask people please to reach out to their councils. Members are talking this afternoon as if there is no help, and it is important that our constituents know that that is far from the case.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
A wide range of support is available to those of state pension age and for those on low income who are entitled to pensioner benefits.
John McDonnell
Members across the House will have appreciated the sense of grievance and injustice from women born in the 1950s who were not given proper notice of the rise in the state pension age. The ombudsman has recognised this as maladministration, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), when he was the Prime Minister and leading the campaign in the 2019 general election, said he would address this matter. Since then, more of those women are now living in poverty and 200,000 of them have died, yet not a single Minister has met them since 2016. Is the Minister willing to meet a delegation from the WASPI campaign to talk about their plight and find a way forward?
Laura Trott
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and understand where he is coming from, but there is an ongoing investigation so it would be inappropriate for me to meet people at this stage.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister knows that in July 2021 the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found the DWP guilty of maladministration regarding state pension age increases. The PHSO also suggested that the Department could consider being proactive in remedying the injustice suffered by 3.8 million women, rather than waiting for its final conclusions. Given the ongoing cost of living crisis, does the Minister agree that now is the time for the Government to step up to the plate and agree fair and swift compensation for the women suffering that injustice?
Laura Trott
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but I must repeat that I cannot comment where there is an ongoing investigation.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
As of the latest public data of February 2022 there were 1.38 million pension credit claimants.
Rob Roberts
I welcome the new Minister to her place and hope she can continue the excellent work done by the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) in this area. Despite all that excellent work, however, take-up is still relatively low, and my constituency has 20% more over-65s than the UK average. Will the new Minister meet me to discuss how we might be able to make pension credit at least in part an automatic benefit so that struggling pensioners can get the money they are rightly entitled to?
Laura Trott
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point but it is difficult to enrol people automatically on pension credit given the data the Government hold. I am, however, keen to see how increased data sharing could be used to produce a larger number of claims.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
This winter more than 8 million pensioner households will receive an increased winter fuel payment; in addition, those eligible for pension credit will receive an extra £650. This Government will always support the most vulnerable.
Gerald Jones
Earlier this month I contacted approximately 6,000 people in my constituency who may have been eligible for pension credit, and about 200 people attended a local action day organised with my local citizens advice bureaux. Citizens Advice informs me that as of last week at least £200,000 has been accessed in take-up of pension credit and other benefits as a result of contacts on that day. So far the Department’s action has been limited and half-hearted; the Government should put their money where their mouth is and pay pensioners what they are entitled to. With the information and data the Government have at their disposal, what further action will they take to increase pension credit take-up?
Laura Trott
I applaud the hon. Gentleman for the work he is doing in his constituency. This is an incredibly important matter; seven out of 10 people who are entitled to pension credit claim it and we want to drive that rate up. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) has done a huge amount of work on this and I intend to continue that in the Department.
Mr Dhesi
Irresponsible Conservative policies have meant pension funds needed three emergency bail-outs to the tune of billions of pounds, while the spiralling prices of energy, food and other essential items have meant millions of people will be facing a very difficult winter. Statistics from earlier this year, before the cost of living crisis worsened even further, showed that 20%, or well over 2 million, pensioners already lived in poverty, a dramatic increase from a decade ago. Why should pensioners trust this Government to help them through this mess when the reckless behaviour of Conservative Ministers has worsened their plight?
Laura Trott
I point the hon. Gentleman to our record: absolute pensioner poverty has gone down; real incomes have gone up. This Government are on the side of pensioners.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and I welcome the work that the Government are doing to support pensioners, particularly on winter fuel costs in difficult times. However, many of my pensioners in Aldridge-Brownhills are anxious about the continuous rise in the cost of living. When can we have some clarity regarding the triple lock?
Laura Trott
I completely understand my right hon. Friend’s question. However, that is a matter for the autumn statement, and I would not want to pre-empt that.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I welcome the new Minister to her place. The last few weeks have been difficult and, at times, chaotic. The Government have crashed the economy and there has been a revolving door in Downing Street and Government Departments. After all that confusion, will the Minister take the opportunity to reassure the House that the Government are truly committed to the triple lock? Will she apologise to pensioners for the stress and uncertainty that the Government have caused through their repeated attempts to wriggle out of their manifesto commitment?
Laura Trott
I do understand the uncertainty, but we must wait for 17 November. However, the average state pension is £185 a week, which is about double what it was in 2010 when we took over.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
I am currently conducting my statutory annual review of state pensions and benefit rates. The outcome of that review will be announced in due course.
Kenny MacAskill
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Trussell Trust is reporting that 40% of universal credit claimants are skipping meals due to budgetary constraints. Does he accept that with the full energy crisis costs yet impacting them and, indeed, with winter still to arrive, it would be perverse if bankers’ bonuses were to be uncapped while pension benefits were not to increase at least in line with inflation?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the various answers given from the Dispatch Box about the support that the Government are giving, particularly to those who are most vulnerable, across winter. In respect of food and food banks, that is pertinent. However, I am afraid that he will receive the same answer about when the House will come to know of the uprating that may be applied to pensions and benefits more generally, and the pensions triple lock. That is a decision for me as Secretary of State, of course in conjunction with discussions with the Treasury, and those figures will be available at the time of the autumn statement on 17 November.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment that compassion will be at the heart of Government. It is so important that we support the most vulnerable in society. With that in mind, does my right hon. Friend agree that we can show that compassion and support by uprating benefits in line with inflation?
Mel Stride
I am afraid that, unfortunately, I need to refer my hon. Friend to my previous reply.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
In April 2020, the local housing allowance rate in Epsom and Ewell increased to the 30th percentile of local market rents. The Government further boosted LHA rates by £1 billion.
Chris Grayling
I congratulate the new ministerial team on their appointment. The challenge in a constituency such as mine in the south-east and inside the M25 is that, even when the Government are spending a substantial amount of money on housing support, the local housing allowance simply does not enable people to get into private rented accommodation. Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues look again at how local housing allowance is structured and allocated across the country to try to ensure that it works everywhere?
Guy Opperman
My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on this issue. He will be aware, though, that it cannot be looked at in isolation and that we must look at the additional support available such as discretionary housing payments through the local authority—they are worth up to £1.5 billion overall across all local authorities—as well as the cost of living support package of £37 billion-plus and the household support fund, which again is administered by local authorities.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Unemployment is at 3.5%. That is the lowest in nearly 50 years. We have recruited an extra 13,000-plus job coaches and are taking specific action to ensure that we are rolling out our new in-work progression offer.
Jane Hunt
Loughborough jobcentre is doing a great job in supporting new and fledging business owners to become gainfully self-employed. What steps is the Department for Work and Pensions taking across the country to help support small business owners and to support the growth and development of the self-employed across the UK?
Guy Opperman
I thank the staff at Loughborough jobcentre. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: they are doing an outstanding job and I know they usually hold a very successful jobs fair. On the self-employed nationwide, universal credit gives them a 12-month start-up period to grow their earnings to a sustainable level. We believe that is the way forward.
Mr Robertson
To try to help fill the very many vacancies that exist in a number of industries, will the Minister have discussions with fellow Ministers in the Treasury to see if more changes to the tax system can be brought in to really make sure that work does pay?
Guy Opperman
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. It is absolutely the case that we are working on that. I highlight in particular the taper rate, which was reduced from 63% to 55%, but also the additional work we are putting into job coaches, the sector-based work academy and the increased work allowance, which makes sure that individuals get an extra £1,000.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
One of the things preventing people from getting back into work is waiting for operations, thanks to the massive NHS backlog. One thing making that even worse is that lots of doctors are retiring early because they are worried about the pension cap issue. When will the Government rectify that issue, so that more doctors can stay in the profession, more people can get their operations quickly and more people can get back into work?
Guy Opperman
I appreciate that this is a genuine issue. The Treasury is looking specifically at the high earners pension situation. I am sure the Treasury will get back on that very shortly.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
I am honoured to have been appointed as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I can inform the House that I have two early key missions: to focus on those who are economically inactive, as I have been suggesting already at the Dispatch Box; and to pursue with vigour the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to us being a compassionate, caring Department supporting the most vulnerable, which, at the end of the day, is a hallmark of a civilised society.
Luke Pollard
I welcome the Secretary of State, a fellow Devon MP, to his position. Will he agree to meet me and Barnardo’s to discuss the concerns of care leavers from Devon, whom I recently hosted in Westminster, who without a rent guarantor cannot afford a deposit on a rental property of their own. Will he consider a pilot to help those young people get a better start in life?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend—I will call him an hon. Friend, certainly—and colleague from Devon for his question. I know of the excellent work he has been carrying out with Barnardo’s in that area. I would be delighted to meet him and Barnardo’s, and whoever else he feels appropriate, to discuss those issues.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I would, of course, be delighted to go to Rugby and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend is holding an over-50s fair. He will be aware that the Department is rolling out 50 PLUS: Choices and the mid-life MOT to ensure that those matters are addressed.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his post. I also welcome the new Ministers and welcome back returning Ministers. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State saying that he wants a compassionate approach, so may I press him further on the point that numerous Members have put to him? He will know that not sticking to the triple lock for pensioners will mean a real-terms cut in their pension of hundreds of pounds. He will know that not inflation-proofing universal credit will mean an average household will lose £450 and that a household with a disabled person in it will lose over £550. Why does he no longer agree with himself when he said, on 4 October, that this is
“one of those areas where the Government is going to have to think again”?
Mel Stride
I reassure the House that I always agree with myself. That is not the same thing as saying that I am always right, incidentally, but at least I am always consistent in that respect. We will have to wait—sorry, I should say that it is a pleasure to serve opposite the right hon. Gentleman and that I look forward to many months of constructive engagement with him.
It is very important that we do not overlook the huge amount that the Government are doing to target assistance at the most vulnerable. In the cost of living support package alone, there is £650 for 8 million of the most vulnerable households, £300 for pensioners on pension credit and £150 for those who have disabilities. That is very important.
Jonathan Ashworth
The Prime Minister tells us that we do not need a general election because the 2019 manifesto gives him and the Conservative party a mandate. Given that that manifesto committed to the triple lock, why can he not give pensioners the reassurance that they deserve? Let me ask him about a second point: can he give a categorical assurance that, in the autumn statement, he will rule out means-testing personal independence payments, carer’s allowance, attendance allowance and disability living allowance for children?
Mel Stride
The right hon. Gentleman is inviting me, in a whole host of areas, to break with what has been a very long-standing and quite correct convention that Ministers simply do not provide a running commentary about what may or may not be in a major fiscal event. However, he has my personal assurance that when and as it is appropriate to pass him information of that kind, he will be the first to know.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Tom Pursglove)
I strongly agree. Programmes such as the Access to Work scheme have supported the Government in meeting five years early their commitment to see a million more disabled people in work in the decade to 2027. We want to create more of those opportunities—in which spirit, I commend Florence for her determination. As a Government, we are determined to help her to succeed.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
I am happy to meet the hon. Lady. I point out, however, that the state pension system corrects some of the historical inequalities of the previous system, producing considerably higher outcomes for women.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Guy Opperman
I echo and support what my hon. Friend says, and he is right to laud what Becky and her team are doing. He will be aware that over the past few years, Citizens Advice in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has done fantastic work and plays a hugely valuable role in rolling out the Help to Claim scheme across the United Kingdom.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber during questions for long enough to know that I cannot comment on the uprating or otherwise of benefits. However, he should take into account the numerous positive tax changes that there have been over the years for the hard-working constituents he refers to—not least the very significant increase in the personal allowance since 2010 and the change to the taper under universal credit, which makes a difference to many millions of people up and down the land.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
My constituent suffered months of worry and stress because his employer failed to pay any pension contributions into his workplace scheme. Raising it with his boss made him fear for his job. The regulator gives no feedback on investigations, so will the Secretary of State consider whether the current £400 statutory penalty notice and regulatory powers are sufficient to ensure that employers fulfil their pension contributions duties?
Laura Trott
The independent Pensions Regulator has robust powers in place to investigate compliance and issue fines; I urge my hon. Friend’s constituent to report his concerns to it in confidence. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Harry, my 11-year-old constituent, has cerebral palsy. He was previously awarded the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance, until it was downgraded. It took nearly two months for a mandatory reconsideration to uphold the decision, which his family are now appealing. There is currently no tribunal date, which means that the family face a prolonged period of uncertainty and anxiety. Will the Minister look at the detail of Harry’s case with a view to expediting a date for the tribunal?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he has approached the issue. I will be very happy to contact him if he shares the details of the case with me. What I can say, which I hope will give some reassurance, is that 400 extra people are dedicated to mandatory reconsideration work and waiting times are dropping. We need to sustain that performance as well as getting things right the first time.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I have no doubt that this fine ministerial team will be pleased to know that my recent jobs fair perfectly complemented the employment and skills pathfinder programme. Will a Minister come to Willenhall jobcentre to meet its excellent policy and partnership staff and discuss what more we can do together to help people to progress in employment?
Guy Opperman
I am fantastically pleased to hear about my hon. Friend’s jobs fair. He is a doughty champion for Walsall. Either I or our much more illustrious Secretary of State would be delighted to come to Walsall and see the great work being done there.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Saturday was World Stroke Day. I simply ask if this Government will uprate benefits in line with inflation, which would particularly help the growing population who are living with a disability. I know that I will not get an answer or a commitment today, but I ask them to consider it for the autumn statement.
Tom Pursglove
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for making that argument. As my colleagues and I have said consistently at the Dispatch Box, we will not provide a running commentary ahead of the autumn statement on 17 November, in which the Chancellor will set out the situation in the normal way.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
A few weeks ago, at Paul’s Sports and Social Club, I met my constituent Nigel Seaman, who is a veteran, to discuss his work with Combat2Coffee to get veterans who may be homeless or struggling with the transition to civilian life into work and employment. Will the Minister meet me and Nigel to discuss what more can be done to support excellent veterans’ charities such as Combat2Coffee with helping veterans into work?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I am very pleased that I am wearing my Help for Heroes band today. I am delighted to hear about the work of the charity that my hon. Friend mentions. We are working with our champions in jobcentres to get people who have been service leaders into work, and we have work coaches who are dedicated to that. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to find out more about the charity and tell him more about what we do in jobcentres.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It appears that the Government’s plan to clear up the economic disaster that they created is to implement austerity 2.0. Nearly 1.5 million people, including many of my constituents, have now been pushed into poverty as a result of their policies: the cuts to the social security net, the benefit cap and the cuts to support for disabled people, as well as the cruel and inhumane conditionality and sanctions regime. What discussions is the new Secretary of State having with the Chancellor to ensure that those in low-income households will not have to face any further cuts to social security to help to clear up this mess created by his Government?
Mims Davies
The benefit cap is important because it restores fairness to the balance between those on working-age benefits and taxpayers in employment. Along with changes in the taper rate, this means that moving people into work wherever possible is the best way out of poverty.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Last year an estimated 1 million people of working age were receiving carer’s allowance. A constituent of mine, after three and a half years of caring for his father full time—his father passed away recently—is now unable to access jobseeker’s allowance because he is not considered to have been employed. What is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State doing to rectify the position?
Guy Opperman
If my hon. Friend writes to me giving the specific details, I will ensure that the ministerial team and the civil servants involved look into it as a matter of urgency.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Does the new Secretary of State—whom I welcome to his place—still agree with his statement that cutting maternity rights will be good for business?
Mel Stride
Given that I never made that statement, I do not agree with it, no.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I will not be called next time, will I?
The Government have done a great deal to help people with their cost of living challenges, but elderly residents in my constituency are troubled by reports in the newspapers suggesting that we may not meet our manifesto commitment to retain the pensions triple lock. Pensioners face a triple whammy of dwindling savings value due to low interest rates, rising costs due to inflation and, owing to their age, an inability to go out and earn any more. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that we will increase pensions in line with inflation?
Mel Stride
I admire my hon. Friend’s persistence on this matter, but I am afraid I must give her the same response that I have given on numerous occasions this afternoon, namely, that we will have to wait until at least 17 November for an answer. I understand the particular pressure that pensioners are under because they are often unable to change their economic circumstances, as others within the labour force can; but we will have to wait.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
A number of my constituents who work for the DWP have told me that they are not being given the enhanced holiday pay that they were promised in return for working overtime consistently. In response to my inquiry, the DWP has told me that current legislation provides no definition of regularity. Will the Minister please address this issue?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter; I shall be happy to look into it if he writes to me with the details.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I have written to the DWP twice about the relocation of back-office staff from Crossgate House in Doncaster city centre to Sheffield, but have received only negative replies. This is not what the staff want and, with many council offices empty owing to the new model of hybrid working, Doncaster is losing much-needed footfall. Will the Minister meet me so that we can establish whether the decision can be reversed?
Mims Davies
This is an issue that I was already looking into. I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concern, and I shall be happy to meet him and be given an update on the situation.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Along with many other Members who are present today, I have received a number of emails from concerned pensioners, including one who wrote that if the triple lock is not maintained:
“myself and many others will have to pare our spending even more. Occasional meet-ups with friends will be the next to go and then more and more people will become isolated and depressed.”
Does the Secretary of State agree that maintaining the triple lock will improve the health and wellbeing of our pensioners as we go into the winter?
Laura Trott
I completely understand those concerns, but that is why we have provided a package of support—now—which is worth more than £850 for everyone receiving a state pension and £1,500 for those receiving pension credit.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Last week we celebrated the 10th anniversary of automatic pension enrolment. This is, genuinely, an amazing cross-party policy achievement which has transformed the saving culture across our country. As we look back on that success, will the Ministers consider expanding the system to 18-to-22-year-olds?
Guy Opperman
In my former life I was very much looking at that specific policy and I am quite sure that the Government will address it shortly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning I attended the York cost of living summit and heard about the impact that food poverty, heating poverty and housing poverty are having on my constituents. One issue is the rate at which the benefits cap is set. By 2027, it will not have been reviewed for 11 years, so will the Secretary of State make representations to the Chancellor to ensure that it is reviewed before 17 November?
Mel Stride
I am in the process of reviewing just that matter and many of the others that we have discussed, so we will have to wait, but it is one of the matters that is under review.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
We look forward to the Secretary of State appearing before the Work and Pensions Committee. Can he give us an assurance before he does so that the Department will publish the systematic evidence-based review of food bank use that it promised to publish and place in the Commons Library two years ago, so that we can debate the policy issues required to eliminate hunger across these islands?
Mel Stride
I look forward to appearing before the hon. Gentleman and his fellow members of the Committee. He raises a specific point, and I will look into it and come back to him.
Royal Navy: Conduct towards Women
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on conduct towards women in the Royal Navy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his timely question. Before I get going, I would like to declare my interest as entered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a serving reservist and, more particularly for this particular urgent question, I have two daughters who are currently serving in the armed forces.
I was concerned by the recent reports in the media that have prompted this UQ, little knowing that I would be answering it this afternoon. Allegations of bullying, harassment and sexual assault in the Submarine Service are and will be taken extremely seriously. Any activity that falls short of the highest standards in the Royal Navy is totally unacceptable and not a true reflection of what life should be. Sexual assault and harassment have no place in the Royal Navy and will not be tolerated.
The First Sea Lord has directed a formal investigation into these allegations, and this commenced on 24 October. This independent investigating team, led by a senior female officer, will thoroughly examine the allegations and report back very soon. It is understood that the named individual has agreed to meet the investigation team to provide her account. While this investigation will review specific allegations, Defence will also review the culture of the submarine community and report to Ministers in due course. The House will understand that it would be premature to offer any further comment or debate until those investigations are complete. However, anyone who is found culpable will be held accountable for their actions regardless of their rank or status.
While some of the incidents referred to in the media are historical, it is important to note the large-scale policy changes that were introduced across Defence in the past year. As a result, Defence will deal with incidents and allegations of sexual abuse better. The new policies will ensure zero tolerance of unacceptable sexual behaviour or of sexual exploitation and abuse within Defence. All allegations of sexual offences will be responded to, victims will be given greater support and there will be a presumption of discharge for anyone found to be engaging in this kind of behaviour.
These policies will ensure that Defence will deal with these types of incidents differently. They will build trust and confidence in Defence’s ability to deal with unacceptable behaviour and demonstrate that supporting people who are victims of unacceptable sexual behaviour is a top priority. The House should be reassured that the Royal Navy has taken and is continuing to take decisive action to address the allegations that have been brought to light and will report to Ministers when the investigations are complete, at which point I feel sure that there will be a further opportunity to explore the detail.
Mr Ellwood
Britain can be immensely proud of its Royal Navy, which over the centuries has helped to define who we are as a nation. Today it is globally recognised as arguably the best-trained, best-motivated and best-disciplined maritime force in the world. It is therefore deeply concerning to see more reports emerging of inappropriate behaviour against women, this time on the very submarines that provide our nuclear deterrent.
I welcome the statement and the First Sea Lord’s promise of another investigation. Only three years ago, the Ministry of Defence was obliged to commission its own study, the Wigston review, which admitted
“an unacceptable level of…behaviour and a sub-optimal system for dealing with it”.
The Defence Committee carried out a study last year, and over 4,000 female personnel replied to our survey run by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton). Sixty-four per cent. of respondents said they had endured bullying, harassment, intimidation, discrimination or sexual abuse, and few had any faith in the mechanism through which these concerns could be addressed.
My Committee made two clear recommendations: first, the establishment of a central defence authority to provide a reporting system outside the chain of command and, secondly, the removal of the chain of command entirely from complaints of a sexual nature. Will the MOD now implement these recommendations and encourage others, both serving and retired, to share their concerns on safety?
Women have proudly served in our armed forces for over a century, and all roles are now open to women. To be fair, the majority leave with a positive view of their time in uniform. This is about a few personnel who bring the Submarine Service into disrepute. It is about a systemic failure of the chain of command, and the MOD must now accept its role and prioritise putting this right.
Dr Murrison
I thank my right hon. Friend again. He is correct to put matters in these terms. He has been robust and forthright, which I respect.
My right hon. Friend will know that the great majority of women serving in our armed forces today respond positively when asked about their experiences and say they would recommend the services to others. He will also be aware of the work done this year in response to his Committee’s report. I would like to say I have read it from cover to cover, but I have been in post for only a few hours, so he will forgive me for not doing so. I get the gist of it, and I will study it extremely carefully.
My right hon. Friend will know that the MOD has already accepted the great majority of the report. He and I have been around a long time, and I cannot think of a Select Committee report in recent times that has had so many of its recommendations accepted and carried out. He will be familiar with “Tackling Sexual Offending in Defence” and the two pieces of work on a zero-tolerance approach that have been published this year.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and their Committee. The great majority of the recommendations are being carried out or will be carried out.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Minister to his position. Those who serve in our armed forces should expect the highest standards of professionalism and personal conduct, which must be supported and reinforced by the Government. As the son of a Royal Navy submariner, I know that the Submarine Service is on the frontline of our national defence. Every submariner must be confident that the people they serve alongside in the Royal Navy have their back. These claims of abuse are extremely serious and must be thoroughly investigated, and those responsible must be held accountable.
These reports lift the lid on a culture of abuse and cover-up in our armed forces. In far too many cases, victims are unable to raise their experiences within the chain of command. Women account for 11% of our forces personnel but, between 2019 and last year, 81% of victims of sexual assault in the military were women, and almost half of them were at the start of their military career. Behind these statistics are hundreds of women who have been let down. This cannot be allowed to continue. Victims of sexual abuse serving in our armed forces must have confidence in the processes that allow them to report their experiences, and they must know that robust action will be taken.
I suggest that the Minister reads the Defence Committee’s report before coming back to the House to tell us how he will implement all of it. Will he make the investigation he has just announced a public investigation so we can see what action is needed? Can he explain why the Government continue to resist Labour’s proposal that the most serious cases, including murder, manslaughter and rape, should be tried in civilian courts instead of military courts? What progress has been made on the RAF’s review of allegations of sexual assault, which was announced in August? Will those findings be made public?
Our armed forces are the very best in the world, and they deserve the very best, too. The Government must step up and protect those who protect us.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points. I agree with him about external scrutiny. That is why the investigation that has been set up, which will report soon, to which I referred, will include an individual from outside Defence, who is currently being selected for his or her independence, probity and integrity, who will be alongside that investigation. I do not know where this is going to go. I suspect it is going to be complicated and may take a while. I want it to report quickly, but I do not want to put a time limit on it necessarily.
However, it is going to report “soon”—that wonderful, plastic term. It will have within it an independent individual —the hon. Gentleman will understand that that is a divergence from the norm—because I am absolutely clear that there needs to be oversight of this that is outside the process. He will know full well that these investigations are conducted properly always—I have been involved with a number myself—but there has to be the appearance also of their being transparent. I hope that that will give him some reassurance.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the Henriques report, most of which of course was accepted. He may also be aware of the joint protocol that will be drawn up for the very serious offences that he cites between the civilian and the service prosecuting authorities. I hope that that goes some way to addressing that outstanding concern that I know he has.
A parallel strand of work is being set up by the commander of the submarine flotilla to look into conduct and culture. That will be headed by Colonel Tony de Reya from the Royal Marines. That will report, I hope, by the end of the year. It is separate from the investigation on the specific that I have cited in my opening remarks, but, obviously, it will touch on much of the same material. I look forward to returning to the House to discuss that once Ministers have had a chance to examine its findings and conclusions.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It must not come down to one brave woman being prepared to speak out; there have to be processes in place where every woman and man serving in our armed forces has the confidence to come forward. I say gently to my right hon. Friend that we cannot simply be looking at the culture in the submarine community. This happens across our armed forces and we need to have processes that are swift and give redress to those victims, so that they come forward with confidence. I have a constituent who is not at the start of her military career—she is a lieutenant colonel—who waited 10 years before the Ministry of Defence took her complaint seriously. We have to have faster justice for the women who have been victims of this sort of culture.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. This is my 42nd year in Defence as a regular and reservist, and over that time things have changed dramatically—I am happy to say that is the case—particularly in the past few years. I accept all of her comments. There is no room for complacency. With two daughters in the armed forces, I am certainly not complacent. However, I have to refer to some of the objective data that we have, some of which is to do with the sexual harassment surveys that each of the three services conduct and that show a positive trend. We can argue as to whether that is fast enough, and certainly it should not be the antidote to complacency. Nevertheless, it is positive in terms of the experience of people feeling supported and feeling that their complaints will be dealt with outside the chain of command, where appropriate, with action taken. That is very positive, but she is right to say that there is no room for any complacency and a single complaint is one too many.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we are all agreed that the reports that emerged over the weekend are truly shocking, and I pay tribute to the women who have spoken out about the abuse they suffered, including Sophie Brook, the former Royal Navy lieutenant, who described her abuse as being “constant”. She said that it came from the top down, confirming what Emma Norton, from the Centre for Military Justice, said about there being a culture of
“Nasty, pernicious, endemic, sexual harassment”,
within which people acted with impunity. That must change.
Therefore, I am sceptical about the First Sea Lord’s announcement of yet another internal investigation. It is simply not good enough. As the MP for Argyll and Bute, which takes in the naval base at Faslane, I understand that this episode casts a shadow over the entire service. I am sure that there are thousands of hard-working, thoroughly decent Royal Navy personnel who will demand that those responsible, irrespective of their rank or status, are rooted out and disciplined. They will want a thorough independent investigation, one that can report without fear or favour. So does the Minister agree that that can be achieved only by a fully transparent, truly independent investigation of these facts?
Dr Murrison
It would be nice to have the facts first. That is the point of the investigation that was launched on 24 October, which—let us be clear—was before the publication of the lurid accounts that appeared in the media. I think that gives a signal of intent that Defence is looking at these matters very seriously, as does the inclusion of a non-Defence person in the investigation, which is important. The hon. Member will note the number of senior officers who have been dealt with severely because of transgression in this particular area. That is also an indication of how seriously Defence takes such matters. He is right to push me on this, but I point him to the series of three major reports by Defence during the course of the year that outline what Defence will now do to ensure that the environment is as good as possible for those who have had cause to make serious allegations in the recent past.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The allegations that we have heard are clearly horrifying, and I know that the investigation will have to take its course, but it is equally disturbing that there does not appear to have been a safe, independent route of complaint for the people involved. Whatever the outcome, will the Minister confirm that that at least will be put right?
Dr Murrison
The excellent report by our right hon. Friend’s Select Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham in particular, makes some recommendations along those lines, and much of that has been accepted, so the general trajectory of the environment—in particular for women who have found that Defence has in the past not provided the background against which they would want to conduct their careers and lives—will be improved. It is worth underscoring—our right hon. Friend made this point—that the great majority of women serving in our armed forces today have a positive experience that they would recommend to others.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a trustee of the Agnes Wanjiru trust. Agnes Wanjiru was a prostituted woman in Kenya who was murdered on the site where there were military personnel; I will say no more about the case, except that it has not been pushed forward.
The Minister has referred to a number of documents that have been produced since other cases have come to light. There have been a number of documents of progress. One document to which he referred is on sexual exploitation policy, which now disallows Defence forces having sex with sexually exploited people abroad. However, the document specifically says:
“While the policy is not intended to apply in the UK”.
Does the Minister think it is okay that the Department has written into a document that it is fine for British military personnel to sexually exploit people in the UK?
Dr Murrison
Sexual exploitation is unacceptable in the UK and abroad under any circumstances.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister to his place.
The incident we are discussing is horrifying, but the statistics in the Defence Committee report—that over half of women in the armed forces have experienced bullying and harassment in the workplace—are also totally unacceptable. There are simply no excuses for such behaviour. We have had women in the armed forces for many years, but only recently in very senior roles. How many excellent women heading for senior roles does the Minister think have left the armed forces because of the culture of bullying and harassment?
Dr Murrison
Bullying and harassment of women is particularly appalling, but we have to understand and be honest with ourselves that it has historically been a feature of service life more generally. I suspect the behaviour that my hon. Friend has just described has been a feature of the retention issue for many years. It is wasteful, it is wrong, and it has to stop. We hope that 30% of our service personnel will be women by 2030, so the issue is quite a big deal in terms of the whole force. Although we are dealing with the issue in relation specifically to women in the armed forces today, it is applicable right across Defence. It is wrong for the organisation, and it is wrong for the individuals and their families.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Minister, this has to stop. As the Chair of the Defence Committee said, we have had the Wigston report and the report from the House of Commons Select Committee, ably chaired by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton). May I say that her sacking does not fill me with a great deal of confidence that these things are going to be taken seriously? What evidence does the Ministry of Defence need for change? Without an independent process, either in investigations or prosecutions, which the MOD resisted fiercely in the Armed Forces Bill, things will not change, Minister.
Dr Murrison
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to put me on the spot on this. I would, however, cite some of the evidence. I mentioned earlier the sexual harassment survey, which is an important survey. It is conducted rigorously, it has been conducted longer for the Army than for the other two forces, but its conclusions are fairly clear: while there are no grounds for complacency at all in this, things are improving. As to what is being done, tackling sexual offending in Defence was the biggest part of the response to the report, to which we referred earlier. The great majority of its recommendations have been accepted and they are being rolled out at pace. The survey was published only in summer 2021 and already in summer this year we have had this major contribution that accepts most of the report and says how it is being rolled out.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on rejoining the Defence ministerial team. With his experience of professional service in the Royal Navy, he will be aware of the vital role of commanding officers of naval units in terms of discipline. I am surprised therefore that not more is being made of the fact that commanding officers ought perhaps to have it brought to their attention that their own careers will not progress well if they allow not only incidents, but a culture of sexual exploitation, insult or abuse in their units. What does he have to say about that?
Dr Murrison
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for his question. He will know that a significant number of very senior officers’ careers have been brought to an end in these matters. That is an indication of how Defence views commanding officers who fail to grip this. I also point out that, in the event that the commanding officers fail in the eyes of the ombudsman, their annual appraisal will be annotated accordingly, which has very severe implications for their hopes of future preferment. In those ways, we can inculcate into the senior cadre that this is their responsibility and they need to grip it. He will also know that we have taken some of this outside the chain of command completely, so that people can have confidence that they can report allegations and have them dealt with appropriately and seriously without the fear of retribution. There is, if you like, a double lock there, which gives me great hope for the future.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to his place. These reports are despicable. We repeatedly hear about situations such as this happening within our armed forces. Research shows that female recruits under the age of 18 face substantially elevated risk of sexual violence. Last year, more than one in 10 girls serving in the armed forces aged under 18 were victims of a sexual offence, according to records of military police investigations. I know from my own time serving with soldiers and with young recruits how pervasive this behaviour can be. Will the Minister commit to taking a meaningful step by shifting responsibility for serious charges, including rape and sexual assault, from military courts to the civilian justice system, so that we can better protect young service personnel?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman knows from his own background the importance of these matters, and I welcome the expertise he is able to bring to the House. People who are in positions of responsibility must not abuse those who are potentially subject to their predations. The teaching profession has implemented changes in recent years to the relationship between teachers and children, and Defence is taking note of that. He refers to recruits under the age of 18, who are minors and are in a similar position, so he can be assured that we are closely considering how we can emulate the situation that now pertains to civilian education, so that it properly applies in a defence setting. He also touched on the Henriques report: the bulk of those recommendations were carried out, although I suspect we could have a debate about the three most serious offences, but Defence’s position remains that they should be a matter for the service justice system.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Minister to his place. As the Chair of the recent Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, a regular officer for 26 years and now a senior veteran, I can tell the House with some authority that our armed forces are full of brilliant people at all ranks and levels. In the interest of balance, and noting how far the MOD has come in recent decades in dealing with such sordid behaviour, I urge the Minister to maintain a sense of pragmatism and proportionality. Rather than saying that the forces have an endemic problem, I think this is indicative of individual poor behaviour and the inquiry must look accordingly.
Dr Murrison
I think I touched on that subject when I referred to the Select Committee’s report and the positive comments it made about the experience of most women in our armed forces. We must not put people off joining our armed forces unduly, but equally we must take these allegations very seriously.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for her report; when I was on the armed forces parliamentary scheme last year, many in senior positions referred to that report, and it should not be cast aside. We in the Labour party have long argued that the more serious cases, including sexual assault and rape, should be tried in civilian courts rather than through the military justice services. I was also on the Bill Committee for the Armed Forces Bill, so I ask the Minister to explain why the Government continue to resist that move? Sexual assault cases need to be in civilian courts.
Dr Murrison
Henriques dealt with the three most serious offences, although he could have chosen other offences as well. The judgment has been made that the status quo is probably appropriate, but with the design of a joint protocol between civilian and service to ensure that practice is the same. I hope the hon. Lady will accept that.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. I want to raise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton). Her review mattered because, for the first time, women in the armed forces were no longer gagged. They believed that that meant they would be listened to and that change would come. My concern is that the sexual violence policy that the MOD has just introduced has a five-year vision. Five years is too long. Surely my right hon. Friend the Minister can agree that no military commander would accept a five-year deadline to deliver any effect within the MOD, so why are we accepting it for sexual policies?
Dr Murrison
I would not say that we are not doing anything to deal with the situation—I have outlined a number of ways that we are doing exactly that, and referred to the sexual harassment survey, with respect to my hon. Friend, which gives some evidential basis to say that matters are improving. That is not to say that we are in any way complacent, and I want to see changes rolled out as soon as possible, but I think she should give credit to Defence for working hard on this matter and taking it seriously at the highest level.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I have spoken to Dr Shonagh Dillon, the founder and chief executive of the charity Aurora New Dawn, which works with women survivors of abuse in the military. She is very clear what is required to give women sufficient courage to remain within the services in the face of what, according to the evidence, appears to be a culture of such difficulties. She says that what is needed are fully independent investigations into such allegations. When will the Ministry of Defence look into having fully independent investigations, given the advice of the Wigston review and subsequent recommendations to that effect?
Dr Murrison
I hope it reassures the hon. and learned Lady to learn that in my few hours in post, I have made sure that the investigation to which I referred has significant independent involvement. That is not a given in Defence—it is something of a departure—but it is important that someone completely independent of Defence be heavily involved, both for transparency, and so that people ultimately accept what the investigation comes up with. That may give her an indication of how I view these matters.
The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right about victims. She will be aware, I hope, of the victim and witness care unit, which is about to be set up in the defence serious crime unit. That will give added support to the victims of these horrendous offences.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has suggested that the future of the Royal Navy may well be in subsea vessels, but we cannot expect to staff a fleet, or to recruit, when reports of misogyny and absolutely terrible abuse hang over the submarine service, so will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government’s view that this behaviour is completely unacceptable? Will he work towards ensuring that people can have faith in the system of training, reporting and redress, so that we make sure that the incidents reported in the press are the last of their type?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is right. The case in question relates to the submarine flotilla, but I think that the lessons will be more generally applicable. I agree entirely that this kind of behaviour has no place in our Royal Navy, or in defence more generally.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The north-east is proud to send so many young men and women into the armed forces—more than any other region. As a consequence, we have many veterans living in our region. A 2019 report from the north-east charity Forward Assist, “No Man’s Land”, highlighted the experience of women veterans, and in particular the unacceptable sexual harassment that they had to deal with. It also highlighted the lack of mental health support for them when they left the armed services, and particularly the lack of online support for those feeling isolated. What will the Minister do to ensure that women veterans have the mental health support that they need and deserve after their service?
Dr Murrison
I hesitate ever so slightly because I have been professionally involved in this area. A set of rules that take my name apply; they govern how servicemen and women who leave the armed forces for medical reasons are managed in civilian life, and help them to transition. The great majority of veterans transition to civilian life very well. The hon. Lady will be aware of that. In fact, there is good evidence to suggest that they do better than the civilian cohort. However, it is important that we continue to support their mental health. Over the past five years, matters have improved dramatically, not least as regards career transition and veterans’ ability to continue to access support through the services.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I was angry over the weekend, not just because of this dreadful case of sexual harassment and bullying in the Navy, and not just because I have three daughters and five grand-daughters, and another due on Thursday, but because it is the inalienable right of women to be free from this sort of treatment, yet everywhere I have worked, it is still there—in the manufacturing sector; in the universities, where I spent 13 years; here in the House; and in Whitehall. This behaviour is still everywhere, and we have to do something about it fast.
Dr Murrison
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; there is no question about that. I speak specifically about defence, of course, but what he says goes for society more generally, too.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
What will Ministers do to ensure that no female officer brave enough to come forward and report abuse will experience professional discrimination, such as having promotion opportunities withheld from them?
Dr Murrison
I hope that I explained in my previous remarks the importance that Defence assigns to this, particularly when it comes to senior officers who may be complicit in some of the behaviour that we are discussing. This is very important: if someone’s career is on the line, it does affect their thinking fairly dramatically. I would also commend to the hon. Member the victim and witness care unit that will be established by December for the most serious offences, which will give people much-needed support that was previously lacking.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister back to his post. Will he join me in noting the amazing achievement of Private Carter, who just last week became the first woman soldier to pass the all-arms pre-parachute selection course, P Company? It is a timely reminder of the outstanding contribution that women make to our armed forces. Does the Minister agree with me that every woman who steps forward to serve, whether in the Royal Navy or whichever bit of defence it might be, deserves nothing less than complete and total respect at all times?
Dr Murrison
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is no mean feat even these days to join the armed forces as a woman. The challenges remain enormous, although I hope they are becoming less. I am particularly proud of my two daughters who are serving in the armed forces. Respect to them and strength to their arm.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is highly disturbing to hear of a woman in the armed forces being sexually assaulted and violently abused. Last year the Defence Committee’s report “Women in the Armed Forces” uncovered shocking levels of abuse and identified bullying, harassment, intimidation and discrimination in the armed forces. This stops women fulfilling their potential, and in many instances the abusers are promoted and rise through the ranks. This is unacceptable. Women in the armed forces really do need to be protected, so will the Minister confirm how many of the Committee’s recommendations have been implemented to date?
Dr Murrison
If the hon. Lady is referring to the House of Commons’ Defence Committee’s report, as I said earlier, the great majority of those recommendations were accepted or partially accepted, which is pretty much unprecedented in my experience, so my congratulations to the Chair of the Committee, who is in his place. Let me be clear: the behaviour that this touches upon is wholly and completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable in the armed forces, it is unacceptable in society in general, and it needs to be stamped out.
Ukraine
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the situation in Ukraine.
This morning, Russian missiles again struck Kyiv and other cities, destroying critical national infrastructure and depriving Ukrainians of water and electricity. Earlier today I spoke to our ambassador in Kyiv, and I heard again of the extraordinary resilience of Ukraine’s people in the face of Russian aggression.
At the weekend, Russia suspended its participation in the Black sea grain initiative, which has allowed the exportation of 100,000 tonnes of food every day, including to some of the least developed countries in the world. Putin is exacting vengeance for his military failures on the civilians of Ukraine by cutting off their power and water supply, and on the poorest people in the world by threatening their food supplies. Over 60% of the wheat exported under the Black sea grain initiative has gone to low and middle-income countries, including Ethiopia, Yemen and Afghanistan. It would be unconscionable for those lands to be made to suffer because of Putin’s setbacks on the battlefield in Ukraine. I urge Russia to stop impeding this vital initiative, which is helping to feed the hungry across the world, and to agree to its extension.
Meanwhile, Russia’s suicide drones and cruise missiles are killing Ukrainian civilians, obliterating their homes and even destroying a children’s playground. A third of the country’s power stations were put out of operation in a single week. None of this achieves any military purpose. Putin’s only aim is to spread terror and to deprive Ukrainian families of shelter, light and heat as harsh winter approaches. I am sure the House will join me in condemning his breaches of international humanitarian law.
I am also sure that every right hon. and hon. Member will share my conviction that Putin will never break the spirit of the Ukrainian people, and my incredulity at the glaring contradictions in his thinking. He claims that Ukraine is part of Russia and that Ukrainians are Russians, but at the same time he calls them Nazis who must be bombed without mercy.
When Putin launched his invasion, he convinced himself that Russian forces would be welcomed into Kyiv and that Ukrainians would support him or be too craven to stand in his way. He could not have been more wrong. The last eight months have shown the scale of his miscalculation and the barbarity of his onslaught, including the mass rape committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine. The UK’s campaign to prevent sexual violence in conflict is more urgent now than ever and I will host a conference on that vital subject next month. The Kremlin is now resorting to peddling false claims and churning out invented stories that say more about the fractures within the Russian Government than they do about us.
It is reprehensible that Iran should have supplied Russia with the Shahed drones that are bringing destruction to Ukraine, in violation of UN resolution 2231. On 20 October, the Government imposed sanctions on three Iranian commanders involved in supplying weaponry to Russia, along with the company that manufactures Shahed drones.
Earlier, on 30 September, Putin announced that Russia had annexed four regions of Ukraine spanning 40,000 square miles—the biggest land grab in Europe since the second world war. Once again, this exposes his self-delusion. He has declared the annexation of territory that he has not captured, and what he had managed to seize he is in the process of losing.
On 12 October, 143 countries—three quarters of the entire membership of the United Nations—voted in the General Assembly to condemn the annexations. Russia had just four supporters: Syria, Belarus, Nicaragua and North Korea. When those regimes are a country’s only friends, they really know that they are isolated. When 141 countries denounced Putin’s invasion in March, some speculated that that was the ceiling of international support for Ukraine. The latest vote showed that even more nations are now ready to condemn Russia, but Putin still thinks that by forcing up food and energy prices, we will lose our resolve. Our task is to prove him wrong.
We will not waver in our support for Ukraine’s right to self-defence. I delivered that emphatic message when I spoke to my Ukrainian counterpart on Tuesday, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the same to President Zelensky when they spoke on the phone—the first foreign leader who he called on his appointment as Prime Minister. On Thursday I will attend a meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers in Germany, where I will send a unified signal of our shared determination. This year, Britain gave Ukraine £2.3 billion of military support—more than any country in the world apart from the United States of America. We will provide Ukraine with more support to repair its energy infrastructure and we have committed £220 million of humanitarian aid.
The House will have noted Putin’s irresponsible talk about nuclear weapons and an absurd claim that Ukraine plans to detonate a radiological dirty bomb on its own territory. No other country is talking about nuclear use; no country is threatening Russia or President Putin. He should be clear that, for the UK and our allies, any use at all of nuclear weapons would fundamentally change the nature of this conflict. There would be severe consequences for Russia. How counterproductive would it be for Russia to break a norm against nuclear use that has held since 1945 and has underpinned global security?
Nothing will alter our conviction that the Ukrainians have a right to live in peace and freedom in their own lands. If Putin were to succeed, every expansionist tyrant would be emboldened to do their worst and no country would be safe. That is why we stand, and will continue to stand, alongside our Ukrainian friends until the day comes—as it inevitably will—that they prevail. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The war in Ukraine is at a critical new stage, with increasing missile and drone attacks, and the senseless withdrawal from the grain export deal, which will lead to increasing hunger around the world. As we enter the winter months, Putin’s rhetoric is becoming increasing irresponsible, including his references to nuclear weapons and dangerous fabrications around a so-called dirty bomb, and I support the Foreign Secretary’s words on that matter. This is a sign of Putin’s desperation, but it does not mean that an end is near; this will be a long and protracted conflict.
This morning, more than 50 missiles were launched by Russian forces against Ukrainian energy and water systems over the course of just a few hours. This is not an isolated attack, but a deliberate and callous Russian strategy to target civilian infrastructure ahead of the winter. Some estimates claim almost a third of Ukraine’s power stations and other energy facilities have been hit, and 80% of Kyiv has been left without water after these latest attacks. The Foreign Secretary mentioned his discussions with our ambassador on the ground, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the embassy team for their continuing work in very challenging conditions.
Can the Foreign Secretary set out today how many electricity generators the UK has already sent to Ukraine, and how we will strengthen Ukraine’s energy supply at this time? Some of these attacks have been conducted using Iranian-supplied drones. We welcome the sanctions already announced against the Iranian regime. What further measures are the Government considering to prevent Iran’s material support to Russia’s invasion? Over the past week, we have also seen Russia engage in baseless, ridiculous accusations that the United Kingdom was involved in the destruction of part of the Nord Stream pipeline. What are the Government doing to tackle the dangerous disinformation being spread by Putin?
The UN-backed agreement on grain exports has been vital in reducing global food prices. President Putin’s unjustifiable decision to pull out of this deal will have catastrophic consequences. It comes at a time when many countries are already food-insecure, including Somalia, where an imminent famine is feared. This decision should be seen by the world for what it is: the Kremlin’s cruel and transparent use of hunger to blackmail. Any spike in world food prices will be the responsibility of the Russian Government. An agreement must be restored. Can the Foreign Secretary outline what conversations he has had with counterparts, including in Turkey, on the potential for restoring grain flows, and what steps the UK is considering to mitigate the worst consequences for the developing world if those efforts fail?
Since the end of August, Ukraine has been conducting successful counter-offensive operations in the south and east of Ukraine, liberating around 12,000 sq km, but Russia continues to attempt to make progress in Donbas around Bakhmut. Winter is coming, any counter-offensives could soon slow and an operational stalemate is likely for the next couple of months. It is day 249 of the invasion, and the Ministry of Defence has not even signed a contract to replenish the NLAW anti-tank missiles, which have been vital to the Ukrainian army. Will the Government restock and resupply Ukraine, and the British armed forces, with essential military assistance? Over 20 NATO countries have now rebooted defence plans since the invasion began, but the UK Government have still not done so. Will the Foreign Secretary update the integrated review of foreign and defence policy, and will he continue with what was indicated by the last Prime Minister now that we are on our third in just three months?
Last month at the United Nations more countries than ever voted to condemn Russia in its illegal and unjustifiable annexations of Ukrainian territory. The world saw through the sham referendums and recognised Russia’s actions as a flagrant violation of the UN charter. We must sustain and grow the diplomatic coalition against Putin, because the outcome of this war will depend on who is more resilient: Putin’s Russia, or Ukraine and its supporters in the west and beyond. Labour is clear that we will not let our support for Ukraine falter.
Our duty now is to make sure Ukraine wins; this means providing the diplomatic and military support required but also moving beyond ad hoc announcements and laying out a long-term strategy for military, economic and diplomatic assistance through 2023 and beyond. We have to reinforce the message to Putin that continuing this barbaric war will make it worse, not better, for Russia.
James Cleverly
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, my opposite number, for the points that he has made, and for echoing from the Opposition Front Bench the support for the Ukrainian people in their work to eject Russia from their homeland. It is noticed that although we sometimes disagree on the detail, our collective response is to support the Ukrainian people; that will be noted, and they will be incredibly grateful for it. He raised a number of points, which I will attempt to cover in my response.
On the energy needs of the Ukrainian people going into the winter, the UK has pledged £100 million to support Ukraine’s energy security and to reform, and £74 million in fiscal grants to support Ukraine through the World Bank. I will seek to get more details on the right hon. Gentleman’s specific question about the number of generators and share them with him at an appropriate point in the future.
On Iran, the right hon. Gentleman noted that we have already sanctioned a number of people—a point I made in my statement. He will know that we do not discuss future sanctions designations, but I can assure him that we will be keeping a close eye on the actions of Iran, and indeed any other countries, in providing arms for Russia, and we will take appropriate actions to dissuade them from doing so and to react if they do.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the situation with regard to disinformation. Increasingly desperate statements have been coming out of the Russian Ministry of Defence and the Kremlin. Those claims are designed to distract the Russian people, and indeed the wider international community, from the truth, and the truth is that the Ukrainians are pushing Russian forces back on the battlefield. We must not be distracted from that truth, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we must work with our international allies to make sure Russia’s disinformation campaign does not influence global support for the Ukrainian people.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned grain exports, and I have spoken with my Turkish counterparts in the past expressing our gratitude for the work they have done in securing that grain export deal. We have also reinforced the need for that to be extended and for Russia to lift the pause on its engagement on that. This is about ensuring that the global poor—those who are already suffering from hunger—are not drawn into a conflict not of their choosing. We must not let Vladimir Putin use global hunger as leverage to undermine support for the Ukrainians in the defence of their homelands.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the supply of anti-tank missile systems. We are committed to matching our support next year, as we have done for this year. We will ensure the Ukrainians are supplied with the arms most relevant to their needs at the time. In the initial phases of the conflict, NLAWs and other anti-tank missile systems were incredibly important to them. The battlefield has now evolved, and ground-to-air and air- to-air missile systems have increased in importance. We will make sure our support for Ukraine matches its needs, but we will also ensure that we do not denude our own armed forces of requirements, and action has been taken to stimulate the supply chain for critical and military equipment. We will always ensure that we adapt to the circumstances on the ground and on the battlefield and that we do not denude ourselves of our ability to defend this country as well as our friends and allies.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Over the next month, war on the ground will be most difficult for Putin to wage, so he is weaponising famine, information, sexual violence and even Ukraine’s children. What conversations is my right hon. Friend having with abstentionist countries who are most likely to suffer from famine in order that they encourage Russia to return to the Black sea grain deal?
On the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, which is a form of genocide, no meaningful international action appears to be taking place. Will my right hon. Friend reassure us on that front? Finally, Bellingcat has identified 33 individuals whose sole job is to target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. Will he reassure us that sanctions are being considered against those individuals whose sole job is to terrorise the Ukrainian public?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for those points. She is absolutely right that it is important that we engage with those countries who have thus far abstained in votes at the United Nations, to remind them that Russia’s attack on Ukraine—the invasion of Ukraine—is not just a European issue. It is about the UN charter, territorial integrity and the rule of law, and any and all countries who value those things should show solidarity in their condemnation of Russia’s involvement.
My hon. Friend asked about individuals who may be involved in the targeting of civilian infrastructure. She will understand that, of course, we do not discuss intelligence matters and we do not go into detail about future sanctions designations. However, I assure her that we think and act carefully in terms of our response to deter as well as to respond to the issues that she raised. We will of course keep a very close eye on the actions of Russia where it is targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as well as critical national infrastructure. That will always be an important part of the work that we do.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The renewed cruise missile attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure this morning were appalling, but, tragically, they are now part of Putin’s almost daily arsenal. By attacking residential areas, electricity infrastructure and water supplies, Putin is ordering his troops to carry out war crimes on a daily basis. As an international community, we cannot allow that to happen. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House details about what is being done to assist diplomats on the ground in Ukraine—including UK diplomats—to document war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Russian military so that those incidents can be escalated to the International Criminal Court?
As the war morphs into a protracted conflict, there is an increasing danger of Ukraine fatigue creeping into the UK public. Statistics published recently show that amid hiked UK energy prices, the UK public’s support for continuing economic sanctions against Russia has fallen from 73% in March to 41% this month. What are the UK Government doing to militate against Ukraine fatigue? Will they commit to a public campaign to remind the electorate why we are supporting Ukraine and what they can continue doing to help?
Food security is also of grave concern. Twelve grain export ships have left Ukraine today, despite Russia pulling out of the Turkey and UN-brokered grain deal. The need for reliable grain supplies is acute, particularly in regions such as the horn of Africa. Russia, as the aggressor in the war, has already made itself an international pariah, and it cannot continue to do so by actively restricting food supplies to famine and drought-affected regions of the world. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore outline the steps that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is taking alongside international allies to get Russian officials back into talks for the deal? Will he confirm whether UK officials are assisting their Turkish counterparts in their efforts to secure the grain deal?
Finally, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on sanctions on Iran, given that it has supplied drones to Russia that have targeted civilians in Ukraine? He rightly said to the shadow Foreign Secretary that he would not give detail, but will he commit to giving regular updates to the House?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady raises a number of very important points. On Iran, I can assure her that we constantly review our sanctions designations. We will ensure that we respond to any further breaches of the UN Security Council resolution on supplying arms to the conflict.
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point about the documentation of war crimes. I had meetings with Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, with regard to the documentation of war crimes to ensure that perpetrators know they will be held to account for the actions they have taken.
We recognise that this winter will be tough for people in the UK—our energy support package is designed to alleviate some of the pressure, but we recognise that it will be tough. However, I think the British people instinctively understand that if we slip back from our support of the Ukrainians in this incredibly difficult time, globally, the costs in lives, in food supplies, in energy supplies and to families in the UK will be huge. As difficult as it is—and I recognise it is difficult for everyone at this time—it is essential that we continue our support for Ukraine, because the costs of inaction will be so much higher.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Tens of thousands of people have been affected by this war directly and thousands of innocent Ukrainian civilians have lost their lives. It is absolutely right that the UK remains steadfast and unwavering in its support for the people of Ukraine. We will be with them for as long as they need us. Globally, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, many millions of the world’s most vulnerable have been pushed deeper into hunger, starvation and even famine by Putin’s war on food. I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend remind us of the fact that the majority of the grain that has come out of the Black sea has gone to low and middle-income countries, because Russian misinformation is trying to tell the world the opposite. May I urge my right hon. Friend and his team of excellent Ministers to use all diplomatic tools to try to get the Black sea grain initiative not only back up and running but extended, and to continue to call out Russian misinformation on that point?
James Cleverly
I put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for the work she did in her time at the FCDO and for the huge energy she brought to the role. She is absolutely right that we are witnessing the perverse situation where Vladimir Putin is trying to impose even greater hunger on people who are already suffering food insecurity and, in some instances, famine. It is absolutely wrong that he does so, and we call on Russia to resume the Black sea grain deal and to extend it. It is deeply, deeply wrong that the world’s poor are forced to suffer even more because Russia has been and is being unsuccessful on the battlefield. I assure her that we will continue to work with Turkey and others to get the deal back in place.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
One of the most depressing, upsetting things that I have seen in the past few days is Russian conscripts in floods of tears, saying, “I don’t want to be cannon fodder; I’m just going to be cannon fodder.” This is a crime against the Russian people as well. I want to ask about the sanctions regime in the UK, because it seems a bit of an own goal and counterproductive if significant people who are being sanctioned by the UK are allowed to have £60,000 a month and £1.5 million to spend on luxurious lifestyles here. And will the Foreign Secretary update us on what has happened to the £3.5 billion from Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea, which was meant to have gone to the reconstruction of Ukraine by now?
James Cleverly
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to work with our international counterparts to make sure that our sanctions are as effective as they can be and to continue to put pressure on the people who are funding Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war in Ukraine. I will seek to get further details on the specific points that he raised on sanctions. He is absolutely right that, in addition to the terrible suffering that Ukrainians are experiencing because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Russians are also suffering. Mothers who thought that their sons were going to a training exercise have now found out that those soldiers have been killed on the battlefield. Putin has blood on his hands—Ukrainian blood, Russian blood. It is down to him and almost no one else.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given the emphasis that Putin is putting on attacking infrastructure, and without in any way asking the Foreign Secretary to be specific, will he reassure the House that our armed forces are paying enough attention to protecting undersea pipelines and internet cables? Between now and the autumn statement, will he have a quiet word with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to say that now is not the right time to be rowing back from a long overdue promise to increase expenditure on defence?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend tempts me to go beyond my brief at the Dispatch Box. All I can say is that I always listen to his advice carefully, and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will all have listened carefully to the points that he put forward.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is right to make the point about protecting the infrastructure in Ukraine, because we know that, at the moment, the campaign is about weakening the morale of the Ukrainian people. In that context, is he satisfied that there is the international co-ordination to ensure that British efforts and the efforts of other international partners deliver the support that Ukraine needs?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Vladimir Putin clearly went into this conflict believing that the pressure that he asserted on Ukraine would create fragmentation in the Ukrainian political system—it did not. He was expecting that it would create tension in NATO—it did not. He thought that it would split up the EU—it did not. He thought that it would break up the G7—it did not. On every single strategic aim, he has failed. Indeed, he is now looking at a stronger and larger NATO because of his actions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the international community, if anything, has been brought closer together through our co-ordinated response to Russian’s invasion of Ukraine and our support to the Ukrainians.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that if, indeed, any attack did take place on the Russian Black sea fleet, the UK had absolutely no involvement in it? Will he confirm that despite the withdrawal of Russia from the agreement, ships bearing grain have nevertheless left Odesa today, and will he say whether he expects that to continue?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the Black sea grain deal, which is helping to feed people who need international support now more than ever. The claims of the Kremlin and the Russian Ministry of Defence are becoming increasingly detached from reality; as I have said, they are designed to distract the Russian people from the reality of Russian failures on the battlefield. We will continue to shine a light on those failures, and we will continue to support Ukraine in defending itself against that aggression.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
In the announcement that it was pulling out of the deal, Russia said that it would be “risky” for Ukraine to continue to export grain via the Black sea. The only possible risk to ships comes from Russia itself. Further to the question that the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) asked, if ships are moving out of Odesa, and with reports that the United Nations, Turkey and Ukraine have reached some agreement about ships currently in Turkish waters, does the Foreign Secretary think that there is any prospect that President Putin’s bluff will be called, that the ships will continue to be inspected by other parties to the agreement and that they can carry on helping to feed the world?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about where the only credible threat to international shipping would come from. If grain ships were attacked or the export of grain were prevented, the world would see who was ultimately responsible for imposing even more hunger on the world, on people in the global south and on people who are already suffering because of food insecurity and famine. The world would see who was truly to blame for imposing greater hardship on people who are already suffering.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I absolutely endorse the support that Ministers are giving to Ukraine, but we have entered a darker chapter: as Putin is up against the wall, he is resorting to non-conventional means. Bearing in mind the escalatory ladder, I suggest that our support therefore needs to move from the battlefield to Ukraine’s infrastructure. Odesa is a critical port and the grain ships are not getting out at the scale necessary to feed the world. I suggest that the Foreign Secretary go to the United Nations General Assembly and secure a resolution to create a safe haven around the port, so that Britain can lead the international community in a maritime flotilla to support the grain ships departing from and entering the port.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the significance of grain exports from the Black sea, and I have listened to his proposal. Russia needs to immediately reverse its pause on its involvement in Black sea exports. We will look at any options that increase the flow of food to the global south and to the people who need that food more than ever. I take my right hon. Friend’s suggestion seriously. Ultimately, we want to do whatever we can to increase grain exports immediately.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I recognise the answers that he has already given about sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; I encourage him to recognise that there will be support across the House should he deem it fit to take further action, as I would encourage him to.
It is encouraging to hear that the United Nations is standing by ship movements today, but will he elaborate from a diplomatic perspective on the avenues available through the United Nations to increase international support, bearing in mind the veto that Russia continues to have in the P5?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the in-built limitations of the United Nations because of Russia’s abuse of its veto. Across the world, 143 countries have voted in condemnation of annexation and 141 have voted in condemnation of the attack. We know that the United Nations is still an incredibly important institution, but Russia’s veto limits to some extent what it can do. We will continue to work with the UN and with Turkey and others to maximise the grain exports through the Black sea so that we can alleviate the hunger felt by the global south.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am sure that everyone in the House today will share my horror and revulsion at the continual targeting by Russia of non-combatants, and also the lobbing of missiles into civilian areas. Noting the limitations indirectly posed by article 5, can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether any consideration has been given to the deployment of an Iron Dome or Patriot-type system to protect the Ukrainians?
James Cleverly
The UK and our international allies have provided Ukraine with both ground-to-air and air-to-air defence systems. We will continue to assess its defence needs and adjust our support accordingly.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
At the Council of Europe, of which I am a member, President Zelensky suggested that Ukraine had only about 10% of the air defences that it needed to respond to the current onslaught. Much of that onslaught comes from Iranian drones. Given that Iran is in a condition of social unrest, what efforts are the UK Government making to ensure that people in Iran know that the focus of their Government is to send weapons of mass destruction to be used against innocent people—rather than feeding them bread and giving them human rights—so that we can choke off, over time, the supply of these deadly weapons?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. We will continue to take action to discourage the supply to Russia of weapons that might be used in Ukraine, and we will keep under constant review our sanctions packages to choke off the supply of weapons such as drones.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has explained what he is doing to urge allies and other countries to provide extra support for Ukraine, but can he now tell us what more we can do in respect of the training of those brave Ukrainians who are fighting in their homeland, perhaps working with our NATO allies?
James Cleverly
I am proud to have been joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for the Armed Forces and Veterans, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey). I am incredibly proud of the work that the British armed forces have done in training members of the Ukrainian armed forces, and we are being joined by an increasingly large number of international allies who are doing likewise. I think it is being demonstrated on the battlefield that what has been decisive is not just the equipment we have supplied or the inherent resolve of the Ukrainian forces, but the technical improvement that our training of those forces has helped to bring about, and I have no doubt that that will continue.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his words. I particularly agreed with his statement that we would not allow Putin to use hunger as global leverage, because doing so is barbaric and condemns to death thousands more than he has already killed.
Given that backdrop, does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that we are now spending only 0.3% of gross national income on aid across the world? We found that out over the weekend. All of us here have campaigned on manifestos specifying 0.7%. Surely the answer now is for us to step up again and ensure that what Putin wants to do cannot be done, because we will be there to ensure that his barbaric act will not have the effect for which he hopes.
James Cleverly
I do not agree with the figures that the hon. Lady has used, but the broader fact is that we continue to support countries in the global south and poor countries around the world—directly, but also by ensuring that grain exports continue; we are helping Ukraine through the Black sea grain initiative—and I can assure her and the House that we will continue to do both. It is important that we re-establish the principle that powerful neighbours cannot invade another country with impunity, and that territorial integrity must be preserved. It is the very people in other parts of the world to whom the hon. Lady referred who will suffer if the message is sent to potential aggressors that we will stand idly by and watch them brutalise their neighbours. We will never do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before we proceed, let me point out that a great many Members still wish to participate in this session, and we have already been under way for 42 minutes. There is plenty of other business that the House has to transact during the rest of today, so may I make a plea for short questions, which will then allow the Foreign Secretary to give short answers?
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating President Zelensky on engaging directly with parliamentarians such as myself at the Council of Europe, where he spoke openly about his needs? It was in answer to a question of mine that he said he had only 10% of what he needed for missile defence systems.
James Cleverly
I congratulate President Zelensky on his engagement with partners, both bilaterally and multilaterally, and I would like to put on record my thanks for the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) does to ensure that these issues are brought to people’s attention and for the huge amount of effort he puts into the UK’s position on the Council of Europe.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary’s statement mentioned Syria as one of the countries at the United Nations that had given Russia comfort, but it is not Syrian civilians who have taken that stance. In fact, they are the very people who know, equally to anyone in the world, about Putin’s violence. What is the Foreign Secretary doing at the United Nations or elsewhere to widen the consensus that all civilians in our world deserve protection from Putin’s violence, including Syrian civilians?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. We have seen the leadership in Russia and Putin bringing pain and harm on Russian people, and we have seen Assad bringing pain and harm on Syrian people. We know that this is not being done in their name or with their say-so, and she is right to say that civilians around the world are suffering because of the poor decisions of their brutal leadership, both in Moscow and in Syria.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place; I am delighted to see that he is still there.
I understand that we hear an awful lot about what we and the Americans are giving in direct help to the Ukrainians, but can he clarify to the House the exact scale of what other NATO countries such as Germany and France are giving to Ukraine?
James Cleverly
Time prevents me from going into the level of detail that my hon. Friend has asked for, but I can reassure the House that, while the UK is second only to the United States of America in giving direct military support, other countries around the world and around Europe are very much providing support to Ukraine and have responded with alacrity to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Both through NATO and through institutions including the G7, we have become closer as allies, and I am sure that we will continue to stand in solidarity in our support for the Ukrainians in the defence of their homeland.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
My constituent Georgii and many of the refugees supported by the Homes for Ukraine scheme arrived in the UK with their Ukrainian cars and hope to return home as soon as it is safe to do so. Will the Foreign Secretary speak to his colleagues in the Department for Transport about urgently dropping or extending the requirement to exchange Ukrainian number plates for UK plates beyond the current six-month period, which is causing unnecessary stress for those affected?
James Cleverly
I will take note of the point the hon. Gentleman has made, as I am sure my colleagues in the Department for Transport will also have done.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary impose sanctions on Ivan Ryabov, a Russian security official who was shown to have abused Russian females protesting against Ukraine? Would this not show that our sanctions can reach even junior Russians who abuse Russian protesters like that?
James Cleverly
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be unsurprised to hear that we do not discuss future sanctions designations, but the House and my Department will have heard the name he has mentioned and the circumstances in which that sanction might be considered.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. He mentioned the NLAW—the next-generation light anti-tank weapon—which has been tremendously effective in Ukraine. However, it is also a fact that we have not yet put in a contract for its renewal not only in the stocks of the UK Army but for any future use in Ukraine. Why is that, and when will the contract be signed?
James Cleverly
My understanding is that we have given letters of comfort to the NLAW supply chain to stimulate future production. We will, of course, always take action to ensure not only that we are able to support Ukraine in the defence of its homeland but that we do so without detriment to our ability to defend ourselves.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
UN estimates suggest that the Black sea grain initiative has indirectly saved 100 million people from falling into extreme poverty. When my right hon. Friend goes to the G7 meeting on Thursday, will he raise this topic to see how we can support our key partner, Turkey, in trying to make sure Russia reverses its suspension of this deal?
James Cleverly
I regularly speak to my Turkish counterpart on this issue and others. Turkey is very committed to ensuring that the grain exports continue, and I will continue discussing with Turkey how we can ensure that they continue beyond the lifetime of this agreement.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Russian missile strikes in Kyiv have reportedly left much of the city without water. What more will the Government do, through both expertise and funding, to ensure that Ukrainians have access to clean water?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point about the ability to repair infrastructure. I spoke to His Majesty’s ambassador to Kyiv this afternoon about the remarkable speed with which Ukrainian municipal workers are repairing that infrastructure.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) asked about humanitarian assistance, and it will include 856 portable generators to support power for essential public services in Ukraine.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I pay tribute to the extraordinary achievements of the Ukrainian air force in the current circumstances. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that he will consider what support we can give so that the aerial dimension is not forgotten?
James Cleverly
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will consider that. I am very proud that we have supplied a number of AMRAAM missiles specifically to help the Ukrainians defend themselves against attack from the air. We will keep that under constant review.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
In a statement issued in March, the Government said they had created an electricity network support taskforce for Ukraine, bringing together UK commercial suppliers and the Energy Networks Association. The then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), said:
“We will keep the lights on in Ukraine.”
I thank the Foreign Secretary for mentioning the 856 mobile generators, but will he update the House on the role of the electricity network support taskforce in honouring the former Foreign Secretary’s pledge?
James Cleverly
We continue to work with the Ukrainians to help them keep the lights on and the water going, not just in the here and now but into the future. This will help their energy resilience. We will ensure that our support to Ukraine adapts to account for its changing needs and circumstances.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Should not Putin’s weaponisation of food be a wake-up call to those African countries, many of them Commonwealth countries, that have perhaps inadvertently bought into Putin’s false narrative on the war and recently abstained rather than voting for the UN resolution? They should understand that Russia and Putin are an unreliable partner for Africa.
James Cleverly
The whole world, including the Commonwealth nations and our friends in Africa and other parts of the global south, should recognise that Vladimir Putin is no friend of theirs. He is using their hunger as leverage in his war against Ukraine, and they should be able to see what is happening. We will continue helping to get grain out of Ukraine, to help them put food on their tables.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and answers, and I particularly thank him for the £220 million of humanitarian aid, which is incredibly important. With specific reference to the passage of humanitarian aid, can he confirm that there are still corridors for medical supplies and goods to reach the innocent people caught in the midst of Putin’s despicable criminal attacks?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. As well as putting the money on the table, we have to make sure that our support gets to the people who need it. We will constantly look at ways of ensuring that is the case. He will understand that I will refrain from going into details about the aid corridors currently in place.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
As the Foreign Secretary will know, the attack in February was not the first invasion of Ukraine by Russia; it has been illegally occupying territory, including Crimea, for the past eight years. Therefore, is he clear that any strike on Crimean territory, particularly on the Sevastopol naval facilities, is a strike on Ukrainian territory, not on Russian territory?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point: this conflict did not start in February. The most recent phase of it started in February, but Ukrainians have been attacked, abused, and occupied by Russian forces for many, many years before that. We must never lose sight of that fact.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend spoke about Iran supplying drones to Russia to attack Ukrainians. Will he say a bit more about the implications that has for the nuclear deal the world has with Iran?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend raises an important point, but this is fundamentally a separate issue. Our resolve, and the international resolve, to prevent further nuclear proliferation remains unchanged. We will continue working with our allies to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon, but we will also ensure that we prevent Iran, and indeed anyone else, from exporting arms to Russia that are being used in this conflict in Ukraine.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
It is incredibly worrying that Iran is undermining the Ukrainian defence and putting Ukrainian civilians at risk by supplying Russia with Shahed drones. I understand that we have sanctioned three Iranian commanders, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that he and the Prime Minister are willing to go further if needed and that he will be raising the issue when he meets his counterparts in the G7 this Thursday?
James Cleverly
I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to keep our sanctions package under review. We will respond to any further breaches of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and we will ensure that the message is sent that those people and companies that are supplying arms to Russia in breach of UN Security Council resolutions will be responded to.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
May I say how truly astounded I am at the bravery of the tens of thousands of Ukrainians who have stepped up to defend their homeland? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the UK is doing all it can, with its allies, to make sure that the Ukrainians receive the necessary training for them to be able to do their jobs?
James Cleverly
At the beginning of the year, at the UN, I said that the Ukrainians would defend their homeland ferociously, and they have done exactly that. My respect for those people—both the professional soldiers, air personnel and sailors in the Ukrainian armed forces before the invasion, and those teachers, builders, catwalk models and former politicians who have taken up arms to defend their country—is enormous. They have the most enormous respect from across the world. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to support them as they defend themselves against this illegal, unprovoked and barbaric invasion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. That concludes the statement from the Foreign Secretary. I am pausing for a moment to allow Members who intend to leave the Chamber to do so swiftly and quietly, in order that we can proceed to our next item of business and that we give the dramatis personae the opportunity to be in place.
Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Let us make it clear from the beginning that this is a very serious statement on a serious matter that is affecting a lot of people. The Home Secretary will be heard, with dignity.
Suella Braverman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I would like to make a statement about asylum processing at Manston and the incident in Dover yesterday.
At around 11.20 am on Sunday, police were called to Western Jet Foil. Officers established that two to three incendiary devices had been thrown at the Home Office premises. The suspect was identified, quickly located at a nearby petrol station, and confirmed dead. The explosive ordnance disposal unit attended to ensure there were no further threats. Kent police are not currently treating this as a terrorist incident. Fortunately, there were only two minor injuries, but it is a shocking incident and my thoughts are with all those affected.
I have received regular updates from the police. Although I understand the desire for answers, investigators must have the necessary space to work. I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to everyone involved in the response, including the emergency services, the military, Border Force, immigration enforcement, and the asylum intake unit.
My priority remains the safety and wellbeing of our teams and contractors, as well as the people in our care. Several hundred migrants were relocated to Manston yesterday to ensure their safety. Western Jet Foil is now fully operational again. I can also inform the House that the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), visited the Manston site yesterday and that I will visit shortly. My right hon. Friend was reassured by the dedication of staff as they work to make the site safe and secure while suitable onward accommodation is found.
As Members will be aware, we need to meet our statutory duties around detention, and fulfil legal duties to provide accommodation for those who would otherwise be destitute. We also have a duty to the wider public to ensure that anyone who has entered our country illegally undergoes essential security checks and is not, with no fixed abode, immediately free to wander around local communities.
When we face so many arrivals so quickly, it is practically impossible to procure more than 1,000 beds at short notice. Consequently, we have recently expanded the site and are working tirelessly to improve facilities. There are, of course, competing and heavy demands for housing stock, including for Ukrainians and Afghans, and for social housing. We are negotiating with accommodation providers. I continue to look at all available options to overcome the challenges we face with supply. This is an urgent matter, which I will continue to oversee personally.
I turn to our immigration and asylum system more widely. Let me be clear: this is a global migration crisis. We have seen an unprecedented number of attempts to illegally cross the channel in small boats. Some 40,000 people have crossed this year alone—more than double the number of arrivals by the same point last year. Not only is this unnecessary, because many people have come from another safe country, but it is lethally dangerous. We must stop it.
It is vital that we dismantle the international crime gangs behind this phenomenon. Co-operation with the French has stopped more than 29,000 illegal crossings since the start of the year—twice as many as last year— and destroyed over 1,000 boats. Our UK-France joint intelligence cell has dismantled 55 organised crime groups since it was established in 2020. The National Crime Agency is at the forefront of this fight. Indeed, NCA officers recently joined what is believed to be the biggest ever international operation targeting smuggling networks.
This year has seen a surge in the number of Albanian arrivals, many of them, I am afraid to say, abusing our modern slavery laws. We are working to ensure that Albanian cases are processed and that individuals are removed as swiftly as possible—sometimes within days.
The Rwanda partnership will further disrupt the business model of the smuggling gangs and deter migrants from putting their lives at risk. I am committed to making that partnership work. Labour wants to cancel it. Although we will continue to support the vulnerable via safe and legal routes, people coming here illegally from safe countries are not welcome and should not expect to stay. Where it is necessary to change the law, we will not hesitate to do so.
I share the sentiment that has been expressed by Members from across the House who want to see cases in the UK dealt with swiftly. Our asylum transformation programme will help bring down the backlog. It is already having an impact. A pilot in Leeds reduced interview times by over a third and has seen productivity almost double. We are also determined to address the wholly unacceptable situation which has left taxpayers with a bill of £6.8 million a day for hotel accommodation.
Let me set out to the House the situation that I found at the Home Office when I arrived as Home Secretary in September. I was appalled to learn that there were more than 35,000 migrants staying in hotel accommodation around the country, at exorbitant cost to the taxpayer. I instigated an urgent review. [Interruption.]
Suella Braverman
I pushed officials to identify accommodation options that would be more cost-effective and delivered swiftly while meeting our legal obligation to migrants. I have held regular operational meetings with frontline officials and have been energetically seeking alternative sites, but I have to be honest: this takes time and there are many hurdles.
I foresaw the concerns at Manston in September and deployed additional resource and personnel to deliver a rapid increase in emergency accommodation. To be clear, like the majority of the British people, I am very concerned about hotels, but I have never blocked their usage. Indeed, since I took over, 12,000 people have arrived, 9,500 people have been transferred out of Manston or Western Jet Foil, many of them into hotels, and I have never ignored legal advice. As a former Attorney General, I know the importance of taking legal advice into account. At every point, I have worked hard to find alternative accommodation to relieve the pressure at Manston.
What I have refused to do is to prematurely release thousands of people into local communities without having anywhere for them to stay. That is not just the wrong thing to do—that would be the worst thing to do for the local community in Kent, for the safety of those under our care and for the integrity of our borders. The Government are resolute in our determination to make illegal entry to the UK unviable. It is unnecessary, lethally dangerous, unfair on migrants who play by the rules and unfair on the law-abiding patriotic majority of British people. It is also ruinously expensive and it makes all of us less safe.
As Home Secretary, I have a plan to bring about the change that is so urgently needed to deliver an immigration system that works in the interests of the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Yesterday’s petrol bomb attack on the Western Jet Foil Centre was truly appalling. I am sure the whole House will condemn it in the strongest possible terms. I echo the Home Secretary’s tribute to the emergency services and Border Force staff who responded. However, I must ask her: can she tell me whether counter-terror police and counter-extremism units are involved in the investigation? It does not make sense for them not to be, so why are they not?
I turn to the dreadful conditions at Manston. Four thousand people are now on a site designed to accommodation 1,600 people, with some families there for weeks. Conditions there have been described as inhumane, with risks of fire, disorder and infection, there are confirmed diphtheria outbreaks, reports of scabies and MRSA outbreaks, outbreaks of violence and untrained staff. The Home Secretary said nothing about what she was doing to address those immediate public health crises or the issues of untrained staff.
Behind those problems are deeper failures in the Government’s policies on asylum and channel crossings. Decision making has collapsed: the Home Office has taken just 14,000 initial asylum decisions in the past 12 months, compared with 28,000 six years ago. Some 96% of the small boat arrivals last year have still not had a decision and initial decisions alone are taking more than 400 days on this Conservative Government’s watch. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and changes to immigration rules have added further bureaucracy and delays, leading to tens of thousands more people waiting in asylum accommodation and more than £100 million extra on asylum accommodation bills because the Government’s policies are pushing up the use of hotels and the increase in delays?
There has also been a total failure to prevent a huge proliferation of gangs in the channel. Why has the Home Secretary refused our calls for a major new National Crime Agency unit with hundreds of additional specialist officers to work with Europol and others to crack down on the gangs, as well as the urgent work needed with France to get a proper agreement in place?
On the Rwanda plan, can the Home Secretary confirm that she has spent an extra £20 million, on top of the £120 million already spent on a policy that she has herself described as “failing” and that her officials have described as “unenforceable” and having a “high risk of fraud”? Is it not now time to drop that unethical and unworkable scheme and to put the money into tackling the backlogs and the criminal gangs instead?
Let me ask the Home Secretary about her own decisions. There are very serious allegations now being reported that the Home Secretary was warned by officials and other Ministers that she was acting outside the law by failing to provide alternative accommodation. Can she confirm that she turned down contingency plans that she was offered that would have reduced overcrowding, as the reports say? There are also legal obligations, including under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Asylum Support (Amendment) Regulations 2018. Can the Home Secretary confirm that she was advised repeatedly that she was breaking the law by failing to agree to those plans?
One of the meetings on Manston was on 19 October. Can the Home Secretary confirm that she refused those proposals on that date—the same day that she broke sections 2.3 and 1.4 of the ministerial code? Can she tell us whether, in fact, she breached the ministerial code, which provides for Ministers’ abiding by the law, three times in a single day? How is anyone supposed to have confidence in her as a Home Secretary given those serious issues?
The Home Secretary referred in her statement to security checks. Those are very important, but her statement is undermined by her own disregard for security. Her letter today makes it clear that the incident over which she resigned was not a one-off and that, contrary to her previous claims that she reported the breach “rapidly” as soon as she realised, she instead had to be challenged several times by one of her colleagues. She has also not answered the crucial questions about security breaches while she was Attorney General. Can she tell us whether she was involved in a leak to The Daily Telegraph, reported in that paper on 21 January, on information about Attorney General action on a case involving the security service? Has she sent any other Government documents by WhatsApp, Telegram or other social media?
It has been less than a week since the Home Secretary was reappointed and less than a fortnight since she was first forced to resign for breaching the ministerial code, and every day since her reappointment there have been more stories about possible security or ministerial code breaches. How is anybody supposed to have confidence in her, given the serious responsibilities of the Home Secretary to stand up for our national security, for security standards and for public safety?
The Prime Minister promised that this would be a Government of “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. Is the Home Secretary not letting everyone down and failing on all those counts?
Suella Braverman
I will pick up on some of the right hon. Lady’s points, but I will not comment on any details relating to the case in question or to the individual under consideration. There has been clear work afoot with the National Crime Agency and all partners to try to tackle the problem of illegal migration. I am very encouraged by the relationship that we have built with the French, and I am grateful to the French authorities for their real commitment to, and work on, tackling this problem.
As I made clear in my statement, on no occasion did I block hotels or veto advice to procure extra and emergency accommodation. The data and the facts are that, on my watch, since 6 September, over 30 new hotels were agreed, which will bring into use over 4,500 additional hotel bed spaces. Since the start of October, it has been agreed that over 13 new hotels will provide over 1,800 additional hotel bed spaces. Also since 6 September, 9,000 migrants have left Manston, many of them heading towards hotel accommodation. Those are the facts; I encourage the right hon. Lady to stick to the facts, and not fantasy. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Lady raised other points. My letter to the Home Affairs Committee, sent today, transparently and comprehensively addresses all the matters that she has just raised. I have been clear that I made an error of judgment. I apologised for that error; I took responsibility for it; and I resigned. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Does the House want to hear what the Home Secretary has to say?
Suella Braverman
I apologised for the error, I took responsibility, and I resigned for the error, but let us be clear about what is really going on here. The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion on our southern coast, and which party is not. Some 40,000 people have arrived on the south coast this year alone. For many of them, that was facilitated by criminal gangs; some of them are actual members of criminal gangs, so let us stop pretending that they are all refugees in distress. The whole country knows that that is not true. It is only Opposition Members who pretend otherwise.
We need to be straight with the public. The system is broken. [Interruption.] Illegal migration is out of control, and too many people are more interested in playing political parlour games and covering up the truth than solving the problem. I am utterly serious about ending the scourge of illegal migration, and I am determined to do whatever it takes to break the criminal gangs and fix our hopelessly lax asylum system. That is why I am in government, and why there are some people who would prefer to be rid of me. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I can hear who is making the noise, and it will be a long time before they are called to ask a question.
Suella Braverman
Let them try. I know that I speak for the decent, law-abiding, patriotic majority of British people from every background who want safe and secure borders. Labour is running scared of the fact that this party might just deliver them.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, will you allow me first to express my condolences to the families of those affected by the incident at Dover, particularly the family of the man who was responsible, who had very severe mental health difficulties? I think our thoughts ought to be with all of them.
May I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration for taking the trouble and the time yesterday to come and see the facilities at Manston for himself and to better understand the problems that we have been facing? May I thank the staff at Manston for the incredible dedication they have shown under very difficult circumstances? They are doing a superb job, and I hope everybody understands that.
The asylum-processing facility at Manston was opened in January to take 1,500 people and to process them daily in not more than 48 hours, but mainly in 24 hours. The facility operated absolutely magnificently and very efficiently indeed, until five weeks ago, when I am afraid the Home Secretary took the policy decision not to commission further accommodation. It is that which has led to the crisis at Manston. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary now give the House an assurance, first, that adequate accommodation will be provided to enable the Manston facility to return to its previous work? Will she honour the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who have indicated that this would be a temporary facility, handling only 1,500 people per day, and that it would not be a permanent residence? Will she give a further undertaking that under no circumstances will Manston be turned into a permanent refugee camp?
Suella Braverman
I thank my right hon. Friend for his commitment to safeguarding the people who are at Manston and for representing his local constituents in the area. I was very pleased to meet him a few weeks ago, to hear from him about the situation at Manston. I must gently correct him, however: on no occasion have I blocked the procurement of hotels or alternative accommodation to ease the pressure on Manston. I am afraid that simply is not true. I will repeat it again, but since 6 September, when I was appointed, over 30 new hotels have been agreed to. They would provide over 4,500 additional hotel bed spaces, many of those available to the people in Manston. Also since 6 September, over 9,000 people have left Manston, many of those heading towards hotels, so on no occasion have I blocked the use of hotels.
I gently refer Members of the House who seem to be labouring under that misapprehension to the Home Affairs Committee session last week, when officials and the various frontline professionals who have been working with me on this issue confirmed that we have been working energetically to procure alternative accommodation urgently for several weeks now. There are procedural and resource difficulties and challenges in doing that quickly. I would very much like to get alternative accommodation delivered more quickly, but we are working at pace to deliver contingency accommodation to deal with this acute problem.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and join the whole House in condemning the frightening attack at Western Jet Foil and in sending our sympathy to all those who are impacted and, indeed, our thanks to all who responded so professionally.
But responsibility for the disaster and dysfunction at Manston and for the unlawful detention conditions there lies squarely with the Home Secretary herself and her predecessor. She and they knew what was happening, including the numbers arriving, and she was provided with advice that by all accounts she did not act on. She has very carefully said that she did not block hotel use, but did she at any point avoid supporting new procurement? If not, why have we heard that her successor—or predecessor, depending on which way we look at it—had to intervene? Ultimately, what was a functioning facility in the summer is now totally unsafe, and that was on her watch.
Looking to the future, what now? Unfortunately, the Home Secretary offers only the same old failed soundbites, discredited policies and nasty rhetoric. What we need is an expansion of safe legal routes, at a minimum reversing the loss of the routes under the Dublin convention, instead of spending £120 million on a disgraceful Rwanda “dream”. That could have trebled the number of asylum caseworkers working to clear the backlog. Why not fast-track claims from the 1,600 Syrians and Afghans, half of whom have been waiting for more than six months? If we make decisions about their cases quickly—95% or more will get asylum—they can move on and we can free up accommodation.
On the Home Secretary’s letter today, last week she resigned and claimed that she accepted responsibility, but the facts suggest that she tried to dodge it and got caught. Why else did she find time to request that the accidental email recipient delete and forget it, yet notified senior officials and the Prime Minister only after being confronted? Those excuses will not wash.
Ultimately, how can one so-called misjudgment last week be a resignation offence, yet the Home Secretary can stay this week after admitting to six of the same misjudgments? She has said that no documents were top secret, but how many were marked official and sensitive? Did she do similar as Attorney General? How do we know?
The Home Secretary’s return so quickly after an admitted ministerial code breach is a farce. It reflects poorly on her and on the Prime Minister. Both should think again so that someone else can get on with the real work.
Suella Braverman
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the letter that I sent today to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). I have been up front about the details of my diary on 19 October and co-operative with any review that has taken place. I have apologised; I have taken responsibility; and that is why I resigned.
I hope that the House will see that I am willing to apologise without hesitation for what I have done and any mistakes that I have made, but what I will not do under any circumstances is apologise for things that I have not done. It has been said that I sent a top secret document. That is wrong. It has been said that I sent a document about cyber-security. That is wrong. It has been said that I sent a document about the intelligence agencies that would compromise national security. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. What is also wrong and worrying is that, without compunction, these assertions have been repeated as fact by politicians and journalists. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to clarify the record today.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I put on record my thanks to all the first responders to the horrific incidents that happened at Dover yesterday. Constituents working at the Dover facility have raised concerns about the current safety at the site. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that type of facility has no place in a busy open port such as Dover and will she look at moving it to a more appropriate secure location immediately? Does she also agree that we cannot keep doing more of the same? We cannot keep paying millions of pounds to the French but seeing ever-increasing numbers of illegal arrivals. It is now time for a new approach with the French to stop the boats leaving French beaches—a joint channel security zone to tackle the issue and bring an end to this illegal immigration activity once and for all.
Suella Braverman
I thank my hon. Friend for her indefatigable campaigning on the issue. I have been grateful for her direct input on it. This is incredibly difficult; I do not want to sugar-coat the problem. There are multifaceted challenges that we have to deal with. When it comes to Manston, I am concerned, as she is, about the conditions there and have been for several weeks, which is why I have taken urgent action to stand up an operational team to increase the emergency accommodation on the site on a temporary and emergency basis. I was not willing to release hundreds of migrants into the local community—I will not do that.
I will do everything I can to find cost-effective and practical alternatives. We need to find many more sites for accommodation and beds. We are looking at all instances, whether that is hotels or land owned by other agencies, such as the Ministry of Defence or other Government Departments, and we are looking at dispersal around the country. We have to look exhaustively, but it is not easy.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary to her place. I look forward to her attending the Home Affairs Committee on 23 November, as we have not seen a Home Secretary since February. The Committee heard evidence last week that Manston was at breaking point. We were also told by the Home Office’s director general, customer services capability that three hotels were approved a week ago when the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) was Home Secretary. Can this Home Secretary confirm exactly how many hotels or alternative accommodation options she was personally invited by her officials to approve for use during her first tenure as Home Secretary, and how many hotels or alternative accommodation options she actually did grant approval and permission for during her time? Finally, perhaps the Home Secretary might wish to join the Home Affairs Committee when we visit Manston again, for the second time, this week?
Suella Braverman
I read with interest the session that the right hon. Lady conducted last week at her Select Committee, and I just want to put on record my immense thanks to the officials. The officials she heard evidence from are brilliant—simply the best in the business—and they work day in, day out to try to get the best service. I note that, from questions 67 to 78 approximately, there was a lot of discussion about my involvement and my grip of the situation, and I encourage all Members to read that section of the transcript, which confirms—on the record, by officials with whom I have been working directly—that there has been active procurement of hotels, and there has been a huge amount of work. [Hon. Members: “How many?”] How many? I will repeat myself again: since 6 September, over 30 new hotels have been agreed, providing over 4,500 additional hotel bed spaces. That has been under my watch. That has been when I have been in charge of the Home Office. I am very grateful to all those officials, and I must put on record my thanks to the now departed Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who has been instrumental in assisting in dealing with this problem.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned Albanians in her statement, and I hear that two thirds of those at Manston are Albanians. Does she have an absolute figure for that? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Germany and Sweden, which work to the same immigration accords as we do, allow zero applicants from Albania? Surely, it stands to reason that as an EU-applicant country, a NATO country, a country in the Council of Europe and one that is patently not a war zone, we should not be accepting claims for refugee status from such a country. What is she going to do about that aspect of this problem?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend again raises a very important feature that has emerged over the last six to nine months about the prominence of Albanian migrants arriving on our shores, and he is right. Albania is not a war-torn country, and it is very difficult to see how claims for asylum really can be legitimate claims for asylum. I would also note that we see a large number of Albanian migrants arriving here and claiming to be victims of modern slavery. Again, I really am circumspect about those claims, because Albania is, of course, a signatory to the European convention against trafficking—the original convention that underlies our modern slavery laws—and if those people are genuinely victims of modern slavery, they should be claiming that protection in Albania.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware that one of the problems with the asylum system is the unacceptably long time it takes to process claims. The Home Affairs Committee heard evidence from the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, and he told us that currently caseworkers or decision makers are making 1.3 decisions a week. The Leeds pilot, which has been referred to, has put the number of decisions up to 2.7 decisions a week. Does the Home Secretary not understand that that is far too slow, and what is she going to do about it? Is it not the case that if she spent less time playing to the gallery on immigration and more time dealing with the practical problems, this would be to the benefit of the taxpayer, the Home Office staff who work so hard and the asylum seekers themselves?
Suella Braverman
It is not often that I say this, but I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Lady has just said. She is right; when I arrived at the Home Office in September, I was dismayed to find that, as set out at the Select Committee last week, only 4% of claims waiting in the system have been processed so far, so we have a very slow-moving system. That is unacceptable and it is a big part of the problem, and part of our plan to solve the problem is to speed up asylum processing. We are putting more resources and technology behind it, and we are trying to identify how we can be more efficient. So yes, this is a big feature that is clogging up the system, and we see the pressure playing out at Manston.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Clearly the situation at Manston has become unsustainable because of the record numbers crossing the channel—40,000, and November last year was the month with the highest figures, so we have not seen the end of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) said, there are a record number of Albanians: 12,000, up from just 50 two years ago. Following on from his question, what exactly is the arrangement with the Albanian Government about returns? What arrangements is my right hon. and learned Friend looking at to fast-track Albanians, potentially in sperate processing centres, helped by those Albanian officials we have allowed to come here to assist? How many Albanians have so far been returned in the last 12 months? How many of them have taken voluntary return payments to return, and of those how many have come back to the UK again?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right to mention the returns agreement, and we want to maximise the deployment of the terms of that agreement. That is a brilliant starting point for trying to accelerate some of the processing, and ultimately the removals, of Albanian nationals. Albanian nationals are received in the same way as other small-boat arrivals. However, due to the excellent relationship built with my Albanian counterpart, we are able to expedite the removal of Albanians who have no reason to be in the UK. We want to maximise that—we want to push forward with it and do so faster.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I would like to read to the Home Secretary a text message that a colleague of mine received this afternoon from an immigration expert:
“Just had a call with Ukraine that has reduced our team to tears—people are facing losing their lives in Kyiv or watching their children freeze in the countryside purely because of delays in processing their visas.
UK Home Office paper pushing and unnecessary waits are costing people their lives in Ukraine.”
That is about Ukraine, not Albania. Is that what the Home Secretary means when she says this Government are taking asylum seriously?
Suella Braverman
I dispute the right hon. Gentleman’s version of events, with respect. Since 2015, the UK has offered a place to over 380,000 men, women and children seeking safety, including from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, as well as many family members of refugees.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I strongly support all that the Home Secretary said in her opening statement: she spoke for the nation in saying we need to control this problem, and she spoke for all those caught up in these tragic events. I hope that all men and women of good will get behind her, and that the Home Office fully supports her in making sure we can speed up processing and return all illegal economic migrants to the safe countries they came from.
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend speaks a lot of sense, as always, and he is right; the British people have had enough of an out-of-control borders system. It is incumbent upon this Government to address that, and I know for a fact that this Prime Minister takes the problem extremely seriously, and I know he will leave no stone unturned until it is fixed.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
There is nothing patriotic about making children suffer, but that is exactly what is happening as a direct result of this Home Secretary’s failure to get to grips with processing asylum. She talks as if the hotels are somehow a better option. In my constituency there is one with 150 children squeezed alongside another 350 adults, seven or eight to a room—no notice to the local authority that they would be placed there; no cooking facilities; no school places for these primary school-aged children; no clothes for most of them, especially for the winter weather; no play facilities, if they are allowed out at all from these prisons; no safeguarding as far as any of us can see. If the Home Secretary is so confident that that is meeting her duty of care on behalf of the country, will she publish the contract requirements for how children are housed in hotels and the precise details of the services that they should expect and which we should be proud of as a country dealing with those seeking asylum?
Suella Braverman
We are currently accommodating unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in hotels with a maximum occupancy of 353, and additional available accommodation is coming on stream. I would say to the hon. Lady that it is a fallacy to suggest that we are somehow cutting corners. When I arrived at the Home Office, I was frankly dismayed and appalled to find that we are spending, on average, £150 per person per night—by my standard, that is quite a nice hotel—to accommodate people in hotels. On my review and closer scrutiny of how that decision making was taking place, I identified several four-star hotels around the country that were being procured for the purpose. That, for me, is not an acceptable use of taxpayers’ money.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Unsolicited economic migration to the UK via illegal trafficking must be stopped. We must use our limited resources to support valid asylum cases that have not come from a safe country. What steps is the Home Office taking to return illegal immigrants now to their home countries in cases of countries who will accept them?
Suella Braverman
We take removals seriously. Actually, part of the plan to solve the problem is about trying to accelerate the turnaround and processing of people arriving illegally. We have recently had some success in removing people back to Albania within quite a short period of time, but we need to go further and faster.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
May I gently remind the Home Secretary that it is not illegal to seek asylum? What is illegal is to detain people without a proper basis in law. Will she confirm that she has ignored legal advice that keeping asylum seekers at Manston for more than 24 hours could be illegal detention? Has she been advised that what is happening at Manston may amount to unlawful deprivation of liberty in terms of article 5 of the European convention on human rights, and inhuman and degrading treatment in terms of article 3? Despite her best efforts, we are still bound to comply with the convention by virtue of domestic law. What will she do about all of this? Even if she does not care about the human rights of the people detained at Manston, does she understand that her failure to obey the law may end up costing taxpayers vast amount of money in court fees and damages?
Suella Braverman
I confirm that I have not ever ignored legal advice. The Law Officers’ convention, which I still take seriously, means that I will not comment on the contents of legal advice that I may have seen. What I will say is this: I am not prepared to release migrants prematurely into the local community in Kent to no fixed abode. That, to me, is an unacceptable option.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
In the Secretary of State’s statement, she spoke of the successes of the UK-French joint alliance cell stopping 29,000 illegal immigrants from crossing. What are her thoughts on doubling those resources and finally eliminating these dangerous crossings?
Suella Braverman
Part of our plan for tackling this issue is about increasing our resources and manpower in order to detect and intercept the organised criminal gangs upstream. That is what part of the work with the French entails, and that is why I have been very encouraged by the discussions I have had with my French counterpart, Minister Darmanin, on how we can work better and more closely together, with our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies, jointly upstream to try to intercept early on.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Is it still explained to incoming Ministers, as it was to me more than 21 years ago, how easily one’s mobile phone can be compromised by organised criminals and hostile foreign powers? If so, how was her mobile phone and that of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), compromised in security breaches?
Suella Braverman
I set out those details in the letter today and I have made it clear that there were no issues about national security being compromised.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her dedication and the work that she is doing. What are the prospects of securing an alternative airline carrier to make the Rwanda plan a reality?
Suella Braverman
I am committed to delivering the Rwanda plan, which took a huge amount of work and commitment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), and is crucial to our multifaceted approach to the problem. We can look at the Australian experience of tackling a similar problem, and they would say that one very powerful tool was had from the moment at which they could return people or move them out of the territory to Papua New Guinea or Nauru. That had a massive deterrent effect, and that is what we want to deploy.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The conditions at Manston are clearly unsafe and inhumane. We know of the suffering that people have experienced there after 12 years under the Government’s shameful watch. However, we also understand that there is a lack of accommodation across the country. Why will the Home Secretary not open up a “homes for refugees” scheme so that people can be supported properly in our own communities?
Suella Braverman
While the issue at Manston is indisputably concerning, I do not want us to create alarm unnecessarily. I therefore gently urge the hon. Member not to use inflammatory language. We are aware, for example, of a very small number of cases of diphtheria reported at Manston, but it has very good medical facilities and all protocols have been followed. People are being fed, clothed and sheltered. There are very high numbers—unprecedented numbers—at Manston and we are working at pace to alleviate that pressure and to get people out. We anticipate—hopefully—300 people leaving this evening, and so on throughout the week. We are working urgently to solve the problem.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that it seems virtually impossible to stop large numbers of people landing illegally, does the Home Secretary think that it will be possible to enable those who have landed illegally and have a poor case to be removed promptly without a change in the law? If she thinks that the law has to be changed, which law is it?
Suella Braverman
One of the other plans that we have been working on is to change the law, because unfortunately our laws have too low a threshold—that is why our modern slavery laws are being abused by illegitimate claimants. We also need to take action to accelerate the process and prevent the exploitation of our laws. People are coming here and claiming asylum unfairly and unjustifiably. They are claiming under modern slavery laws and abusing our human rights laws and other protections. Frankly, they are taking advantage of the generosity of the British people.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Manston is supposed to be a short-term holding facility. People are not supposed to be there for more than 48 hours. That means people are being detained illegally in these conditions. Will the Home Secretary tell us how many people have been detained for more than 48 hours as well as how many claims for unlawful detention she is expecting, and at what cost?
Suella Braverman
We are aware that people have been detained, and we have very high numbers at Manston. That is why we are taking really exhaustive steps to ensure that we can procure alternative sites. We are looking at the dispersal mechanism and at sites in other local authorities around the country. We are looking at hotels—unfortunately, we have no other choice at the moment—and we are looking at other immigration detention or removal centres. So we are looking at a wide range of alternative places at which we can safely accommodate migrants.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Importantly, she says that everybody who arrives illegally undergoes essential security checks before they are released. Can she confirm that that applies not just to those who claim asylum, but also to those who land and do not claim asylum and are, in effect, arriving without a visa and are therefore eligible for temporary release from which they may not return?
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is right. The processing is as follows: people arrive and go first to Western Jet Foil where they get dry clothes and are looked after on their immediate arrival on to the territory. They are then taken to Manston for the biosecurity and security checks of the type he has just talked about.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Home Secretary says the system is broken. Well, yes, it is broken when we see the number of people taking dangerous trips across the channel rise year on year on year. Yes, it is broken when it takes longer and longer to deal with individual claims, so it is of greater cost to the British taxpayer. Yes, it is broken when we have thousands of people in completely inappropriate accommodation, which is probably breaking the law and they may end up having to seek compensation against the Government, again threatening the taxpayer. Yes, it is broken when a Home Secretary breaches the ministerial code six times and thinks that she has to step aside for only six days. I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, but do you not have to serve the time first? Or is there one rule for everybody else and a completely different one for her?
Suella Braverman
I gently refer the hon. Gentleman to the letter I sent today to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, which is clear about the timeline of my actions and decisions. I apologised, I took responsibility and that is why I resigned. This political witch hunt is all about ignoring the facts of the problem, which is the slow processing of asylum claims. That is why we are taking immediate action to bring the asylum backlog down. We have a pilot that is being rolled out. We are putting more resources and decision makers on to the frontline, and we have a different system to assess claims to try to speed up the time that people are waiting for a decision.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend very strongly for her statement. Does she agree that we must make a clear legal and enforceable distinction in statute law between genuine refugees and illegal economic migrants, and deal with this problem once and for all?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is spot on. We have to tell the truth to the British people. These people are not all refugees fleeing war and persecution, having suffered human rights violations. They are coming here often at their own will, and often having paid tens of thousands of pounds to procure a dangerous and lethal journey illegally across the channel, because they know that our laws are not fit for purpose and they can get away with a spurious claim.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It has been widely reported that children are being detained at the Manston site. Can the Home Secretary confirm—her Minister could not confirm it last week—how many children are on site right now?
Suella Braverman
We do not routinely detain children or unaccompanied asylum-seeking children at Manston, but a number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were accommodated, not detained, for a brief period this summer while accommodation was identified. Of course, people were evacuated to Manston yesterday, including children.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If people do not want to go to Manston, they can stay in France. We all know what is really behind these unpleasant personal attacks. This Home Secretary is the only one with the guts, determination and legal knowledge to reform our ridiculous human rights law, and detain these people and send them back. That is the only way we are going to deal with this issue. Those who constantly make these personal attacks on somebody who has made just one mistake and apologised should remember the old motto: understand and judge not. Has she the determination to amend our ridiculous laws?
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to change the law. There are too many people coming here and making spurious human rights claims, protracting the asylum application system. They know they can put in appeal after appeal. They can challenge decisions and spend a lot of time here in full knowledge of the fact that they are not genuine asylum seekers.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Home Affairs Committee report, “Channel crossings, migration and asylum” showed that it takes on average 550 days to process unaccompanied children. The report also illustrated that some unaccompanied children go missing from their hotels, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently. What is the Home Secretary doing to find those children and to protect them from criminal or sexual exploitation?
Suella Braverman
Well, of course, it is very serious when a child goes missing, particularly in those circumstances. When it happens, we work very closely with local authorities and the police to operate a robust missing persons protocol. We have also changed the national transfer scheme so that all local authorities with children’s services must support young people. We need to identify and ensure proper risk assessments so that we have the proper protections in place to ensure this does not happen.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I declare an interest as a member of the RAMP Project. Returning to the issue of children, we have seen terrible accounts of children sleeping on mats at Manston. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that no children are being kept at Manston for longer than 48 hours and that proper safeguarding procedures are in place? Will she let us know what work is being done with Kent County Council to make sure that the children who are there are being safeguarded? Will she please urge the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to come to the Women and Equalities Committee, where we are doing an inquiry into the asylum system? He is not available this Wednesday, but can he make it as soon as possible please?
Suella Braverman
We take extremely seriously our duty of care towards children and young people who are in the system. As I said, there are delays in the system because of the extortionate amount of cases due to be processed. We are working to prioritise applications from children and young people where possible. We want to increase overall decision making, numbers and capacity, so that children are processed far more quickly than others.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has come to the House today and announced to us that the immigration system is broken. Can she tell us who has been in power for the last 12 years?
Suella Braverman
I tell you what the British people need to know. They need to know that it was the Labour Government who oversaw mass migration and, effectively, a de facto open borders policy with record levels of immigration to this country. The Labour party would continue to allow uncontrolled borders. It would cancel the Rwanda scheme. It would not take any action to stop illegal migration and it would make a mockery of our borders.
Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of concerns I have raised recently about the lack of joined-up planning between the Home Office, Serco and local authorities regarding asylum accommodation, and the specific concerns I have raised regarding the use of a hotel in my constituency. Will she meet me and the Staffordshire Leaders Board, who are keen to ensure a joined-up approach to asylum dispersal through improved communication between local authorities, Serco and the Home Office?
Suella Braverman
Coming into the Home Office in September has shown me how the decision-making process behind choosing hotels goes on. I have heard from several colleagues their concerns about the use of hotels. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and her colleagues to hear about concerns in her local area. We need to make them much more evenly distributed. We need to make sure that areas are taking their fair share. Ultimately, we need to ensure that people have a bed and a room to stay in, because that is where the problem originates.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
You may remain seated, if you wish, to ask your question, Allan. I call Allan Dorans.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Good evening. I am sure all Members will join me in thanking the staff undertaking the difficult task of keeping everyone safe in these challenging circumstances. Will the Home Secretary give firm assurances today that members of the Prison Officers Association and other staff working at Manston will remain free from personal liability for any illegal decisions by the Government around extending detention?
Suella Braverman
We are always concerned about the personal responsibility and safety of the staff at Manston. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to every single person who has been working on the frontline, particularly over the past few days when the issues have been quite chronic, quite acute and incredibly tough for them. They are doing a brilliant job and we will do everything to ensure that their professional positions are safeguarded.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
We need to change the definition of “asylum”. Many people in these centres and hotels are illegal migrants. Many of them are economic migrants who are taking a chance by crossing the English channel. If people come here illegally, why can we not just deport them?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend raises an important point and he is absolutely right. Other European countries take a very different approach to the consideration and processing of asylum claims. The reality is that once someone makes an asylum claim, we are duty-bound to consider it. What is very good about the Rwanda scheme is that it means that the asylum claim will be considered in Rwanda, so we will be able to physically remove people before that long delay takes place.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
There have consistently been 1,500 asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency—I think that is the largest number in any constituency—and I welcome them. I congratulate the local agencies, the local voluntary sector and the local churches, gurdwaras and mosques for all the support that they have given to those people because of the experiences that they have gone through. Many of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the situation was meant to be resolved by relocation and the fast processing of cases. When they are processed, the bulk of people are, I believe, accepted as genuine asylum seekers. We are now into our second year and beyond and there is a need to review the resources that go into local areas such as mine, particularly to support the local NHS, local schools, the local authority and the local voluntary sector. Will the Home Secretary initiate that review as rapidly as possible? We want to do all we can to assist such people, but we need the local resources to do that.
Suella Braverman
As I have set out, there are challenges in securing the sufficient accommodation, full stop—whether that means hotels or dispersal accommodation. That is due to the limited private rental market stock. We work with local authorities to ensure that there is sufficient support for people who arrive in those areas, but there is a definite pressure—financial and otherwise—due to people being accommodated for long periods of time around the country.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then. Albanian criminals are leaving Albania, which is a safe country, and the same criminals then set up shop in France. They then leave France, which is a safe country, and come across the channel to the UK. When they get into accommodation, the Opposition parties say that the accommodation is not good enough for them. Does the Home Secretary agree that if the accommodation is not good enough for them, they can get on a dinghy and go straight back to France?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right: the average cost per person per night in a hotel is £150. By my standards, that is quite a nice hotel. Therefore, any complaints that the accommodation is not good enough are, frankly, absolutely indulgent and ungrateful.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Five separate sources told The Sunday Times that the Home Secretary was advised that “the legal breach” at Manston
“needed to be resolved urgently by rehousing the asylum seekers in alternative accommodation.”
Are all five lying?
Suella Braverman
As I said, I am very happy to confirm—by reference to the timeline, effectively—that I have been aware of this issue for several weeks. I would love to be able to magic up thousands of beds overnight. Unfortunately, it is not that easy. As a result of my concerns, which I identified several weeks ago, we have put in place a whole operational command to try to increase the capacity of accommodation and ease the pressure on Manston, but it takes time.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is not the reason why Sweden and Germany do not countenance asylum seekers from Albania the fact that those countries do not have laws against modern slavery that are being abused and exploited by Albanian gangs?
Suella Braverman
As I said, Albania is a signatory to the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. That is the originating international convention, which underlines our modern slavery laws. There is absolutely no reason in law why an Albanian national cannot claim modern slavery protection in Albania.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I do not think that it was unkind of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) to remind the Home Secretary that the system that she has rubbished time and again today is a product of 12 years of Tory Government.
Staff who are employed at Manston are extremely anxious about their responsibilities and roles and how law-breaking decisions affect them. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that staff will remain free from personal liability for any illegal decisions taken by others, including Ministers, about extended detention?
Suella Braverman
I am very proud of this Government’s track record on helping some of the most vulnerable people come to this country from some of the most dangerous parts of the world. Fifty-five thousand visas have been issued under the Ukraine family scheme and there have been 138,000 Ukrainian sponsorship scheme visas. Fifteen thousand individuals were evacuated from Afghanistan under Operation Pitting and 5,000 people have arrived in the year since, and 20,000 people will be resettled under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. That is a record of which I am proud.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are appalled by the number of illegal economic migrants coming across the English channel. Again, Stoke-on-Trent, which currently has more than 800, is being asked to carry the burden, with an attempt to try to place more in the North Stafford Hotel. Will my right hon. and learned Friend immediately stop that abuse of Stoke-on-Trent and instead put illegal economic migrants in places with open border and free movement supporters, such as in the shadow immigration Minister’s area?
Suella Braverman
I was grateful for the time that my hon. Friend gave me, with his Stoke colleagues, to explain the exact difficulty in Stoke. I have identified that there is a disproportionate distribution of refugees throughout the country in hotels. We need to make that much more equivalent, much more cost-effective and fair.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
In contrast to Labour’s commitment to employ 100 extra specialist National Crime Agency officers to tackle the criminal gangs upstream, the Home Secretary’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), asked the NCA to draw up plans for a 40% reduction in staff. Will this Home Secretary explain her plans for staffing and how she intends to improve collaboration with the French on that problem?
Suella Braverman
Working collaboratively with the French is a key component in solving this problem. The simple truth is that we cannot do this alone. That is why I am very pleased that we have a relationship with the French and I am very keen to amplify that. That will involve greater surveillance between the French and British authorities; greater intelligence co-operation and interception upstream between the French and the British authorities; and joint working at all points in the system. That co-operation is vital.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
As I am sure the Home Secretary knows, she has my full support in doing whatever she can to stop illegal migration into this country. We have had several conversations about this issue, but does she share my concerns about putting illegal immigrants in places across the UK that do not have the infrastructure or the expertise to look after them? Also, will she commit to ensuring that she talks to Government Members when illegal migrants might come into their constituencies to make sure that we can represent our constituents properly?
Suella Braverman
Ultimately, we need to bear down on the asylum backlog so that fewer people are in the UK waiting for a decision. We also need to stop the use of hotels at £6 million a night.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
During her first disastrous spell in the role, the Home Secretary ignored legal advice from her officials that explicitly set out the unlawfulness of the inhumane treatment of migrants at the Manston centre. That is not inflammatory language; that is fact. As if that were not bad enough, she has now admitted to breaking the ministerial code on six separate occasions. How on earth can she stand at the Dispatch Box with a straight face and try to defend cruelty towards the most desperate of people? Doesn’t she need to take a look in the mirror to see who is a threat to national security and accept that she is totally unfit for the job?
Suella Braverman
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the letter I sent today, in which I have been very fulsome in the details of the circumstance of 19 October. I have apologised for the error and taken responsibility, and that is why I resigned.
I have not ignored or dismissed any legal advice with which I have been provided. I cannot go into the details of that legal advice because of the Law Officers’ convention. That is part of the decision-making process that all Ministers go through. We have to take into account our legal duties not to leave people destitute; I have to take into account the fact that I do not want to prematurely release hundreds of migrants into the Kent community; I have to take into account value for money; I have to take into account fairness for the British taxpayer.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and thank for her all the courageous efforts that she is making to deal with a very difficult problem. Opposition Members’ answer is “Let them all in.” That is totally, totally unacceptable.
One solution, surely, would be to return these illegal refugees to the countries from whence they came, if indeed that is possible—to Albania, for example. With how many countries is my right hon. Friend negotiating to do so? Has she succeeded in any of those negotiations?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party does not have any solutions to the problem, so it would rather spend airtime on a distraction. That is what this is all about.
Yes, we are having some success with returning people more swiftly to Albania. It is early days and I do not want to overplay it, because it is still very difficult legally, but those agreements with safe countries are vital to ensuring that people who come from a safe country—not from persecution, not fleeing war—can be legitimately returned because they are not here for asylum.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Home Secretary is responsible for national security. If she were made aware of a Government employee—a civil servant—who, despite apologies, had been sacked for sharing Government material several times on their private email or device, would she sanction their re-employment?
Suella Braverman
As I have made clear, I am very willing to apologise for mistakes that I have made, but what I am not willing to do is apologise for things that I have not done. As I have said, it is not right that there has been a breach of national security. It is not right that there was a document about security matters, intelligence agencies or law enforcement. Those things are simply not true.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
In the words of the Home Secretary, “The system is broken.” After 12 years of Tory Government, the asylum system is broken. If she is saying that we have no solutions, she can press on the Prime Minister the need to call a general election and let the electorate decide who they trust more. The recent revelations—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. All hon. Members can see what time it is. We have five hours of business ahead, plus votes. We need questions, not statements—a question, please, Mr Ali.
Tahir Ali
The recent revelations of conditions at Manston processing centre highlight the complete and utter failure of leadership at the Home Office. Will the Home Secretary do the decent thing once again, as she did on 19 October? Will she resign from her position because of the conditions at Manston?
Suella Braverman
I am very clear about what this Government’s priority is. It is about tackling the scourge of illegal migration, taking a firm line, changing the law where our laws are being abused, working collaboratively with the French, ensuring we are removing people who are not meant to be here and ensuring that the British people can have confidence in their borders.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Many people in my constituency are worried about paying their heating bills, many people in my constituency are concerned about getting GP appointments, and many of my hotels are full up with illegal migrants. Does the Home Secretary appreciate the sense of unfairness that my constituents feel? When will legislation be introduced to resolve the situation?
Suella Braverman
Yes, I appreciate the seriousness of the issue. It has been my No. 1 priority since September. It is unacceptable that we are spending £6 million a day on hotel accommodation for asylum seekers. It is unacceptable that we have 35,000 asylum seekers in hotels distributed around the country. We need to bring that to an end. We need a comprehensive plan of alternative sites, we need to speed up our processing of asylum, we need to remove people from the UK more quickly, and ultimately we need to change our law. We will introduce legislation later this year to ensure that there is no longer any abuse of our laws.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of RAMP, the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.
I have been listening carefully. I would like to ask the Home Secretary again: how many extra hotel rooms has she personally procured in her position? In her letter of resignation, she wrote:
“Pretending we haven’t made mistakes, carrying on as if everyone can’t see that we have made them, and hoping that things will magically come right is not serious politics.”
Does she agree that she has made yet another mistake, that she should accept responsibility, and that she should resign?
Suella Braverman
I am very pleased to repeat for the record that since 6 September, under my watch, over 30 new hotels have been agreed. They will provide over 4,500 additional bed spaces to be brought into use.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Prime Minister is six days into his summer pledge to fix this crisis within 100 days, so I hope—and my constituents in Workington hope—that the Home Secretary is getting the support she needs around the Cabinet table. Among those held, what is her assessment of the scale of abuse of our modern slavery laws?
Suella Braverman
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the point. Let me say two things. First, the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to fixing this problem. I have no doubt whatever about his determination to fix it once and for all. I have huge confidence in him and am grateful for his support operationally on this.
With modern slavery laws, it is not just about people coming here on the boats and claiming modern slavery, which effectively buys them a year because it takes 400 days on average for a modern slavery claim to be processed, so they know that they will be accommodated in the UK free of charge. It is even worse than that: there are serious foreign national offenders in this country who have served sentences of several years for sex offences, drug offences or other serious offences. When they finish their sentence and the UK authorities want to deport them, what do they do? They claim to be a victim of modern slavery.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is absolutely essential that the pressures on the Manston centre be relieved as soon as possible. It is also essential that we do not simply replicate its conditions in concentrations of hotels. I have a ward in which so many hotels are being commissioned, including two more this weekend, that the ratio is 800% above Home Office guidelines. The local authority is getting virtually no support to manage it, and no capacity at all is being provided to the health service for the very real health issues that need to be dealt with. Will the Home Secretary ensure that Home Office officials meet me immediately to discuss how we can ensure that, when asylum seekers come into these hotels, they are properly managed and dispersed?
Suella Braverman
I would be very glad for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue in detail. My review is looking into the process of identification of hotels around the country. We are seeing a real geographical imbalance in where they are located: there is real pressure in certain places, while other places are not taking people. We need to bring some equivalence to the process, and ultimately we need to bring it to an end. We need to make it more cost-effective, but ultimately we need to be processing people more quickly.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
We have heard yet again today that Opposition Members want to prioritise the welfare of illegal immigrants. My priority and, I believe, the priority of Conservative Members is our constituents who are desperate for social housing or who are sofa surfing. Many of them are women and children. Is it not an outrage that we are spending £2.5 billion a year when we will soon be asking those very same people to share the burden of further cuts to public services?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend has raised an important point. The fact is that we are receiving an unprecedented number of people coming into this country, many of whom are coming illegally. They require accommodation. That is putting excess pressure on our current housing stock, whether it is hotels, the private rented market, or beds in other sorts of building. Ultimately, we do not have enough space for these people and we need to find it quickly. It is very difficult. It will be done, but it will take time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am trying to get everyone in, but Members are going to have help me. I ask them please to focus on the question rather than a long preface.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her endeavours to deal with a truly difficult and complex situation. May I ask her what steps are in place to ensure that asylum centres are able to provide a basic standard of mental health care for those affected by the disgraceful action that took place at the weekend? Can she ensure that asylum seekers are safe while they are waiting for the determination of their applications, as is the law in this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Suella Braverman
As I have said—and I will reiterate it again and again—I am very grateful for the brilliant response from the emergency services, the authorities and everyone at Western Jet Foil and Manston, yesterday and subsequently, in dealing with this incident. We are making sure that they are well supported. We will need more staff because of the increased numbers—I am not going to mislead the hon. Member on that—but we are trying to make arrangements to ensure that they are supported so they are not overburdened.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
May I welcome the Home Secretary back to her rightful place on the Front Bench? She has the support of the millions of Britons who are just hoping that one day we may finally get a grip on the small boats crisis. The Home Affairs Committee has been told that between 1% and 2% of the entire male population of Albania—10,000 men—have arrived in the UK in the past year. Why on earth are we accepting asylum claims from Albania when countries such as Germany and Sweden do not?
Suella Braverman
We have to ensure that our asylum laws are fit for purpose. Some great achievements have been secured by the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and they are going to be operationalised in due course. However, my hon. Friend is right: we need to change our laws to ensure that people are not abusing our legal framework.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Yesterday, in a horrifying attack, a man threw petrol bombs at Tug Haven immigration centre in Dover. Does the Home Secretary consider that to be an act of terrorism? If not, why not—and will she unequivocally condemn all those who promote hatred towards migrants?
Suella Braverman
Of course, I am not going to comment on the particular details of this case. It is a very sad case and a very worrying case, and I am very concerned about the safety and security of the sites at Western Jet Foil and Manston. We evacuated the people from Western Jet Foil to Manston, and they are now back at Western Jet Foil. There has been a huge amount of effort by the authorities and I am very grateful to them.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone listening to these exchanges could only conclude that Opposition Members are more interested in illegal economic migrants than in law-abiding British people?
Suella Braverman
As my hon. Friend will know, one of the promises in the 2019 manifesto was to reduce overall numbers when it came to migration, and also to fix the problem of illegal migration. He and I both campaigned to leave the European Union, and 17 million people voted for control over their borders. That is what this Government will deliver.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Refugee Council has demanded a taskforce to clear the 120,000 backlog of asylum seekers, most of whom are living in appalling, overcrowded, unsafe and inhumane circumstances, and the cost of those in hotels is, by the Home Secretary’s own admission, about £5.6 million. The council has also called for the Government to convene a summit of refugees and migration experts, local authorities and housing providers to examine options for short and long-term suitable accommodation for people seeking asylum. Will the Home Secretary do that?
Suella Braverman
As I have said, I am very concerned about how we accommodate people who are waiting for their asylum claims to be processed. We need to bear down on that backlog so they are not waiting for so long and can get a decision, whether that be to remove them, or for them to be here on a legal basis. We need to ensure that the accommodation is cost-effective, lawful and reasonable.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I make no apology for prioritising the welfare of my constituents who sent me here. I do not wake up every day worrying about the welfare of people who have entered our country illegally and shown scant regard for our laws. It is for those reasons that I am so concerned about the Novotel situation. However, does the Home Secretary agree that it is bad—we should not have illegal immigrants in hotels—but ultimately this will not be nipped in the bud unless we get fully behind Rwanda? On the definition of a refugee, we know so many people who get refugee status are not refugees—they are economic migrants and they should be sent back.
Suella Braverman
I think my hon. Friend is right. We need to call out the misrepresentation of this problem. It is not the case that these are all refugees fleeing persecution, war-torn countries, conflict or human rights violations. Many of the people arriving here in small boats are actively and willingly procuring those journeys. They are often paying tens of thousands of pounds for those journeys. They are coming here knowingly and willingly, and they are coming here for economic reasons.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary tell us how many, if any, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have been accommodated at Manston or Western Jet Foil, and what arrangements she is making to keep them in safety in hotels, properly supervised and safeguarded?
Suella Braverman
As far as I am aware, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are not routinely detained at Manston, but what I will say is that a number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were accommodated—not detained—for a brief period in the summer while accommodation was being identified and of course, overnight people have been evacuated to Manston from Western Jet Foil, and that will have included some children.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The issues that we are discussing this afternoon are symptomatic, in the main, of illegal immigration. First, may I commend the Home Secretary for her stated intention to deal resolutely with the small boats crisis, and secondly, may I ask her exactly what primary legislation we might expect—primary legislation is needed—and when we might expect it?
Suella Braverman
I thank my hon. Friend for his observations. Ultimately, he is right. We need to be straight with people. There is an influx, an unprecedented number of people coming to this country. They are claiming to be modern slaves, they are claiming asylum illegitimately, and they are effectively economic migrants. They are not coming here for humanitarian purposes. We therefore need to change our laws. We need to ensure that there is a limitation on the ability to abuse our asylum laws, and we need to ensure that our modern slavery laws are fit for purpose and cannot be exploited by illegitimate claimants.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. May I remind the Home Secretary to face the microphone? I cannot quite hear everything that is being said, and Hansard may have difficulties as well.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary’s letter today outlined six breaches. She used a personal device to send official emails, using a personal Gmail address. When I receive emails through Gmail, I assume that they are personal emails. What assurances can the Home Secretary give the House that none of those emails was forwarded to third parties, and what investigations have been made to establish that those personal Gmail emails were not hacked by any foreign powers?
Suella Braverman
I have answered this question, but for repetition’s sake, I will say that I set out all the details in the letter of 19 October. None of those emails was forwarded to anyone else. I am here to focus on the task in hand, which is the situation at Manston and how we are going to bear down on our asylum backlog. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would be more interested in that, too.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary’s robust approach to this issue, which is a matter of fairness that is hugely important to my constituents. Increasingly, young men are arriving in the UK and later claiming to be unaccompanied children. At that point, the local authority has to treat them as looked-after children, and as they are claiming to be 17, we have to look after them until they are 25 years old. The average cost of a looked-after child is over £100,000 a year, and I think my constituents would be horrified to learn that their council tax is being spent on that when it is intended for public services. Can my right hon. and learned Friend commit to looking at these rules and to making sure that these extortionate costs, which are hammering funds intended to support my constituents with public services, can be changed? Does she agree that it will be impossible for the public to trust that our immigration policies are properly robust and fair as long people can arrive here illegally from a safe country and stay here at the expense of UK taxpayers?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend hits on a really important aspect of the problem, which is people who are coming here and claiming to be children. We have seen this trend over several years. What I would say about Albania is that we are getting many Albanian people coming here and the majority of them are adult single males. They are not, by majority, women, children or elderly people. The claim of being a child is something we are going to clamp down on, and in the new year we will be delivering more robust age assessment procedures so that there will be less abuse of this very problem.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
When the Home Secretary said that Indian migrants represented the largest number of visa overstayers in this country, was that based on a Home Office briefing? Would she consider putting some details in the Library so that we can all see the extent of the problem to which she was referring?
Suella Braverman
I am keen to ensure that we honour our manifesto commitment, which is to bring overall migration figures down and clamp down on the scourge of illegal migration. I am keen to support the Government—I see the Minister of State, Department for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) here—in their negotiations on a historic deal with India. Great friends, great allies, with whom a great partnership can be forged.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who campaigned to take foreign criminals off flights, those who obstruct us from implementing our Rwanda scheme and those who continue to encourage the shameful behaviour of so-called charities and activist lawyers have done nothing but contribute to this criminal activity and to a system now bursting at the seams?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I speak to our heroic Border Force officials on a regular basis and they tell me about their first-hand experience. What they have seen is repeated and vexatious claims. They see people arriving and not making a claim, then they might see a lawyer and suddenly come up with a claim after they have seen their lawyer. They make repeated and late claims as well, because they know that that is how to game the system. There are real concerns about the practice of some lawyers—not all lawyers, but some—and I encourage the authorities to take action.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
So is the Home Secretary acknowledging that there are human beings at the Manston centre who are being unlawfully detained for long periods? If so, what assessment has her Department provided to her of the prospect of someone issuing a legal challenge against her Department for this unlawful detention?
Suella Braverman
I am very clear that we have too many people at Manston, as of today, as we have done for some time now. That is why we are taking urgent steps to remedy the problem.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we need to break the business model of the people smugglers and that we need to stop the boats. Does she agree that the Opposition’s suggestion of enhancing safe and legal routes is a mirage, because no matter how much we expand them—unless we expand them to unlimited amounts—there will still be people willing to take the journey? So the only way we can stop this is by making sure that the people who take the illegal route do not get to stay in this country.
Suella Braverman
We have already several safe and legal routes through which people who are genuine asylum seekers can make the application. As I have said, I am proud of our record of welcoming people who are genuinely fleeing persecution, war, conflict and human rights violations, but we cannot accept a situation where people are bypassing those routes—jumping the queue, effectively—on illegitimate bases and making fabricated claims to be victims.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Home Secretary blamed her predecessor for the crisis that she has inherited twice. Indeed, the Home Office’s own impact assessment of the Nationality and Borders Bill said that it risked leading more people to taking desperate routes to the UK, as we have seen, so why is she doubling down on the same approach? I have many constituents who have been waiting years for asylum decisions. What is her target for processing claims? When will she clear the backlog? Does she agree that the cost to the taxpayer would be reduced by granting the right to work to those whose claims have not been processed within six months, as is supported on both sides of the House and overwhelmingly by the public?
Suella Braverman
I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what I have just said. I do not criticise my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). She achieved a huge amount during her time as Home Secretary, including passing the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which will take a massive step forward in dealing with the problem. That is something that the hon. Gentleman voted against. She also secured the Rwanda agreement, a landmark partnership with our friends in Rwanda, to tackle this problem head-on for the first time. I am very grateful for her work and her contribution.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Of course we have moral obligations to asylum seekers, and it may well be the case that conditions at Manston are unacceptable, but what is totally unacceptable is the fact that every month thousands of young men arrive in this country from a safe third country and that many of them have set off from a safe third country in the form of Albania. There have been 40,000 this year alone, which is half the size of the British Army. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend shares the dismay at the situation felt by those on the Government Benches, unlike those on the Opposition Benches, who seem from their questions today to be concerned only to advocate an open border policy and to take pot shots at a Minister who is uniquely committed—
Danny Kruger
My question is: will the Home Secretary assure the House that she will not be deflected from her strategy of deterring the illegal migration that we are seeing?
Suella Braverman
What a great question from my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. What is more, we are identifying, particularly with the young, single men who are coming from Albania, that they are either part of organised criminal gangs and procuring their journey through those nefarious means, or they are coming here and partaking in criminal activity, particularly related to drugs—supply and otherwise. In fact, a few weeks ago I attended a raid with members of the National Crime Agency where they arrested a suspected Albanian people smuggler in Banbury. This is a criminal problem. There are many people coming here with criminal intent and behaving in a criminal way. We need to stop it.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
At the recent Conservative party conference, the Home Secretary said that it was her “dream”, indeed her “obsession”, to see pictures of planes taking off for Rwanda on the front page of The Daily Telegraph—it had to be the Telegraph, of course. Does she appreciate how offensive, disturbing and anti-humanitarian that statement is, particularly when we bear in mind the true perspective that there are more than 80 million refugees and internally displaced people in the world, that the UK takes proportionally fewer refugees than many other European countries, and that the Home Office’s own figures from this year show that over 70% of asylum claims are successful, which belies all the propaganda that these are economic migrants?
Suella Braverman
I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I find offensive and disturbing. It is the sight of thousands of people coming to these shores illegally without a valid asylum claim, taking advantage of our generosity, abusing our laws and being accommodated free of charge. It is unfair, it is unacceptable and it is not right.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
So far this year, 12,000 Albanians have entered the United Kingdom through small boat crossings of the channel, and 10,000 of those are adult single males. As commander Dan O’Mahoney told the Home Affairs Committee, the main driver of that activity is the strength of organised Albanian criminal gangs in the north of France and the transfer of that behaviour to the United Kingdom, together with the determination of people to work on the black market. There is no reason for these people to be here. We should follow the route of other European countries and ensure that they are returned immediately to Albania. What discussions has my right hon. and learned Friend had with her Albanian counterpart to address this important issue?
Suella Braverman
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He identifies exactly the problem we are dealing with, and it needs a multifaceted approach that includes deploying and operationalising our returns agreement with Albania and ensuring we take robust action against the many people coming here from Albania with illegitimate aims.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is a security risk. She said more than once in her letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, that 19 October was the only time she used her personal email to send Home Office documents to people outside Government. Does that include other, non-secure networks such as messaging services? Does it include any insecure communication inside Government? And does it include the time she spent in other Departments, especially her tenure as Attorney General, which lasted over a year compared with the few chaotic weeks she has been Home Secretary?
Suella Braverman
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the letter I sent today, which sets out all the details of the actions, the decisions and the rationale behind the events of 19 October. I have apologised for the mistake and taken responsibility, which is why I resigned.
The hon. Gentleman’s party has no solutions for the problem we are dealing with. If Labour was in charge, it would be allowing all the Albanian criminals to come to this country. It would be allowing all the small boats to come to the UK, it would open our borders and totally undermine the trust of the British people in controlling our sovereignty.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Can the Home Secretary tell me how many places in alternative accommodation she approved in September? When was the first of those places signed off? When was the first person able to be housed in that accommodation signed off? If she does not have those figures to hand, will she agree to write to me with them at the earliest opportunity?
Suella Braverman
I will not bore the Chamber by repeating my answer to a question that I have now been asked on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman will be able to check the record for the specific number of hotels and beds procured during my tenure. I am very glad that we have taken urgent action to deal with this issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for answering questions for 18 minutes short of two hours.
Points of Order
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In July, the Prime Minister was recorded saying that, as Chancellor, he had changed funding formulas to benefit better-off communities at the expense of deprived parts of the country. On Sunday, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities told Sky News that this was a direct response to a question from someone from Thanet, one of the most deprived parts of the south-east. It has since become clear that that is not the case. A video emerged yesterday showing that the questioner is a councillor from Tunbridge Wells who did not once mention Thanet, as the Secretary of State claimed.
So far, nobody in Government has come to this House to clarify which funding formulas were changed, with which justification, on whose authority and why the only explanation offered by any member of this Government has now turned out to be false. Mr Deputy Speaker, have you had notice from either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister of their intention to make a statement to this House? If not, can you advise the House on how to pursue this very serious matter on behalf of communities across the country that have been deprived of funding?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me advance notice of her point of order. I have had no indication of any such statement, but the Government Front Bench will have heard her comments. Of course, comments made outside the House are not a matter for the Chair. She is free to pursue this matter through other means, and I am sure she will.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will be aware of the tragedy off the Teesside, County Durham and North Yorkshire coast, where crustaceans and other wildlife have been decimated and have washed up on our beaches. More dead creatures have washed up today and, according to the Government, there is no definitive cause of this devastation, which is effectively killing our sea and polluting our beaches.
Last week, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs took evidence from both the Government and eminent university scientists. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says it may have been an algae bloom, whereas the scientists believe it to be pollution, likely linked to the dredging of the River Tees. Given this, Mr Deputy Speaker, are you aware of a planned statement from DEFRA Ministers? If not, can you guide me as to how I may secure one?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his point of order. I can confirm that I have had no notice of a statement being made tonight. If that changes, Members will be notified in the usual manner. Ministers, again, will have heard his point of order, and I am sure he will pursue the matter. The Clerks in the Table Office are available to offer advice on how he might do so.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Dr Gary Caldwell, a marine scientist at Newcastle University, expressed his concern that there is a causal link between the mass die-offs and pyridine. That concern is shared by three scientists from different Government agencies who have written to him asking for the data. They think the capital dredging should be paused while further investigations are carried out. I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how we might secure sight of the letters from those scientists, with an explanation from DEFRA Ministers about why, in these circumstances, capital dredging is justified without further investigation.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have nothing to add to my response to Mr Cunningham, but you will be able to pursue the matter through the Clerks in the Table Office.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 15 June 2022 (Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Mark Spencer.)
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Monday 31st October 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 View all Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 31 October 2022 - large font accessible version - (31 Oct 2022)
20:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 37 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 159 / Noes: 280 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 136 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 141 / Noes: 275 - Question accordingly negatived.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Accounts and audit—
“(1) The Authority must keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts and must prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts.
(2) The annual statement of accounts must comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, as to the information to be contained in the statement, the way in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(3) Not later than five months after the end of an accounting year, the Authority must send a copy of the statement of accounts for that year to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must examine, certify and report on every statement of accounts received by him under subsection (3) above and must lay a copy of the statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.
(6) In this section “accounting year” means the period beginning with the day when the Authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March.”
New clause 3—Reports to Secretary of State—
“(1) The Authority must prepare and send to the Secretary of State an annual report as soon as practicable after the end of the period of twelve months for which it is prepared.
(2) A report prepared under this section for any period must deal with the activities of the Authority in the period and the activities the Authority proposes to undertake in the succeeding period of twelve months.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every report received by him under this section.”
New clause 4—General functions of the Authority—
“(1) The Authority must—
(a) keep under review information about the use of genetic technology in plants and animals and any subsequent development of genetic technology and advise the Secretary of State about those matters,
(b) publicise the services provided to the public by the Authority or provided in pursuance of release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act,
(c) provide, to such extent as it considers appropriate, a code of practice, advice and information for persons to whom release notification requirements or marketing authorisations under this Act apply,
(d) maintain a statement of the general principles which it considers should be followed—
(i) in the carrying-on of activities governed by this Act, and
(ii) in the carrying-out of its functions in relation to such activities,
(e) promote, in relation to activities governed by this Act, compliance with—
(i) requirements imposed by or under this Act, and
(ii) the Authority’s code of practice,
(f) perform such other functions as may be specified in regulations.
(2) The Authority may, if it thinks fit, charge a fee for any advice provided under subsection (1)(c).”
New clause 5—Duties in relation to carrying out its functions—
(1) The Authority must carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically.
(2) In carrying out its functions, the Authority must, so far as relevant, have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice (including the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed).”
New clause 6—Power to delegate and establish committees—
“(1) The Authority may delegate a function to a committee, to a member or to staff.
(2) The Authority may establish such committees or sub-committees as it thinks fit (whether to advise the Authority or to exercise a function delegated to it by the Authority).
(3) The members of the committees or sub-committees may include persons who are not members of the Authority.
(4) Subsection (1) has effect subject to any enactment requiring a decision to be taken by members of the Authority or by a committee consisting of members of the Authority.”
New clause 7—Labelling of food or feed produced by precision bred organisms—
“(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred organism or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred organism or its progeny.
(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.
(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).
(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult representatives of—
(i) consumers,
(ii) citizens and civil society,
(iii) food producers,
(iv) suppliers,
(v) retailers,
(vi) growers and farmers,
(vii) the organic sector,
(viii) other persons likely to be affected by the regulations, and
(ix) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and
(b) seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency on the information to be required to be provided on labelling.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the labelling of precision bred organisms and food and feed products made from them and to consult with named stakeholders before doing so.
New clause 8—Labelling of food or feed produced by precision bred animals—
“(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred animal or its progeny.
(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.
(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 9—Power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms—
“(1) Schedule 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 11 insert—
‘Marketing of precision bred organisms
11A The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any Act of the Scottish Parliament, or any subordinate legislation made under or by virtue of such an Act, relating to the marketing of—
(a) precision bred organisms, or
(b) food or feed produced from precision bred organisms.’.”
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out
“or a precision bred animal”.
This amendment removes animals from the scope of the Bill.
Amendment 11, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) But for the purposes of this Act an organism is not “precision bred” if any feature of its genome results from any technique or process which involves the insertion of exogenous genetic material, whether or not such material is subsequently removed.”
This amendment would exclude the use of exogenous genetic material in the creation of precision bred organisms.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) the organism has been developed for or in connection with one or more of the following purposes—
(i) producing food in a way that protects or enhances a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;
(ii) growing and managing plants or animals in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;
(iii) producing food in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;
(iv) protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals;
(v) conserving native animals or genetic resources relating to any such animal;
(vi) protecting or improving the health of plants;
(vii) reducing the use of pesticides and artificial fertiliser;
(viii) conserving plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant;
(ix) protecting or improving the quality of soil;
(x) supporting or improving human health and well-being;
(xi) supporting or improving the sustainable use of resources.”
This amendment would require that a precision bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit, if it is to be released into the environment.
Amendment 4, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
“(za) that the precision bred traits will not have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny,
(zb) that the relevant animal and its qualifying progeny are not likely to experience pain, suffering or lasting harm arising from or connected with fast growth, high yields or any other increase in productivity,
(zc) that the precision bred traits will not facilitate the keeping of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny in conditions that are crowded, stressful or otherwise likely to have an adverse effect on animal welfare,
(zd) that the objective of the precision bred traits could not reasonably have been achieved by means that do not involve modification of the genome of the animal.”
The amendment requires a range of factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to issue a precision bred animal marketing authorisation.
Amendment 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
“(za) that the scientific evidence does not indicate that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny, and if so”.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from issuing a precision bred animal marketing authorisation if the scientific evidence indicated that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny.
Amendment 6, in clause 26, page 16, line 29, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to regulate the placing on the market in England of food and feed produced from precision bred organisms.
Amendment 7, page 16, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the marketing of food or feed produced from a precision bred organism on the market in England except in accordance with a marketing authorisation, and imposing requirements for the purpose of securing traceability.
Amendment 8, page 16, line 36, after “traceability”, insert “through supply chain auditing”.
This amendment makes supply chain auditing the method of securing traceability in relation to food or feed produced from precision bred organisms that is placed on the market in England.
Amendment 9, page 17, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment requires the prescribing of requirements that must be satisfied in order for the Secretary of State to issue a food and feed marketing authorisation in relation to a precision bred organism.
Amendment 10, page 17, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment prescribes which requirements must be satisfied in order for the Secretary of State to issue a food and feed marketing authorisation in relation to a precision bred organism.
Amendment 5, in clause 43, page 28, line 6, at end insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under this Act unless—
(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before Parliament under section 18(6) of the Environment Act 2021, and
(b) section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 is in force.
(8) Regulations under this Act must be made in accordance with—
(a) the environmental principles set out in section 17(5) of the Environment Act 2021, and
(b) Article 391 (Non-regression from levels of protection) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, done at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”
This amendment would prevent the exercise of any powers granted by the Bill until the Government’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.
Amendment 13, in clause 48, page 30, line 20, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations may not be made under or by virtue of this section unless a common framework agreement relating to the release and marketing of, and risk assessments relating to, precision bred plants and animals, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants and animals, has been agreed between a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.
(5B) “Common framework agreement” has the meaning given by section 10(4) of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.”
This amendment would prevent the operative parts of this Bill coming into force until a common framework agreement on the regulation of precision breeding had been agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
New schedule 1—The Authority: Supplementary Provisions—
“Status and capacity
1 The Authority is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or as enjoying any status, privilege or immunity of the Crown; and its property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
2 The Authority has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its functions, or is incidental or conducive to their discharge, except the power to borrow money.
Expenses
3 The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay the Authority out of money provided by Parliament such sums as he thinks fit towards its expenses.
Appointment of members
4 (1) All the members of the Authority (including the chairman and deputy chairman who are to be appointed as such) are to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The following persons are disqualified for being appointed as chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority—
(a) any person who is, or has been, concerned with the creation, release or marketing of plant or animal organisms, gametes or embryos created using genetic technology, and
(b) any person who is, or has been, directly concerned with commissioning or funding any research involving such creation, release or marketing, or who has actively participated in any decision to do so.
(3) The Secretary of State must secure that at least one-third but fewer than half of the other members of the Authority fall within sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b), and that at least one member falls within each of paragraphs (a) and (b).
5 (1) A person (“P”) is disqualified for being appointed as chairman, deputy chairman, or as any other member of the Authority if—
(a) P is the subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order,
(b) in the last five years P has been convicted in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man of an offence and has had a qualifying sentence passed on P.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), the date of conviction is to be taken to be the ordinary date on which the period allowed for making an appeal or application expires or, if an appeal or application is made, the date on which the appeal or application is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails by reason of its non-prosecution.
(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), the reference to a qualifying sentence is to a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than three months (whether suspended or not) without the option of a fine.
Tenure of office
6 (1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 7, a person holds and vacates office as a member of the Authority in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(2) A person may not be appointed as a member of the Authority for more than three years at a time.
(3) A member may at any time resign his office by giving notice to the Secretary of State.
(4) A person who ceases to be a member of the Authority is eligible for re-appointment (whether or not in the same capacity).
(5) A person holding office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority is to cease to hold that office if the person becomes disqualified for appointment to it.
(6) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member of the Authority—
(a) has been absent from meetings of the Authority for six consecutive months or longer without the permission of the Authority, or
(b) is unable or unfit to discharge the person's functions as chairman, deputy chairman or other member,
the Secretary of State may remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member.
(7) The Secretary of State may suspend a member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority if it appears to him that one of the conditions in paragraph (6) is or may be satisfied in relation to the member.
7 (1) This paragraph applies where the Secretary of State decides to suspend a member under paragraph 6(7).
(2) The Secretary of State must give notice to the member of the decision and the suspension takes effect on receipt by the member of the notice.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) is treated as being received by the member—
(a) in a case where it is delivered in person or left at the member's proper address, at the time at which it is delivered or left;
(b) in a case where it is sent by post to the member at that address, on the third day after the day on which it was posted.
(4) The initial period of suspension must not exceed 6 months.
(5) The Secretary of State may review the member's suspension at any time.
(6) The Secretary of State must review the member's suspension if requested in writing by the member to do so, but need not carry out a review less than 3 months after the beginning of the initial period of suspension.
(7) Following a review the Secretary of State may—
(a) revoke the suspension, or
(b) suspend the member for another period of not more than 6 months from the expiry of the current period.
(8) The Secretary of State must revoke the suspension if at any time—
(a) he decides that neither of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 5(5) is satisfied, or
(b) he decides that either of those conditions is satisfied but does not remove the member from office as chairman, deputy chairman or other member of the Authority.
Disqualification of members of Authority for House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly
8 In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
“The Genetic Technology Authority”.
Remuneration and pensions of members
9 (1) The Authority may—
(a) pay to the chairman such remuneration, and
(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of the chairman or any other member such pensions, allowances, fees, expenses or gratuities,
as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.
(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Authority otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for him to receive compensation, the Authority may make to him a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
Staff
10 (1) The Authority may appoint such employees as it thinks fit, upon such terms and conditions as the Authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
(2) The Authority must secure that any employee whose function is, or whose functions include, the inspection of premises is of such character, and is so qualified by training and experience, as to be a suitable person to perform that function.
(3) The Authority must, as regards such of its employees as with the approval of the Secretary of State it may determine, pay to or in respect of them such pensions, allowances or gratuities (including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of employment), or provide and maintain for them such pension schemes (whether contributory or not), as may be so determined.
(4) If an employee of the Authority—
(a) is a participant in any pension scheme applicable to that employment, and
(b) becomes a member of the Authority,
he may, if the Secretary of State so determines, be treated for the purposes of the pension scheme as if his service as a member of the Authority were service as employee of the Authority, whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 7 above.
Proceedings
11 (1) Subject to any provision of this Act, the Authority may regulate its own proceedings, and make such arrangements as it thinks appropriate for the discharge of its functions.
(2) The Authority may pay to the members of any committee or sub-committee such fees and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
12 (1) A member of the Authority who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a release notification or marketing authorisation under this Act must, as soon as possible after the relevant circumstances have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest to the Authority.
(2) Any disclosure under sub-paragraph (1) above must be recorded by the Authority.
(3) Except in such circumstances (if any) as may be determined by the Authority under paragraph 9(1) above, the member must not participate after the disclosure in any deliberation or decision of the Authority with respect to the release notification or marketing authorisation, and if he does so the deliberation or decision is of no effect.
13 The validity of any proceedings of the Authority, or of any committee or sub-committee, is not affected by any vacancy among the members or by any defect in the appointment of a member.
Instruments
14 The fixing of the seal of the Authority must be authenticated by the signature of the chairman or deputy chairman of the Authority or some other member of the Authority authorised by the Authority to act for that purpose.
15 A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Authority, or to be signed on the Authority’s behalf, may be received in evidence and is deemed to be so executed or signed unless the contrary is proved.
Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner
16 The Authority is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner and accordingly, in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which lists the authorities subject to investigation under that Act), the following entry is inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
“Genetic Technology Authority”.”
Amendment 2, in title, line 2, leave out
“and animals, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants and animals”
and insert
“, and the marketing of food and feed produced from such plants”.
This amendment, which is contingent on Amendment 1, would change the long title to reflect the removal of animals from the scope of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
This Bill is now on its third Secretary of State, and I think the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), is the fourth Minister to speak to it.
I welcome back the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who took the Environment Act 2021 through Committee. She will be delighted to know that I will never cease to remind her that the Government’s 25-year environment plan was supposed to be for 25 years, not to take 25 years.
On Friday, we once again saw why the Conservatives cannot be trusted on the environment. They are breaking their own law by failing to come up with critical air, water and biodiversity targets on time. On the same day, the Prime Minister gave up on the UK’s leadership role on climate change by ducking COP27.
When the Government bring forward such a vague, thin Bill, asking the country to trust them to get the secondary legislation right, they can hardly be surprised that people are sceptical, and we are. Their failure fails Britain, and we all deserve better. This is an important Bill that, with the right regulatory safeguards, will reassure the public and provide the right environment for the research and investment we all want to see. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that good regulation is the key to both innovation and investor confidence.
This Bill concerns our food. After 12 years of Conservative government, people are fighting to keep their head above water against the rising tide of inflation, which is even higher for essentials such as food. It is no exaggeration to say that people are at breaking point, and the fears for this winter are very real. Despite the possible gains that science and innovation might bring, this Bill does not bring urgent relief to families across the country, but it is an important step in enabling scientific advancements with the potential to deliver huge benefits by helping us to produce our food more efficiently and sustainably.
Labour Members are enthusiasts for science and innovation, which can help to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, safety and security of our food system, while addressing the environmental, health, economic and social harms that the modern system has unfortunately caused. These are the challenges that Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy set out to tackle, but the Government have, of course, completely failed to engage with it seriously.
However, alongside the challenges, there are opportunities. The UK has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others would follow. Even though they rejected them in Committee, there is still time for the Government to accept the improvements that we and many stakeholders believe are necessary to achieve that goal.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive, pro-science approach that he is taking—it is not surprising, given the constituency he represents. Do we not also need to learn from the experience of the vaccine taskforce, which demonstrated how we can achieve results at pace without in any way infringing on safety and while still applying proper regulation? Is that not the challenge for the Government tonight?
Daniel Zeichner
My right hon. Friend, as always, speaks good sense. He is absolutely right; with focus and a proper attempt to meet the challenges we face, it is remarkable what can be done. But this needs leadership and, as ever, it is missing.
Let me turn in detail to the public interest test and our amendment 3. The potential benefits of gene edited crops include creating plants resistant to extreme weather conditions and diseases, which could reduce the need for pesticides and create higher yields to address rising food insecurity driven by climate change and other factors. Genetic editing could also be used to improve the nutritional quality of food. For example, giving farmers the tools to beat virus yellows without recourse to neonicotinoids is a prize worth having.
However, we must recognise that any new technology also carries risks: risks of unintended consequences; risks of technology being misused; and risks of commercial pressure being exerted in ways that might not be for the benefit of the wider public. Those are all risks that must be properly recognised and addressed, because unless public and investor confidence is maintained, research will stall and opportunities will be squandered. Unfortunately, the Government’s blind faith in the market means this is a laissez-faire, minimalist Bill, which does not come close to an effective regulatory framework to guide and oversee the work of researchers and developers.
Amendment 3 would therefore require that a gene edited organism has been developed to provide one or more of the public benefit purposes listed, if it is to be released into the environment. The amendment neatly recycles much of the wording in section 1 of the Government’s own Agriculture Act 2020, which lists the public goods that can be funded. We are simply applying the same approach to the development and use of gene editing technologies. We believe they should be used only where that is clearly in the public interest, including, for instance, in protecting a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment; mitigating climate change; improving the health or welfare of animals or plants; and supporting human health and wellbeing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
During the Bill Committee, we heard that one of the potential benefits of these innovations was a possible reduction in the overuse of antibiotics on farms, because we would be able to breed things that are more resistant to disease. Although I welcome that, does my hon. Friend share my concern about the comments on antibiotics made by the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), when she was briefly Health Secretary? Is he concerned about her seemingly relaxed attitude towards these entering the food chain and the impact on public health?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right; people should not be careless about antibiotics and that was not an approach to be encouraged at all. I share her concerns.
Amendment 3 would strengthen the Bill by harnessing the good that can be created through such technologies and ensuring that they are not developed and used for purposes that would not deliver beneficial outcomes—surely that is an objective we can agree on across the House. We believe that would take the Bill much further forward in establishing the kind of regulatory framework that really would place the UK in a leading position. That sits alongside our new clauses, which would establish a single, robustly independent regulator, along the lines of the very successful and genuinely world-leading Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. That regulator does not just approve an application, but tracks, traces and checks over time. That is an important and very different approach, and one discussed in Committee by expert witnesses.
Our new clauses would ensure that Ministers’ decisions on gene editing are properly guided by the environmental principles set out under the Environment Act 2021, and that there is no regression from the environmental standards agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, which is pretty important when it comes to trade issues. Our new clauses would build an environment in which the UK really could attract the worldwide talent and investment in gene editing research and development that we all want to see.
On animal health and welfare, I turn to our amendment 4, which I am delighted to see has been endorsed by Compassion in World Farming and 12 other animal protection organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. The amendment would require a range of animal health and welfare factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to issue a marketing authorisation for a gene edited animal. We appreciate that gene editing can be used in the same way as “traditional” selective breeding to produce fast growth, high yields and large litters, which, sadly, we also know are capable of causing suffering in farmed animals.
Clearly, we have existing legislation to protect animal health and welfare, but the concern is that we should be very clear at the outset that we do not want to see gene editing used in ways that make it more possible for animals to endure harm and suffering. As the Nuffield Council on Bioethics put it,
“animals should not be bred merely to enable them to endure conditions of poor welfare more easily or in a way that would diminish their inherent capacities to live a good life.”
Some researchers aim to use gene editing to improve disease resistance in livestock. Of course, that could be hugely beneficial and could help to reduce the serious harm caused by the overuse of antibiotics, for instance. It would be hugely beneficial if we could find ways to tackle porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs or avian flu. But the public would not want to see gene editing used to allow animals to be kept in poorer, more crowded, stressful conditions by making them resistant to the diseases that would otherwise result.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When it comes to this genetic technology, the farmers I represent are keen to see this happening in a way that does not harm their animals. They are not out to harm them; they want to protect them. I know that the Minister understands that, as my local farmers and I do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the farmers do not want to see anything happening that will harm the animals?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but of course there are always economic pressures and this is about making sure we guard against those. The Minister will be familiar with the chlorine-washed chicken debate, where lower welfare standards are disguised and the Government are always at pains to assure us, “We’re not going to tolerate that.” So they must not allow new scientific developments to be the tech equivalent; there must be no backsliding.
Referring to the power of gene editing to reduce the risk of disease, Nuffield’s 2016 ethical review of genome editing highlighted the problem. It said:
“If this risk were reduced or removed altogether then it might be easier to pack more animals together in crowded spaces.”
That is the concern, so let us guard against it. We believe we can create a regime that can do much better than that, but it requires this Bill to be strengthened to make it happen.
On transparency and labelling, the research carried out by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that although consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from genetically modified foods, they overwhelmingly want effective regulation of gene edited products, with transparent information and clear labelling.
The Government are trying to gloss over the issues by inventing the entirely non-scientific term “precision breeding”. I could speak at length about this term; I will not, but there is much dispute about it. It is a term without clear scientific meaning. Frankly, it has been invented by the Government for their convenience and is a misnomer. Telling us in a rather paternalistic tone that we need not worry because there is no difference between gene edited or traditionally bred crops and livestock does not convince. There is a risk that, as worded, the Bill will allow trans-genetic transfer—effectively, GM through the back door. I know the Government deny and dispute that, and we had a lengthy discussion about it in Committee, but I and many others remain unconvinced.
Leaving that matter aside, it is perfectly reasonable for people to want, and to be able to know, how their food has been produced. Clear labelling is the way to deal with another potentially difficult issue: the legitimately held views of different Administrations in the UK. It is fair to say that the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way in which the issue has been handled so far. I suggest that the Government tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.
Labour is also concerned at the number of key elements of the Bill left to secondary legislation, with little or no opportunity for scrutiny or amendment. The Government must spell out the detail to boost confidence for businesses and consumers. The organic sector and those developing cultivated meat have expressed concerns over the lack of clarity in the Bill, which once again risks driving investment and research elsewhere.
It should not be forgotten that the Regulatory Policy Committee made a damning impact assessment of the Bill, giving it a red rating because it failed to take into account the impact of creating a new class of genetically modified organism; failed to assess the impact on businesses, especially SMEs; failed to acknowledge and assess competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts; and failed to address the impacts arising from removing labelling and traceability requirements. I hope the Minister will address those points.
In addition to that list of failures, the Bill fails to address the trade implications of the misalignment in regulation of genetically engineered organisms between the UK’s devolved nations and with our EU neighbours. That could have a significant impact on many food businesses that are struggling to rebuild trade with EU countries despite all the self-inflicted red tape, added costs and barriers that the Government have created.
John Spellar
Is not the EU in a slightly difficult position because of a perverse judgment from the European Court of Justice against the views of many EU nations, which would have taken the same rational position as my hon. Friend on gene editing? If we take the lead on this issue and do not wrap ourselves up in endless judicial review and litigation, could we not work with our European neighbours and partners to bring an advance not only in this country, but across Europe?
Daniel Zeichner
My right hon. Friend speaks good sense once again. Of course, that quite legalistic judgment was met with surprise by many. The question is how we go forward. Others in Europe are going forward as well. I suspect that we will end up in similar places at similar times, but it would be sensible to end up in a much more similar place than looks likely if we pursue the Bill as it has been developed so far. The worry is the effects that the changes are already having on sectors such as the organic sector, which used to have exports to the EU worth some £45 million a year, according to Organic Farmers and Growers, which rightly remains concerned about the Bill as it stands.
Much more could be said on a topic that is as fascinating as it is interesting and important, but I will spare the House and direct those Members who are interested to look at the detailed discussion in Committee. Tonight I will end where I started and restate Labour’s commitment: we are pro science and pro innovation. We are in no doubt that gene editing could bring real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. Science and technology used for public good can be a huge boon, but to achieve that—to give investors, researchers and the general public confidence—we need a much stronger regulatory framework.
At the moment, as ever with this Government, the approach is simply to leave it to the market. They think that minimalist regulation is the way forward, whereas we say that good regulation is the way forward—a fundamental divide in this Chamber. I would simply say that, given the evidence from the fundamentalist deregulatory experiment carried out on our country over the last few weeks, one hopes that those on the Treasury Bench might just have learned something.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)
I will address new clause 1 directly. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, “We are very pro science and pro this technology,” and then spent the next 15 minutes explaining why he was not in favour of this technology, so I will address some of his comments.
The objective of the Bill is to achieve proportionate regulation of precision breeding organisms, which are currently regulated as genetically modified organisms. Science is at the heart of this policy, and the Bill rightly requires the Secretary of State to make decisions based on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—which advises on the regulation of genetically modified organisms.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
There is concern among the cultured meat industry, which is unsure about the impact of the Bill on its research and trade. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to show our support for this important new technology, which the UK is currently at the forefront of developing?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are many new technologies out there that we want to embrace and give the opportunity to come forward, albeit in a regulated format so that we can have confidence in our food systems, and that is the exact process that the Bill seeks to correct.
We do not label food products that have been produced through traditional techniques such as chemical mutagenesis, and we do not label foods as “novel” because precision bred products are indistinguishable from their traditionally bred counterparts. It would not be appropriate to require labelling to indicate the use of precision breeding in the production of food or feed. That view is shared internationally; many of our partners across the world, such as Canada, the US and Japan, do not require labelling for precision bred products.
The Food Standards Agency is developing a new authorisation process to ensure that any food or feed product will only go on sale if it is judged to present no risk to health, does not mislead consumers, and does not have lower nutritional value than its traditionally bred counterparts. In order to ensure transparency, the Bill enables regulations to make a public register through which information about precision bred food and feed products can be assessed by consumers.
I do not know whether it is appropriate to speak to other amendments now, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is up to you, but you will have an opportunity to speak again at the end of the debate.
Mark Spencer
I think I will leave it there and speak to other amendments at the end of the debate.
Mark Spencer
Before I sit down, I will of course take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for giving me the chance to intervene. I am very conscious that because of the status of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, Northern Ireland is currently under EU rules in this area. That means that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which my party and many farmers across Northern Ireland would like to see in place, will not apply to Northern Ireland. Will the Minister assure me that it is the intention of the Government to ensure that every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has the same opportunities? We want those opportunities in Northern Ireland as well.
Mark Spencer
The last thing I want is to see farmers in Northern Ireland disadvantaged. There will be a huge advantage to English farmers over other parts of the United Kingdom, so we want to share this technology. There are parts of the United Kingdom, outside of England, particularly with James Hutton in Scotland and the Roslin Institute at Edinburgh University, where we are world leading in this technology. We have some of the best scientists in the world who genuinely lead this field and we want to share that technology across the United Kingdom and to see it embraced and celebrated.
David Duguid
A UK-wide approach would be preferred by food producers and farmers right across the country. Can the Minister confirm that the invitation is still open to the devolved Administrations, such as the Scottish Government, to help progress this technology on a UK-wide basis?
Mark Spencer
Of course it is. I encourage those devolved Administrations to get on board and to support this new tech. They should embrace it and give their farmers the same advantage that we will hopefully achieve in the world marketplace.
Mark Spencer
I keep saying that I will take a final intervention—the Whips will start to get upset with me, but I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention none the less.
John Spellar
I was hoping the Minister would expand on some other areas, but can he respond to my point about how the vaccine taskforce has shown that science and proper regulation can work at pace for the benefit of our people? Moreover, will he address the question of what protection the Government will give to institutions engaged in this area, whose facilities may be targeted for vandalism by those who are anti-science?
Mark Spencer
I can address many of those points when I sum up the debate, but I am interested to hear other comments from Members around the Chamber before I do so. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the sector already has some robust regulatory bodies, and we want to give them the power to regulate and oversee this technology. What we do not want to do is bind the hands of those bodies so that, in 20 years’ time, we have to re-legislate for another similar structure. We will have a robust regime in place, albeit heavily regulated, that allows the flexibility for this technology to go in directions that we cannot foresee at this moment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I look forward to further comments from colleagues and to responding to them later in the debate.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We are concerned about the disadvantageous position that the Bill will likely put farmers in and about the knock-on impact on farmers in Scotland, despite the fact that the Scottish Government are not yet at the stage to approve the technology in Scotland.
The regulation of genetically modified organisms is a devolved matter. There is no question about that, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments have made that clear in their responses. The Scottish Government have been clear in their opposition to the UK Government’s moves on this. We do not presently intend to amend the GMO regulatory regime in Scotland, as we want to await the outcome of the EU’s consultation on whether some gene-edited organisms will be excluded from the GM definition.
According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, we are already suffering a 4% reduction in GDP due to this hard Tory Brexit. We do not need to see the introduction of further trade barriers caused by the UK’s rush to make this change. A delay to see the outcome of the consultation early next year would be far more sensible than passing the legislation now. This is relevant because of the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which tramples over devolved competencies, and prevents the Scottish Parliament from refusing the sale of these products.
I wish to speak to new clause 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), which ensures that the democratic principle of devolution is upheld and that the Scottish Parliament still has the authority to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms. We have raised concern after concern about the implementation of the 2020 Act. If the UK Government intend to respect devolution, which the people of Scotland voted for, they must ensure that the Scottish Parliament can continue to take those decisions.
There are both animal welfare and environmental concerns relating to precision breeding. We must ensure that those are properly considered and that all information and evidence is available before taking any decision. We strongly welcome more research into gene editing and new genetic technologies, but that must precede the wide-scale deployment of such technologies.
The Scottish Government want to ensure that Scotland operates to the highest environmental and animal welfare standards, so that our world-class Scottish grown food continues to be outstanding. The impact assessment of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the precision breeding Bill acknowledges divergence from the EU approach, which could have implications for compliance costs and future trade. We must be able to export our produce and the Bill risks our farmers being further hamstrung—in addition to all the hardships they already face as a result of this Tory Brexit.
David Duguid
The hon. Member will be aware of the expression of disappointment from Martin Kennedy, president of NFU Scotland, that the Scottish Government have not become more involved in a UK-wide approach to this matter. None the less, she is absolutely right to say that this is a devolved competency. Does she agree that the UK Government have done nothing but be positive in terms of inviting the Scottish Government to be as involved in this matter as they possibly can be?
Kirsty Blackman
I cannot answer a question about the conversations that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have had on this matter, because I am not aware of exactly how those conversations have gone. What I am concerned about is the significant amount of produce that we export to the EU and the fact that the Bill poses a risk, for example, to the export of Scottish salmon. That is because the Scottish Government will lose some of their competency over this due to the internal market Bill and to the way that this framework is laid out.
Should amendment 1 from the Green party be pushed to a vote, the SNP will support it. The paucity of evidence is particularly acute in relation to animals. The Bill also risks violating the intention and application of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, passed for England and Wales earlier this year. The RSPCA has highlighted the fact that the public would not and do not support that.
New clause 8 relates to the labelling of food or feed produced by precision-bred animals. Eighty four per cent of people polled consider it important that all GE products introduced for sale in the UK are labelled as such, and only 8% do not consider that to be important. We are disappointed, therefore, that the UK Government no longer plan to consider requiring labelling for these products, despite the Minister saying in January 2022 that they would look at the matter. This will have a double impact in Scotland, because, even though the Scottish Parliament does not currently permit the marketing of these products, consumers will not be able to make an informed choice due to the lack of labelling requirements.
Mr Deputy Speaker, now is not the time for this Bill to pass. The UK Government have failed to make the case for “why now?” and have failed to ensure that the devolved competencies of the Scottish Parliament are respected as they seek to push through this legislation.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
As the former Secretary of State who introduced this Bill on Second Reading, I rise to express a little sympathy for amendment 4—not so much sympathy that I would vote for it if it went to a Division tonight. Nevertheless, I believe that it highlights some important issues that are worthy of further consideration.
First, amendment 1 proposes removing animals altogether from the scope of the Bill. Undoubtedly, using gene editing on animals raises complex ethical issues, along with the animal welfare dimension, and it was during such discussion when the Bill was being drafted that I considered excluding animals from the Bill. However, I want to explain to the House why, after reflection, I decided that we should include them.
First, from my experience in government and, indeed, in this place, there is always a tendency to put off things that are difficult or complex and to kick the can down the road, but the right thing to do is to grapple with these complex matters and chart a course through them. Secondly, when considering some of the issues that we might be able to address through precision breeding, it became clear to me that, if this technology was used properly, we could actually enhance animal welfare in certain areas. When I first became a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Beak Trimming Action Group set up by the last Labour Government was concluding its work. Beak trimming, using infrared beak tipping on day-old chicks, is required particularly for free-range systems, because otherwise there may be injurious pecking of laying hens. Through that work, we concluded that, while there were things we could do such as paying special regard to the feeding regime, it was against the welfare of those birds not to carry on the beak trimming.
Kerry McCarthy
I am very pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, as I have spent quite a lot of time trying to convince people that that does happen to day-old chicks. Is it not the case that some other European countries have introduced legislation on that point, so it is not necessarily linked to genetic technology? I think they have acted to prevent so many chicks being killed.
George Eustice
What a number of countries have done—the UK was in the vanguard of this—was to move away from maceration of day-old chicks towards the use of carbon dioxide and argon gas as a means of dispatching them. However, I think we could accelerate the process of identifying the eggs through the use of genetic technology.
Dehorning cattle is another mutilation that we would like to phase out over time. Progress has been made for some breeds on polled cattle—that is, cattle born without horns, so that we do not have to use a hot iron, albeit under anaesthetic, to de-bud them. Again, it is difficult to perfect without precision breeding techniques, but if we had that technology, we could have more polled cattle and reduce the need for conventional dehorning of cattle, or even pave the way for a regulatory change to prevent it.
There is also the prospect of breeding more resistance to diseases. In the dairy herd some selection is already done for natural resistance to bovine tuberculosis. It is limited in its ability, but if we had the technology, we might be able to go further.
At the moment, the Government plan to phase out and remove badger culling is predicated on a lot of confidence that a cattle vaccine will be viable and deployable, but it would be helpful to have additional tools in the box, and resistance to TB could be one of them. Of course, we are about to face another very difficult winter when it comes to avian flu, and this technology might have some application there.
However, my sense when I read amendment 4 was that whoever drafted it had had one sector in particular in mind—the broiler chicken sector. There is a genuine concern that the production speed of broiler chickens, reduced now to around 32 to 33 days, is so fast that they are having all sorts of leg problems, and we might be able to make some changes there. That is a legitimate point, because while we might say it has improved the welfare of a broiler chicken that it is bred to finish within 32 days, we might say it is in its welfare interest to ensure that it does not have leg problems. There is a second question, which is whether it is the ethical and right thing to do to produce a chicken within 32 days rather than, say, 37 days, in which case the welfare problem goes away.
A less obvious and less talked-about situation might be commercial duck production. We know that ducks need and want open water—it is part of their physiology and the way their beaks work. However, many commercial duck producers do not give ducks access to water. I have come across vets who will argue that it is in the interest of ducks not to have access to water, since that can spread disease and that is not in their welfare interest, but that goes to the root of the issue with animal welfare. We can either see animal welfare in the conventional five freedoms sense—freedom from pain, hunger, thirst and so on—or we can see it in the more modern sense of a life worth living.
The amendment does not work, because the more we put into an amendment the more we inadvertently exclude. If we accepted an amendment that proscribed certain things but missed certain things, at a future date a breeder might bring a judicial review and say, “Well, this wasn’t covered by the Bill and everything else was.” Therefore, we would not be future-proofing the importance of animal welfare.
However, that is where guidance could work. After Second Reading of the Bill, I asked our officials to give some thought to the idea of guidance, which might give organisations such as Compassion in World Farming and people such as Peter Stevenson, who is very thoughtful on these matters, the reassurance they need in the absence of a legislative change on the face of the Bill, which is difficult to do. The Minister may find that there is some guidance helpfully drafted—or it may be that it was not drafted, but it is not too late, because the Bill has time in the other House.
Will the Minister consider whether this issue of how the animal welfare body should approach its task and how it should assess the impacts on animal welfare could be dealt with in a non-statutory way through guidance. He and his officials will have to issue terms of reference anyway to the animal welfare body, which is likely to be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, and it would not take much to set out some parameters for the things we want it to bear in mind when making assessments.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will not speak for too long, but I want to address a couple of the amendments and some of the issues affecting the Bill overall.
I will start by being extremely critical of the European Commission—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Indeed. Most of us in this House think that science is broadly a good thing, or certainly at least neutral; it is a case of what we do with it. One of the things that has irritated me most about part of the Commission over a 20 or 30-year period is its knee-jerk objection to science in this area and the idea that there can be a moratorium not just on the application of knowledge, which is an issue, but on the very knowledge and research in the first place. That troubles me greatly. We should weigh all issues up and make wise, evidence-based decisions.
On the one hand, I welcome the Bill and I certainly welcome and support science-based approaches to technologies such as genetic modification and what the Government refer to as precision breeding. They have the potential to deliver a major improvement in productivity and on the environmental front, reducing the impact of farming. Genetic modification can have a positive impact by allowing us to address pest and disease pressures on crops and farm animals, and so reduce our reliance on fertilisers and pesticides; that helps more broadly in the fight against climate change. Genetic modification also provides opportunities for us to meet global need, including the food requirements of the global poor. However, there are problems with the Bill, and reasons why I would support the Government being more open to amendments from the other place, and especially to amendments 3 and 4 tonight.
Let me mention some areas in which the Bill is weak. It does not solve the intellectual property and commercial issues surrounding genetic modification technology. If we allowed science to be better used in farming, for the reasons we have set out relating to the environment and the quality and scale of production, but ended up making farmers, particularly tenant farmers, entirely beholden to the commercial interests of large, multinational agribusinesses, that would be an outrage. That is not what farmers in this country want; they want science applied, and they want freedom. They do not want to be pawns in a multinational game. That major area of concern is not addressed in the Bill.
The Bill is also light on the details of the new regulatory requirements for crops and animals. I accept that animals should be in the scope of the Bill, but we are transitioning from a very high regulation system to a relatively low regulation system. The lack of detail on how the new system will work makes it hard to support the Bill.
Amendment 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), would prevent the Secretary of State from authorising a new product if scientific evidence indicated
“that the precision bred traits are likely to have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny”.
Lack of detail on those kinds of situations makes it hard for us to go into the Aye Lobby and support the Bill this evening. Editing a pig’s genes could, for example, make it resistant to disease—that would obviously be a welcome advantage of this technology—but the Bill must not be a shortcut that allows pigs to be reared in less hygienic, more crowded conditions. Again, that issue is not covered. Animals’ welfare must not only continue to be protected but be continuously improved.
We do not want all the effort that has been put into the high standards in British farming to be wasted as a result of a back-door watering down of standards; but if there was such a watering-down, it would be part of a pattern, I am afraid. It would fit the pattern of the trade deals that are being designed and agreed to. The deals with Australia and New Zealand in particular basically throw away the high standards we have developed. It is not only that it is morally right to have those standards; they make the provenance of our produce important, make it high-quality, and give it high ethical value. What a desperate shame that free trade, which is a good thing, should be done so badly that our farmers are thrown under the bus, have their livelihoods threatened, and cannot take advantage of the benefits that free trade ought to provide. If the Bill is part of a deregulatory framework, or part of an agenda that seeks to unfairly disadvantage British farmers or throws the standards that they have developed under the bus, that is unacceptable. Unamended, the Bill forms part of a pattern of this Government throwing our farmers to the wolves.
Farmers do not benefit from the application of science envisaged in the Bill if they do not survive the transition from the current payment scheme to the new one. Reshuffle upon reshuffle has followed on from great uncertainty, which the Government introduced in September when they indicated that they might be prepared to rip up the environmental land management scheme. There are many problems with that scheme, by the way; the fact that only 1% of eligible farmers have applied for the sustainable farming incentive shows how poorly the Government are rolling out a scheme that most Members agree with in principle. The worst thing the Government could do is rip it all up; the best thing they could do is invest in protecting the £3.5 billion supposedly ringfenced for ELMS and allow the process to take place, so that farmers survive. Farmers will be in no position to protect our environment, produce our food or apply the science that the Government want them to apply if they do not survive.
In short, we strongly support the principle underlying the Bill, but we strongly urge the Government to consider the amendments before us this evening, and those that will undoubtedly be tabled in the other place, to improve regulation, safety and animal welfare, and protect farmers from the damage that could be done to them if they end up being the pawns of multinational global enterprises. I would hate the United Kingdom to end up a mirror image of the European Commission, which regulated to such an extent that applying science was impossible. Alternatively, the Government may deregulate to such an extent that it is hard to defend the science, and that would be a real shame for all of us who genuinely care about the application of science in farming.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I will speak to amendment 12; I hope to be commendably brief. A fundamental principle of veterinary science is that procedures should be carried out in the interests of the animal and animal welfare. Many of the proposals brought forward will, I believe, be in the interests of animal welfare, and I have no problem with them whatever. I simply seek an assurance from the Minister that, if it becomes apparent that a change that is to be made would have an adverse effect on animal welfare, no licence for the change would be granted. That is all I ask for.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to follow the important speech by the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), with which I agreed. As I said on Second Reading, this is a flawed Bill; it is unclear and it is not robust, and legal experts have said that it is staggeringly imprecise. Nothing that has happened since Second Reading has caused me to change my mind, so I have tabled a number of amendments, and welcome the opportunity to speak to them, starting with amendments 1 and 2, which would remove animals from the Bill’s scope and title. For the record, it is my intention to press amendment 1 to a vote.
As I say, amendment 1 would remove animals from the scope of the Bill, but the intention is not, as the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested, to kick the can down the road; I genuinely believe that we need more time to look more carefully at what kind of regulatory framework we need, so that we can make the most of potential benefits, but also safeguard ourselves against risk. I acknowledge that there may well be potential benefits to the legislation, but I hope that others will acknowledge that there may well be serious risks, and I do not think that the work has been done to get the balance right in the Bill. We need more safeguards that are commensurate with the risks. That is why—for the moment, at least—we should remove animals from its scope. If the Government wish to legislate on gene editing of animals, they need to give much more thought to defining the circumstances in which that is acceptable, and to provide much more detail on how it will be regulated.
I recognise that clauses 10 to 15 are an attempt to prevent the significant risks that are associated with precision breeding, but I do not think that those measures are sufficient. When we debated the animal sentience legislation, the Government were prepared to accept that there should be a mechanism, via the animal welfare hub, through which the impact of animal sentience legislation could be properly considered by independent experts with the relevant skills. There is an urgent need for something similar that allows us to judge whether genetic engineering will be harmful to animals, how it can be better regulated, and how that can be done transparently. The model in clause 11, however, gives the person applying for authorisation and the Secretary of State far too much authority and responsibility, and the proposed animal welfare advisory body is given only a weak, secondary, advisory role. I worry that that suggests that welfare considerations will carry very limited weight in decision making.
It is also of concern that, under the Bill, the full regulatory system is supposed to be set through secondary legislation. That vastly reduces the scope for vital parliamentary scrutiny on issues of animal welfare and gene editing.
The claims made for gene editing mainly focus on increasing productivity and disease resistance. The Government argue that gene editing is simply an extension of traditional breeding, such as selective breeding, but is more precise and efficient. I assume that is intended to be reassuring, but over the last 50 years selective breeding has itself caused substantial health and welfare problems in most of the main farmed species. We have already heard about the concerns about broiler chickens who have been bred to grow so quickly that many suffer from leg disorders, while others succumb to heart disease. Hens have been bred to lay over 300 eggs a year. They have to draw on their own bone calcium to produce egg shells. This results in osteoporosis, leaving them susceptible to bone fracture. A cow producing milk for her calf would normally produce just over 1,000 litres in her 10-month lactation. Many of today’s dairy cows have been bred to produce 10,000, or even 11,000 or 12,000 litres of milk a year. That contributes, unsurprisingly, to many suffering from lameness, mastitis and reproductive disorders, and the animals live with those welfare problems for a substantial part of their lives.
Gene editing for even faster growth and higher yields would exacerbate the suffering caused by selective breeding. I believe it would be unethical to permit it for increased productivity, and it simply should not be necessary for disease resistance. The proper way to reduce diseases that are generated by keeping animals in poor conditions is to move instead to health-oriented farming systems, in which good health is inherent in the farming methods. Indeed, gene editing could lead to animals being kept in even more crowded and stressful conditions, as they would be resistant to the disease risks that are inherent in those conditions.
I cannot be the only Member who has been lobbied hard to remove animals from the Bill’s scope. I urge the Government to listen to the public and look again at this. They should return the legislation on this subject only once they have given much more detailed consideration to the issues that I have raised. Another of those issues is that nobody involved in drafting this legislation could, I imagine, have honestly envisaged it applying to, for example, domestic cats and dogs. Yet, without clarification, that is exactly what the current drafting could result in.
Our constituents want to be confident that there is consistency in the Government’s ambition for improving animal welfare. They want to know that gene editing cannot be used as some kind of techno-fix and that it will not entrench intensive farming, with its inherent environmental and animal welfare shortcomings. If my amendments are a step too far, I would urge Ministers, as a form of compromise, to bring forward an amendment of their own in the other place that will at the very least limit the scope much more explicitly to farmed animals. In the meantime, my amendments 1 and 2 would remove animals from the scope of the Bill.
Let me move on briefly to a few other amendments in my name. New clause 7 is about informing consumers about what they are buying. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the labelling of this new class of GMO and to do so in consultation with key named stakeholders. Clear labelling is something that we know consumers want. The Food Standards Agency found that:
“Consumers wanted transparent labelling…if genome edited foods reach the UK market.”
My new clause does not prescribe what form that labelling should take; the groups and organisations that it lists for consultation are much better placed to determine that. They include the FSA, food producers, retailers, consumers and anyone else the Government think appropriate. In other words, it would allow for co-operative, sensible, well-informed approaches. I hope Members will back new clause 7 on that basis. Finally, labelling—in either the form set out in my clause or some other form—could represent a step towards resolving the differences with the devolved Governments, which we have already heard about, for whom, for example, alignment with EU standards is a major priority and a current source of disagreement with Westminster.
Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are a group designed to ensure that regulation is sufficiently robust when it comes to authorising activities involving so-called precision-bred organisms. They seek to convert the powers afforded to the Secretary of State into requirements. In addition, amendment 8, alongside amendment 7, would require obligations relating to supply chain traceability. Without amendment 7, the Bill fails to mandate any such traceability for the new category of precision-bred organisms.
That would be inconsistent with the current long-standing requirement for mandatory traceability for GMOs and would create significant trade barriers for organic businesses in the UK wanting to export products to, for example, the EU or Northern Ireland. The UK organic sector is worth £3 billion, so it makes no economic sense not to amend the Bill and ensure mandatory supply chain traceability. Traceability of genetically engineered organisms is also essential to support recall in the event that novel allergens or toxins, or other safety issues emerge after release.
I believe the Bill is badly conceived and badly drafted. My amendments are all designed with one of two things in mind: to bring either clarity or robustness to the regulatory framework for precision-bred organisms. It is with that intention that I lent my name to a number of other amendments, on behalf of the official Opposition in particular. I hope that they might support mine in the same spirit.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is a passionate advocate for the environment and animal welfare issues.
I firmly believe that this Bill is an important piece of legislation. I first declare an interest: as a veterinary surgeon, I am passionate about animal health and welfare. I also represent Penrith and The Border, a huge rural constituency with a huge farming footprint. We have the most fantastic farmers in Cumbria, and across the UK, who farm to the highest animal welfare standards. I firmly believe that we do not have anything to fear from this legislation, but I do understand some of the concerns that have been raised, and I will speak to some of the amendments and new clauses.
It is important to reaffirm from the outset that this Bill is to do with gene editing, which is very different from genetic modification, where genetic material from an exogenous species is potentially inserted. That is not the case with what this Bill is concerned with. Gene editing is very different from genetic modification. When the Government move forward with this Bill, it is important that they keep articulating and communicating that to the public, to try to alleviate some of those concerns.
I firmly believe that there are huge benefits to be gained from this legislation to animals, plants, the environment and the human race. I respectfully disagree with amendment 1, because I firmly believe that it is important that animals are included within the scope of the legislation. I will try to articulate why I believe that. There will be huge benefits to animal health and welfare from the development of animals and potentially birds that have more resistance to diseases, as colleagues have touched on. As a veterinary surgeon, I firmly believe that is a good cause, because if we can reduce the incidence of disease, that is an animal health and welfare gain.
We have talked about birds becoming more resistant to avian flu, and we have seen how this country is being ravaged at the moment by avian influenza. Technology that helps us to mitigate that is to be welcomed. In addition, in the pig world, pigs with resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, PRRS, will be another good development. Anything that can reduce morbidity and mortality in the animal world is something to be welcomed. As some Members have touched on in interventions, ultimately that could also lead to a reduction in the use of veterinary medicines. That will be of benefit to the animals, but it will also be of indirect benefit to humans. If we can reduce the amount of antimicrobials used, that will mitigate the blight of antimicrobial resistance that is affecting the whole world. I firmly believe that there are indirect benefits to the human race as well.
As I have touched on, we are seeing widespread cases of avian flu across the UK, which leads me to stress to the new ministerial team that we really need DEFRA to adequately fund the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Certainly, the Weybridge headquarters in Surrey is in urgent need of refurbishment, which has been estimated at £2.8 billion. The Public Accounts Committee has looked at that, as has the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I really push the Government to invest in the APHA to try to prevent diseases and outbreaks in the future. That is very important.
I firmly welcome anything that can reduce morbidity and mortality in farming. I speak as a vet with a lot of first-hand experience through the patients I have treated, but also through my experiences in the foot and mouth crisis of 2001. The trauma that infectious diseases can create for rural communities is something that we are still living with in Cumbria and other parts of the UK. When a farmer who is farming his or her stock gets the vets involved to treat disease, that has a toll on the vets and on the farmer. No one working there wants to see animals suffering from disease.
I firmly believe that if we can improve animal health and welfare with such technology, that will have an indirect benefit on human mental health. We on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have looked at that in our rural mental health inquiry. If we reduce the amount of medicines, that will help animals and people.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He brings much knowledge to the debate and I thank him for sharing that with us.
I welcome the Bill and I declare an interest, as I must, as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and a farmer in Northern Ireland. The Bill will bring great benefits, not just to England but to the whole United Kingdom. In my earlier intervention, I mentioned the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which I will touch on later. I welcome the Minister’s response.
I live among farmers, who are incredible people. They love their animals and the job they do. They are very efficient. Near me, they have high-quality dairy herds, beef cattle, lamb, pork and poultry. My farmers want the best, and that is what I want for Northern Ireland. It is no secret that Northern Ireland’s high-quality produce is some of the best in the world and is much envied. Northern Ireland leads the way, but we want to be part of the Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, however, does not enable us to do the same as the farmers here.
As the Member for Strangford, a strong agricultural constituency, legislation to unlock new technologies to boost food production, support farmers and grow more productive crops is certainly of great interest to me and those I represent—my neighbours across Strangford and across Northern Ireland. As always, one of my first ports of call was to see what the farmers thought about it. They were clear and quickly explained to me that gene editing is different from GM and gives us an opportunity to be more efficient and farm better. It does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species and creates new varieties similar to those that could be produced more slowly by natural breeding processes. It will potentially provide a greater yield and better farming practices.
Crucially, precision breeding technologies will help to develop foods with direct benefits to the public, such as products of better quality, increased nutritional value and a longer shelf life. Those are things that we are all striving for and we should all try to make those ambitions happen, so the technology can only be a good thing as long as it is safe and has farmer buy-in. From my discussions with farmers, it clearly has that buy-in.
We must be realistic and say that farmers have been gene editing for generations but did not have a fancy name for it; they knew it as splicing. I am old enough to remember my grandmother splicing the peas and beans to make bigger and better varieties of peas and beans. That goes back to the ’60s—it was not yesterday—but even in those early days, perhaps my grandmother was a bit of a pioneer in doing such things. Today we do not call it splicing but genetic technology. That is a much fancier name, and much greater, because it is about more than that, which is why the Bill is important. Through trial and error, science has allowed us to go to the next level, yet we must be mindful of the difficulties that can come by decimating the wonderful structure of nature that God has put in place. I believe that the Bill provides safety and security, and a way forward to UK food security.
A fortnight ago, I had the opportunity to meet a constituent, Stephen Alexander, who keeps 130 Dexter cattle—an almost-unique herd across Northern Ireland. He takes 60 acres of land at Orlock in North Down, he has some land at home in Greyabbey, and he takes other land just down the road. He made a deal with the National Trust, which was that he would not use fertilisers or bring anything new on to the land—it all had to be natural; the grass was natural—which was quite unique. Along with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister Edwin Poots and others, I had a chance to see how that works. It does work: it is an organic farm in every sense of the word, yet all the cattle are exceptional.
That is another reason why it is essential to bring in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as a matter of urgency. As Edwin Poots outlined:
“The introduction of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill in England will not apply to Northern Ireland. The Protocol requires alignment to EU rules so gene-edited crops developed in England under the Bill”—
that we could take advantage of in Northern Ireland—
“would not be available for cultivation in Northern Ireland.”
We need parity of opportunity and of legislation. When the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill returns to this House from the other place, we need to see that we will have that opportunity.
The fact is that for any British gene-edited crops we would have to apply to the European Food Safety Authority for approval before they could be sent to Northern Ireland, which imports, among other things, grain for animal feed. Even then, the crops could still be banned by Dublin, and that is what this really is: the EU and Dublin, with their hand—their dead hand—upon us on many occasions. That would present a fresh headache in ensuring the affected plants did not cross that invisible Irish border.
It is clear that while this Bill is a stand-alone one, the fingerprints of European intransigence are all over it. I again make the point that it is not this Bill, but the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, whenever it comes back, that will give us in Northern Ireland the same chance as the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill. I would ask the House and the Government to reinstate their support for us whenever the Bill, which I think is going through the other place tomorrow, comes back to us.
As someone who loves the land and always supports the farmers, I trust those who have farmed for generations when they say that this is an enhanced version of splicing and that there is a need to be open to all possibilities. I say the Bill is the right way to go to ensure that the facility is there and so suits the farmers and food producers, and allows Northern Ireland to play a crucial and important role to advance our markets across the world. It will also ensure that we can grow and provide more jobs and a stronger economy, and that we can determine this for ourselves, rather than have the unelected EU, with no Northern Ireland voices, dictating our food security and farming practices.
That is my bid for the Minister about what has been brought here tonight. I really do support this, and I think it is the right thing to do. I will say in advance that amendment 4—perhaps the Minister can clarify this for me at the end, if possible—while it has been put forward by the Labour Opposition, has I believe been done in the best possible sense. I understand that the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), was going to put forward something similar, and we were apt to support that. So if the Opposition move amendment 4, which would ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account animal welfare in relation to Northern Ireland, that is the one on which we will probably disagree with the Minister, unless clarification can be given to us. However, on everything else, I fully support the Minister and the Government as they bring this Bill forward.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I think we have had a very thoughtful and good-humoured discussion. It is clear that animal welfare is a key feature for both sides of this House. I just want to mention amendment 7, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, but I will not be supporting it because I think the question of labelling needs to be looked at in a much wider context. I would very much urge the Minister, within that wider context, to look at consumer information, which I think is a really important issue.
Last week, I spoke in the Chamber on the national food strategy and food security. Much has changed since Henry Dimbleby published his recommendations last summer. The cost of everyday staples continues to rise as the war in Ukraine pushes food price inflation to its highest level in 14 years. So this is the right time to consider alternative ways that our Government can strengthen the nation’s food security.
By removing barriers to precision breeding, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill will open the future to developing crops that are more resistant to pests, disease and climate change, reducing the need for fertilisers and pesticides. Genome editing provides the opportunity to achieve the outcomes of plant breeding, which has been so successful in controlling diseases and improving yields, but in a much more precise manner.
In encouraging this innovation, placing UK researchers and commercial breeders at the forefront of exploring what these technologies have to offer, we can use science to move away from chemical use and make land more productive, both reducing the cost of food and restoring the balance of nature. However, the UK’s world-leading animal welfare standards must be upheld, so I support the step-by-step approach to legislation, with a focus on plants and maintaining our high standards in animal welfare. I am sure that the Minister has listened to some of the concerns that have been expressed, and that will probably be reflected in looking at the wording of the Bill.
This Bill is a real opportunity to make a positive contribution to a more sustainable food system. For instance, by reducing the spoiling and browning of foods and increasing their shelf life, we can help reduce food waste. It could enable us to improve the nutritional profile of foods—for example, by increasing antioxidants, phenols and tannins in fruit and vegetables, or improving oil and carbohydrate profiles, delivering foods that benefit consumers and reduce the burden on healthcare providers.
Precision breeding represents an opportunity to develop crops with modified macronutrient status, such as increased resistant starch, which naturally reduces the calorific content of food, but increases the level of fibre. Through agritech innovations, farmers around the world will have the opportunity to make better use of their land, fight off harmful pests and better regulate the nutrients in their soil, while removing unnecessary barriers, and helping the world grow more and strive towards a greener tomorrow. In that spirit, I think the Bill is the right step forward, and I just hope that we can all get behind it.
Mark Spencer
Can I say how much I have enjoyed the comments from across the Chamber? I will seek to give colleagues some reassurance.
I will start with the comments from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who spoke to new clause 9, in the name of her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). The mutual recognition principle in the UKIM Act means that goods that comply with the relevant legislative requirements in one part of the United Kingdom can automatically be sold in other parts of the United Kingdom without complying with any differing relevant legislative requirements in those parts. Consequently, should UK Government legislation allow precision bred plants, seeds, animals, food and feed to be placed on the market in England, such products would be able to be placed on the market in Wales and Scotland. However, this would not be the case if a UKIM exclusion was put in place for precision bred products.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North may recall that when this matter was raised in Committee, my predecessor explained that there is an established process for considering exclusions to the application of the market access principles of the UK Internal Market Act in the common framework areas. This process has been agreed by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. No formal request for a UKIM exclusion has been received from the Scottish Government in the context of ongoing intergovernmental discussions on the Bill between DEFRA and devolved Administration officials. As a result, we do not consider amending the UKIM Act itself to be appropriate, but rather that the UKIM exclusion process would be the appropriate route to consider the rationale and potential impact of a UKIM exclusion.
Turning to amendment 13, which is in addition to new clause 9, the hon. Member may once again recall that this was discussed extensively in Committee, and my predecessor explained that the common framework covering GMO marketing and cultivation was within the scope of the common frameworks programme. However, all four Administrations agreed that a common framework in this area was not required because the administration and co-ordination of this policy area was already provided for through existing intergovernmental arrangements under the GMO concordat.
In addition to engagement between DEFRA and genetic technology officials in the devolved Administrations, it is worth noting that the precision breeding policy interacts with four provisional common frameworks: animal health and welfare; plant varieties and seeds; food and feed safety and hygiene; and food compositional standards and labelling. Engagement among the respective officials is ongoing through these relevant frameworks.
We will continue to engage with our devolved Administration counterparts to address their specific concerns in connection with the Bill, but I encourage the hon. Member to embrace the opportunity that the Bill presents to unlock the benefits of science and research and development in this country, and ensure that the UK continues to invest in innovation in the agrifood industry. It would be a tragedy for Scottish farmers not to be able to embrace this new technology and I urge her to come with us on this journey and not to disadvantage Scottish farmers.
On amendment 3, we are very much aligned with the intentions of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and his colleagues to embed public interest into the Bill. We want precision breeding technologies to secure real benefits. I believe that they are a vital part of our toolkit to secure benefits for our food and environment. The amendment applies to release into the environment, which principally covers field trials. These are crucial in building our understanding of how genetic changes impact organisms under field conditions, and they are an integral part of the pure research as well as for breeding programmes. It is not necessary to place restrictions on research using these technologies, and we have no evidence to suggest that developers are doing anything other than what occurs in traditional breeding or in nature by creating new, stronger varieties that allow us to grow better and harvest better.
We also recognise the need to safeguard animal welfare, which is why we intend to take a step-by-step approach to implementing the Bill. We intend that precision bred animals will remain regulated under the GMO regime until the regulatory system outlined in the Bill is developed, to safeguard animal welfare. Delivering public good is what we strive for across Government and we are fully committed to developing a new, sustainable, resilient and productive food system, and I hope Members see that our interests and those of researchers in the UK are aligned.
On amendment 5 and environmental principles, the hon. Member for Cambridge and his colleagues have made it explicit that regulations made under this Act must be made in accordance with the environmental principles and the policy statement in the Environment Act 2021 and article 391 of the trade and cooperation agreement between the UK and the EU. Section 19 of the Environment Act provides that Ministers must have due regard to the policy statement on the environmental principles. DEFRA has already published and laid a draft version of the statement before Parliament for debate. Parliamentary scrutiny of the draft policy statement concluded in June and we are considering the feedback received from Parliament and will publish a final statement in due course.
As we are making good progress in this regard, it is unnecessary to amend the Bill with a provision that will be unnecessary by the time the regulations under the Bill come into force. Of primary importance is the advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment that the provisions in the Bill do not have the effect of weakening or reducing environmental protections. The esteemed independent experts who sit on ACRE have provided the Government with this assurance, and it is this guidance that gives the Government the assurance to take the legislation forward. I would emphasise that Ministers before me have found that the Bill is consistent with our non-regression commitment to the EU and does not reduce our environmental protections.
On the debate about aligning with the EU, as some Members want, we recently closed the consultation on a potential new regulatory framework for precision bred plants. Some 80% of people considered the current regulations not to be fit for purpose. The EU intends to reform its own regulatory system as early as 2023 and we await the details on that.
Amendments 1 and 2 caused a great deal of debate and clearly many colleagues have concerns, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for this opportunity to address this area. As with plants, there are potential benefits in enabling precision breeding in animals to improve the health, welfare and resilience of those animals, and we have a real opportunity to harness the great research taking place across the UK. Ensuring that these technologies are used responsibly without compromising animal health and welfare is vital. That is why we intend to take a stepwise approach in implementing the Bill, with regulatory changes to the regime for plants coming first, followed by animals at a later date. We want to ensure that the framework for animal welfare set out in the Bill is effective and workable, and we will not bring the measures in the Bill into force in relation to animals until the system is in place.
We are also clear that the system to protect animal health and welfare in the Bill will work with our existing animal welfare regulatory framework for protecting animals. We want to maintain and build on our strong record of animal welfare. If we want to drive investment in new research with potential for innovation and precision breeding in animals, we need to move forward with this Bill. It provides a clear signal that the UK is the best place to conduct research and bring products to the marketplace.
Building on this, and turning to amendment 4 in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge and his colleagues, I recognise the level of concern about animal welfare. The suggestions outlined in the amendment represent issues that we will make sure are explored further as we develop the technical details underpinning the system for safeguarding the welfare of relevant animals and their qualifying progeny. That is why we have commissioned a research project to gather the evidence required to develop the health and welfare assessment. We have published an update note on animal welfare to explain our approach. I do not, however, consider this amendment to be necessary. Clause 13 will make sure the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will need to be satisfied with the animal welfare declaration before issuing a precision bred animal marketing authorisation. This goes to the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) was concerned about. Further, the power in clause 25 allows us to set out in regulations what constitutes an adverse effect on health or welfare, including parameters needed for assessment.
The welfare declaration and the welfare advisory body’s assessment will be based on the principle that precision bred relevant animals will need to be kept in conditions that satisfy existing requirements on the keeping of animals set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. I understand hon. Members’ concerns but reiterate that we have welfare-led legislation in place and this Bill is intended to work alongside it to enable responsible innovation.
I will take the opportunity of turning to amendment 12 to expand on the process set out in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have the necessary information to determine whether it is appropriate to issue a precision bred marketing authorisation. An application for such authorisation will have to include a declaration, with supporting evidence, that the notifier does not expect the health or welfare of the relevant animal or its qualifying progeny to be adversely affected by any precision bred traits. Any adverse effect could cover any direct or indirect effect and as such specifying this is not required in the Bill. The Secretary of State will need to refer the welfare declaration and all required accompanying information to a welfare advisory body with independent scientific expertise, which will report its conclusions to the Secretary of State.
These steps will provide a rigorous and proportionate basis for ensuring that the Secretary of State’s decisions on whether to issue precision bred marketing authorisations are appropriately informed by scientific evidence. As set out in our recently published policy update on animal welfare, the power in clause 25 could include consideration of any known health or welfare issues in selective-bred animals. I hope that gives my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet the reassurance he seeks.
Amendment 8 would require provisions in regulations for securing traceability of precision bred organisms in food and feed through supply chain auditing. The Bill proposes powers to introduce specific traceability requirements for food and feed produced from precision bred organisms placed on the market in England. That will be in addition to general rules on traceability that apply to all food and feed and to specific traceability rules that apply to particular food products regardless of the production method used. The Food Standards Agency will develop and design evidence-based options on how best to secure traceability of food and feed from precision bred organisms placed on the market in England. Any options on traceability must be sufficiently future-proofed and strike a proportionate balance between ensuring food safety and enabling innovation. Additionally, any new measure to secure traceability of precision bred organisms will need to build on existing infrastructure for general traceability, which food businesses already have a statutory obligation to secure.
The Food Standards Agency will advise on proportionate measures for securing traceability, making use of the advice from its scientific advisory committee, and will ensure that proposals are subject to a public consultation before any specific measures are implemented. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion would not allow for that process to happen as it would restrict traceability to supply chain auditing.
Daniel Zeichner
I do not have much to add and do not want to detain the House. All I will say is that I am slightly disappointed that the Minister does not feel able to join us in looking for a stronger regulatory framework. We really think that would help, and some contributions from colleagues on the Government Benches indicated that there are concerns. Ultimately, the Opposition will support the Bill tonight, but we would much prefer it if it came with the amendments that we have proposed, which would much strengthen it. We do not propose to press new clause 1, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms
‘(1) Schedule 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 11 insert—
“Marketing of precision bred organisms
11A The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any Act of the Scottish Parliament, or any subordinate legislation made under or by virtue of such an Act, relating to the marketing of—
(a) precision bred organisms, or
(b) food or feed produced from precision bred organisms.”.’—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mark Spencer
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I put on record my sincere thanks to the fantastic officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who assisted with the drafting and delivery of the Bill. I also thank previous Secretaries of State: my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who put an enormous amount of work into the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena). I pay tribute to a series of Ministers who assisted at various stages of the Bill: my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who are present; my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who assisted with the Bill when he was a Whip; and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), the Whip who is assisting today.
The Bill is a fantastic example of the opportunities we now have outside the EU. I am delighted that we have got to Third Reading. I wholly commend the Bill to the House, and I look forward to its progress in the other place.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I welcome the new Secretary of State back to her Department, as well as her team, some of whom are new, and some of whom are recycled; obviously, in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that is a good thing. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words as this important Bill completes its passage through this House.
We are pleased that the Bill is finally before us. The continual leadership crisis in the Tory party has meant that environmental and animal welfare legislation has been pulled, delayed and ignored, and we learned on Friday that the Government have missed today’s legal deadline to set clean air targets. The lawbreaking just goes on. This Bill was an opportunity to tackle one of the great issues of our time, but instead of rising to that challenge, I am afraid that the Government have flunked it. We may have got a new Prime Minister last week, but it is the same old Tories.
Labour Members are pro-science and pro-innovation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) stated. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system, and address the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused. Our United Kingdom has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others will follow. That is what we would do in government. The public need assurance that new technologies are being used for the public good, not narrow commercial advantage.
Labour is the party of food safety; we established the Food Standards Agency. Different approaches to food production must be respected, and there must be proper safeguards for organic production. The issues covered by the Bill require us to take a long-term view, and to have an understanding and appreciation of the wider public good, but this Government stagger on from day to day, focused only on how they can get to the end of next week without yet another change at the top.
Labour Members have no doubt about the possible benefits of gene editing. We understand the pressure that it puts on farmers when we rightly say that they cannot use neonicotinoids because of the harm they cause to pollinators, but there are so many questions still unanswered as the Bill travels on its journey. Do we want to use gene editing to modify an animal to allow it to tolerate more cramped conditions? No. We want a regulatory system that ensures that technologies are used for the right purposes. We fully understand that the laws designed 30 years ago for genetically modified products do not reflect advances in understanding and technology, and many countries recognise that gene editing needs to be treated differently. Labour Members want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK. Over the years, traditional crop development and innovation has brought us all significant gains.
But as we enter new territory, we need a strong regulatory framework to get it right, and this Bill badly needs strengthening. Far too much is being left to secondary legislation. Although we understand that this is attractive to Ministers, it largely means “trust us”. That is increasingly difficult to do, because we all know that it means a blank cheque on an issue that requires trust and public acceptance, and that is not a good starting point. We needed much more detail on the face of the Bill.
That detail is necessary because the Bill covers both plants and animals. That makes the legislation much more complicated and difficult, and important too. The Government originally said that they would introduce new measures for animals only after looking at plants and after extensive consultation on the right regulatory frameworks for animals had been established. So far as we can see, there is nothing in the Bill to make that happen. Frankly, it is the wrong way round. We need to sort out the preferred regulatory framework first and then put it into law, not the other way round.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I wrong in thinking that Third Reading is about what is actually in the Bill, rather than what is not? The shadow Minister seems to be referring to what is not in the Bill. My understanding was that on Third Reading we are supposed to talk about what is actually in the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I must say that the hon. Lady does seem to be making rather an extensive speech, but I am sure she will be coming to her point shortly.
Ruth Jones
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; yes, of course.
I want to acknowledge all the animal welfare organisations that have expressed their concern—indeed, the RSPCA says in its brief that it is “incredibly concerned”. I say to them and all those following the passage of the Bill, now that it is out of Committee, that we require stronger animal safeguards.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for leading on the Bill and to the folks in his team—Milly, George and Jenna—who have worked on it. I thank Rob Wakely and Adam Jogee, who have worked to support me too. I also thank the officials in this House and in the Department for their work on this important Bill. As it now moves on, we on the Labour Benches wish it well and hope that it will be strengthened and given the detail that it so desperately needs.
Tim Farron
Briefly—I promise—I thank the many, many Ministers who have helped to lead this Bill through Parliament. Let me say on behalf of farmers in Cumbria that we would be grateful if this Government did not take us for granted in the transition to the new payment system, which has been botched so badly, or any indeed in the trade deals that have thrown so many of my farmers underneath the bus.
Science has an important role in farming. That includes GM, and there is no doubt in my mind that the European Commission’s stifling position on GM was massively regrettable. It is good to have a debate on it in this place and to try to move forward with it. GM and science in agriculture can reduce harm to the environment, reduce the reliance on damaging and expensive pesticides and fertiliser, increase productivity and help to meet global food needs, but to achieve those advances the Bill would need to provide proper detail and regulation, to protect animals and consumers and to protect farmers from being sold out and their livelihoods placed at the mercy of multinational businesses. We must not replace the European Commission’s knee-jerk opposition to science with a reckless lack of detail. I fear that that is where we are.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I rise to support the Bill, which we will of course be voting for if there is a vote on Third Reading.
It is important in modern farming that we look for ways of increasing productivity and breeding out some of the imperfections and difficulties and, in doing that, improve animal welfare. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out earlier in the debate, this is not something new. In fact, his granny practised it, with the splicing of beans and peas to improve their productivity, size, disease resistance and everything else. It is important that we find ways of applying science, especially as agriculture is such a big part of our economy.
Of course, one of the good things about being out of the European Union is that we have the opportunity to break away from some of the stifling rules that were imposed as a result of our being attached to the European Union.
I noticed that the Minister avoided responding to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford made. Although farming is important in Northern Ireland, and although exports, and therefore competitiveness, are important to our farmers, when this legislation is passed and its fruits begin to be seen, they will not apply in Northern Ireland. The Minister pleaded with the Scots Nats, who appear to want to keep their economy in the stone age so they can have devolution and defend their devolution settlement—that is the price they are prepared to pay for independence and for safeguarding the role of the Scottish Parliament—not to be backward looking, but the Government, through refusing or being unable to remove the impact of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, will do exactly that in Northern Ireland.
I hope that there is some joined-up thinking in Government and that they recognise that as we change laws in the United Kingdom, that must not be seen to drive a wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, constitutionally or economically. We will support the Bill, but I hope that events and developments will ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland benefit from it as much as farmers elsewhere.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill: Programme (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 26 January 2022 in the last Session of Parliament (Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 25 May 2022 (Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 17, 1 to 16.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Stuart Anderson.)
Question agreed to.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill
Monday 31st October 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 View all Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 31 October 2022 - (31 Oct 2022)
22:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 268 / Noes: 132 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 17. If Lords amendment 17 is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered into the Journal.
After Clause 74
Independent review of the electronic communications code
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 17.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 1 to 16.
Julia Lopez
I am pleased to see the progress that the Bill has made since it left this House before the summer, and I am grateful to Members in the other place for their scrutiny of it. Fast, reliable and secure digital connections are the cornerstone of a competitive economy and thriving society, and the sooner the legislation comes into force, the better. As hon. Members will recall from earlier stages of the Bill, its objective is twofold: first, to speed up the roll-out of 5G and gigabit-capable broadband; and secondly, to protect and enhance the security of consumer connectable products, such as monitors, doorbells, connected kitchen appliances and so on, so that users can get their benefits without being exposed to risk. I am confident that the Bill will do just that.
I will start by explaining the need for the relatively straightforward Government amendments tabled by my now former colleague, Lord Kamall, whom I thank and pay tribute to. I will then move on to Lords amendment 17, with which I hope the House will disagree.
Lords amendments 1 to 11 seek to implement recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Those recommendations relate only to part 1, on product security. The amendments change the parliamentary procedure for two delegated powers from the negative resolution procedure to the affirmative resolution procedure. Those are the powers in clause 3, the power to deem compliance with security requirements, and clause 9, the power to exempt manufacturers from needing to draw up a statement of compliance. The amendments will also ensure that the Secretary of State is able to authorise another person to exercise enforcement functions only by making regulations rather than by agreement. Those regulations will also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have carefully considered the Committee’s regulations and we are happy to accept those three.
On part 2 of the Bill, on telecoms infrastructure, Lords amendments 12 to 14 would remove the clause formerly known as clause 57 and make relevant consequential amendments to the version of the Bill that this House sent to the other place. That clause was intended to address difficulties that had arisen following upper tribunal and Court of Appeal decisions on the meaning of “occupier”. However, a judgment of the Supreme Court on this very issue was made during the Bill’s journey through the other place, and the judgment resolves the policy concerns that clause 57 was designed to address. As a result, we think it is no longer necessary to retain that clause, and its removal will ensure clarity and certainty for all users of the code.
Lords amendment 15 was made by the Government following a lot of debate and work by my team of officials, and I expect hon. Members on all sides will be pleased to see it realised in the Bill. It gives operators the rights to facilitate two things. First, the amendment makes it easier for a telegraph pole to be shared that is used by an operator other than the operator that owns the pole. Secondly, it makes it easier for the equipment on a pole to be upgraded—for example, by replacing an old copper line with a fibre-optic one.
This amendment is something that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members, and indeed the telecoms industry, were asking for. Overhead lines are used to provide a substantial proportion of network delivery across the country, and we think the amendment will therefore play a very important role in delivering better services to our constituents. We have listened carefully to stakeholders, and as well as meeting the needs of operators, I can assure hon. Members that we have included safeguards to protect the interests of private landowners and occupiers. For example, the legislation will not provide operators with an automatic right of entry on to private land. I hope that this amendment will therefore be welcomed.
The final Government amendment, Lords amendment 16, concerns an issue that has not yet been discussed in this House, so I should spend a little more time explaining its rationale. The amendment is intended to protect the autonomy and integrity of our national security, defence and law enforcement sites across the country. As it stands, the electronic communications code allows telecoms operators to seek consensual agreements with landowners to install and maintain telecoms equipment on private and public land, including sensitive national security, defence and law enforcement sites. If an agreement cannot be reached, a telecoms operator may seek a court order imposing such an agreement, potentially giving the operator access to those sensitive sites without consent. The code works in this way to make sure that operators can deliver the 5G and gigabit-capable broadband roll-out at pace.
However, this process does raise some national security concerns, including physical security, technical security and legal risks, which I shall go into a little further. On physical security, the presence of engineers and site surveyors on particularly sensitive sites, potentially without proper security clearance, could pose a national security risk. On technical security, the installation of 5G equipment on particularly sensitive Government sites could pose communications and information security risks.
Finally, on legal risks, the courts that consider proceedings under the code are not able to undertake closed material proceedings. That means that classified national security concerns cannot be evidenced properly, which might lead to courts granting access to sensitive sites without a full awareness of the risks. Lords amendment 16 seeks to address those particular national security risks without undermining our ambitious gigabit-capable broadband and 5G roll-out plans. It will confer powers on the relevant Secretary of State to intervene and prevent a court from imposing an agreement sought by an operator.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her presentation. In relation to personal data—my constituents contact me about it all the time, and probably hers do as well—can we be assured that, through this Bill, personal data will not be available to people who do not have the right to access it?
Julia Lopez
I think that is probably for other legislation, but if the hon. Member would like to discuss further with me, perhaps in relation to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, I would be very happy to do so.
Turning back to Lords amendment 16, I have to emphasise that it is not a blanket national security exemption. It is a very specific power that will be deployed only rarely, on a case-by-case basis and only when all other routes to a mutually consensual solution have been exhausted.
Finally, turning to the last amendment in the group, I hope the House will disagree with Lords amendment 17. The amendment adds a new clause to the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the effect of the electronic communications code and of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It is the Minister’s belief that the Bill will be a remedy for the problems in the market. She will acknowledge that, while there are only a few of us in the House who do so, there is a rather larger number out there who believe that it will make a bad situation significantly worse. The Lords amendment at least gives the opportunity of finding out who is right about this—whether it is her belief that the situation will be better or mine that it will be worse. It will put some proof into the pudding. Why must she resist it?
Julia Lopez
I shall set out my reasons for resisting now, but I am afraid I am not of the same opinion as my right hon. Friend on this issue. I have looked at it at length: I have looked at casework and the numbers of renewals, and I believe a review would simply cause a great deal of delay, which would further stymie roll-out.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her intervention on this. Does she agree with me, as chair of the all-party group on broadband and digital communication, that the industry is desperately concerned that this review amendment will wreck the intentions of the Bill, and in constituencies like mine in North Devon will simply slow down the roll-out of this vital infrastructure further?
Julia Lopez
I agree and I thank my hon. Friend for making the point. It seems sensible and benign, but it would significantly delay roll-out and create a great deal of uncertainty.
I understand why Members in the other place tabled this amendment. Its aims are noble, but it is impractical and unnecessary and would have a disastrous effect on investment in telecoms infrastructure, leading to a slow-down in getting great connectivity to the places that most need it, particularly rural constituencies. The Government and Ofcom already produce regular reports on coverage targets and competition, and to that extent the amendment is unnecessary and would duplicate effort.
On the subject of coverage and targets, we are making great progress. We have listened at length to the concerns in both Houses and among stakeholders, and we of course understand that there are tensions between landowners and operators that must be resolved, albeit a lot of progress has been made since 2017. This Bill tries to resolve some of the challenges, particularly by introducing more collaborative negotiations and a greater use of alternative dispute resolutions.
The prospect of another full-scale review of the code framework would have the opposite effect, exacerbating existing tensions by prolonging that debate about valuation. The result would be a cooling effect on the market, with landowners and operators reluctant to conclude agreements until the review was completed. That would seriously delay the delivery of digital services, including gigabit-capable connections and 5G coverage, which so many of our constituents tell us they need and which hon. Members hold me to account for every day because those things are important to economic growth and social wellbeing in their constituencies, particularly rural ones. I urge hon. Members not to stitch further delays into the process through the uncertainty created by a review. For these reasons, although amendment 17 is well-intentioned, it is disproportionate and unhelpful, and I hope the House will disagree to it.
I am nearly at the end of my speech, but I want to thank all Members who have contributed to debates on this Bill, especially the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and her predecessor the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). Parliamentary scrutiny here and in the other place has provided the Government with much food for thought, allowing us to refine and improve the legislation, and I am pleased that Members on both sides of the House support the objectives of this much-needed Bill in recognition of the importance of digital connectivity to the people and communities we serve and the security of the products that will be increasingly present in their lives.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Labour has always broadly welcomed the principles of this Bill and has supported amendments, whether Government or Opposition-led, that strike a sensible balance. That remains the case today, and as such I welcome the Government amendments before us. I will instead focus my remarks on amendment 17 on a review of the electronic communications code.
Labour stands firmly behind the aim of improving roll-out. Digital connectivity is a necessity, not a luxury in this day and age. In order to participate in society—from banking to shopping, to education and using public services—access to the digital world is crucial for people of all ages and in every corner of the country. As such, it is vital that we facilitate the building, maintaining and upgrading of digital infrastructure that allows for this connectivity.
The last Labour Government delivered on this belief, ensuring the creation of infrastructure that brought first-generation broadband to around 13 million households by 2009, but unfortunately over the last 12 years roll-out simply has not gone as far or as fast as we would like. Both broadband and 5G roll-out have been woefully slow, and the Government have repeatedly reduced their targets. We therefore support the aim of part 2 of this Bill, to speed up roll-out to the levels needed. The amendment that calls for a review of the electronic communication code is proposed with the firm intention of boosting rather than jeopardising roll-out. It would ensure that a balanced evidence base is built surrounding the changes made to regulation in the last five years so that concerns held by both landowners and operators can be addressed objectively and in the public interest.
Selaine Saxby
Will the hon. Member explain why the entire industry has asked me to speak this evening to say that the amendment would slow down the roll-out and do literally nothing to speed it up?
Stephanie Peacock
I understand that there are concerns in the industry, but there are also concerns on the other side of the argument among landowners. Indeed, in the consultation for the legislation, the most contentious parts of the 2017 regulations were considered, and that is why we are considering the amendment.
Indeed, the electronic communications code, as hon. Members will be aware, is the legislation that underpins the use of land for mobile telecommunications infrastructure. It was reformed in 2017 and further changes are being made to it through the Bill. After a period of initial adjustment, many operators now cite the 2017 ECC reform as a welcome set of changes that has in time helped them to act quicker and invest more in the roll-out.
Those who host masts, however, have seen their rents decrease by 63% on average as a result of those same changes and report that they have only caused them further problems, reducing their agency and disincentivising their involvement in facilitating the roll-out. That is a particular concern for smaller landowners—the likes of churches, sports clubs and community groups—whose rental income has been cut at a time when they are already suffering as a result of the cost of living, but whose land and involvement is vital for connecting hard-to-reach areas, some of which do not have 3G yet, let alone 5G.
Ultimately, roll-out is dependent both on those who build and operate masts and on the willingness of site owners to host them. Where we rely on both to succeed, the needs of both must be taken into account, striking the right balance so that roll-out is not impeded at either end. At the moment, however, the objective information on whether the ECC strikes the right balance is simply not available. Will the Minister share any objective evidence held by the Department on the impact that changes to the ECC have had and will have on roll-out, particularly as its consultation, as I mentioned, did not include the most controversial elements of the code. A review would help fill the evidence gap. Put simply, it would seek to measure in a balanced way whether the ECC is increasing roll-out as it was intended to.
To be clear, the amendment would not prevent the measures in the Bill from coming into force. It is designed to ensure that all the provisions that we hope make improvements to roll-out can still be enacted as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Compliance would still be expected from both providers and landowners. The amendment has no agenda for reversing any hard-fought changes in particular. It is a neutral amendment that seeks to put an end to years of constant disputes between providers and landowners and bring focus back to roll-out. The review would make recommendations only in areas that show clear evidential need for change and are currently stopping targets for connectivity from being met. If instead we choose to ignore the ways in which the ECC has been controversial, such disputes will only continue.
I take this opportunity to put on record Labour’s thanks to all those who host digital infrastructure on their land or buildings and are helping to connect their neighbours and communities to our modern world. It is clear that hosting masts can be difficult at times, but we must remember how vital it is for our country’s future that we get the widest possible connectivity. We want more groups to step forward to host infrastructure, not less.
Ultimately, Labour wants to see a fair settlement that supports small landowners in hosting digital infrastructure but allows providers to maximise roll-out. The amendment, which received cross-party support in the other place, provides an opportunity to ensure that the ECC is compatible with those aims and is supported by balanced evidence. All sides should be able to get behind that. We must be united behind the goal of boosting connectivity for those who need it so that our country can get on with harnessing the power of technology for good.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Witnesses at the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee have offered me, a history graduate and not the most technical of parliamentarians, a window into the world and advantages of connected tech. It is sometimes referred to as the “internet of things”: a world of possibilities and advantages for companies and consumers. The possibilities are wide-reaching and seemingly never-ending, but it is a brave new world that is already introducing us in Parliament, as well as those in the police service, healthcare and many workplaces, to new and unforeseen issues around our security.
The Bill does much good work in improving the culture of security from the inception of the product right from the design stage. Improved security will be integral, and as customers we will have the benefit of security information provided at the point of sale. All of that, surely, is advantageous. We on these crowded SNP Benches behind me recognise the value of the Bill. It is, however, well past time for speedier legislative progress. The world of connected tech is already well developed and established in healthcare, courier services and a multiplicity of industries around the world. We should have had legislation in place long before now.
As long ago as 2016 we saw a weaponised interconnection of connected tech devices used in a botnet to take down online titans such as Netflix, Amazon and others—2016. Countless Tory Prime Ministers and Chancellors have come and gone and, in one case, almost come again since then. Yet the Bill only hurtles into view as 2022 winds to a close. In that time, we have seen attacks on connected tech devices rising by hundreds of per cent. year on year.
Sir Desmond Swayne
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hate to interrupt this poetry, and it is indeed poetry, but what has it got to do with the amendments before us tonight?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am sure Mr Nicolson will be getting to Lords amendment 17, and to Lords amendments 1 to 16 as well, but I am being generous because it is almost Christmas and I know he does not have many pages in front of him.
John Nicolson
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Indeed, I always stand in awe of the brevity of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on these matters. I will try to emulate it.
Homes and industries across these islands are riddled with insecure technology because this House and the Conservative Government have been too slow to act. On the SNP Benches, we recognise that part 2 of the Bill sets out welcome changes that will be made to reduce bottlenecks and barriers to the roll-out of 4G and 5G masts. Let me highlight in particular Lords amendment 17, which has been opposed by the UK Government and by certain pressure groups and companies. The amendment requires that a review of the functioning of the code be started three months after the passage of the Bill into law. The amendment simply provides greater independent oversight on the efficacy of legislation and ensures that we as parliamentarians have access to more reliable information. The Government’s opposition to Lords amendment 17 is, I believe, misjudged. The amendment reinforces the principles of independent oversight and accountability. The Government should concede on the amendment. It improves the Bill.
Although the Bill is overdue, it is far from polished or complete. On the SNP Benches, we have been keen to work with the Government on a cross-party basis to resolve the deficiencies in the Bill highlighted by stakeholders and in expert evidence. It is imperative that these shortcomings are resolved as the Bill continues its passage. We will not oppose the Bill. Both here and as a Government in Holyrood, we will continue to push for co-operative engagement to produce a more polished and complete piece of legislation. We have waited this long, we had better get it right, Mr Deputy Speaker—and happy Christmas!
Jim Shannon
I just want to make a couple of quick comments on Lords amendment 17—I can confirm to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) that that is exactly what I am going to speak to—and on telecommunications infrastructure, which was referred to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock).
Many landowners back home in my constituency have put in a telecommunications mast, which is an integral part of the infrastructure. They find that their rental contracts have changed from what was potentially an income over a 10-year period to an income that has dropped down to about £200 or £300. The value for the landowners of having that infrastructure on their land is no longer a financial equation to their advantage.
If the telecommunication giants, or whatever they may be, try to retract and change the agreement with the landowners, do the landowners have any rights? Can they put an end to the infrastructure that is on the land? Can they seek recompense from the telecommunication companies, and can telecommunication companies proceed without the consent of the landowners? It is important for my constituents back home, who are faced with these predicaments, to get answers on such matters. I seek guidance from the Minister and hope that she can give me those answers.
Julia Lopez
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and for the wide-reaching support for the Bill, as that shows recognition of its importance.
The 2017 reforms were introduced to drive roll-out and were designed to make rents more akin to those for a key utility. There were, no doubt, issues after 2017 that led to protracted negotiations and examples of poor practice by operators, some of which we heard in Committee, but I am confident that we are now reaching market equilibrium, and renewal numbers are increasing year on year.
We believe that the Bill will lead to further progress, and we are making great progress on the roll-out. Our national gigabit coverage was 6% in 2019 and it is now more than 70%; 4G coverage is at 92%; and we met our 5G target five years early. We review the situation. We have monthly stakeholder meetings that have led to a new national connectivity alliance between operators and landlords. I assure the House that I am not on the side of either operators or landlords in the negotiations; I am on the side of people with poor connectivity. That is the lens through which I view the amendments and such people are our motivation, plain and simple.
I thank the Bill team and all the officials across many Departments who have worked hard over the past couple of years to reach this stage. The Bill will help people up and down the country to access the digital services that they need, and to do so securely. If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would like me to, I shall take up the issues in his constituency. Beyond that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 17.
Business without Debate
Bus Manufacture in the UK
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this debate on the importance of bus manufacturing, specifically electric bus manufacturing, in the United Kingdom. Electric buses play a vital role in helping us to reach net zero and reduce pollution in our congested cities. It is for that reason that the Government announced a £200 million boost to support the roll-out of zero-emission buses in March 2022—the zero-emission bus regional areas, or ZEBRA, scheme.
The UK has three main bus manufacturers: Alexander Dennis in Falkirk, Scotland and in Scarborough; Switch Mobility, formerly known as Optare, which is based in Sherburn in Elmet in my constituency; and Wrightbus in Northern Ireland. They have all developed electric buses and have a small number in service across a handful of our cities. The competition comes from China, with Chinese companies manufacturing around 420,000, an estimated 98% of the global electric bus fleet. These have been in service since May 2020.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman has initiated an important debate this evening. A few years ago, 70% of the buses Wrightbus was making would have been diesel buses, but in the last year and a half, 70% of its production has been electric buses. There is a market out there for these wonderful, low-emission products but they will only be purchased if Transport for London, Leicester Council and other councils are encouraged through an incentivised scheme to buy British. What does he think should be done to encourage them to buy British products?
Nigel Adams
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. That is the point of this debate. There is incentive. The Government are saying all the right things about wanting to see electric buses on our streets and they have launched this scheme, but the reality, as he will know, is that the organisations and local authorities that are buying the buses are not necessarily buying British. I will move on to the reasons shortly.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). Wrightbus in Northern Ireland has secured a contract with Translink to supply 100 zero-emission buses. The contract not only secures local jobs but promotes the company. We must invest in local bus-manufacturing companies in Northern Ireland to supply a global market that is crying out for the innovation of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and particularly of Wrightbus in Ballymena.
Nigel Adams
As ever, the hon. Gentleman is spot on.
To put those 420,000 Chinese electric buses into perspective, the UK currently has about 40,000 locally operated buses and only about 4% of them are electric. China is intent on maintaining world leadership in electric bus manufacturing and has been winning orders for buses funded by British taxpayers via the ZEBRA scheme. A key question for the Minister is whether the scheme is purely aimed at transitioning buses to electric power, or whether it is also intended to support and encourage our domestic manufacturers to fully transition to manufacturing only electric vehicles.
I am very familiar with the buses manufactured by Switch in the Selby district. The company was formerly known as Optare and is now part of the Indian Hinduja Group. We also have Plaxton in North Yorkshire. It has been part of Alexander Dennis since 2007. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) knows that company all too well, as it manufactures in Scarborough. This is an important part of North Yorkshire’s manufacturing capability.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that local authorities and passenger transport executives look not only at the bottom line but at the social implications of placing orders outside the United Kingdom, as it could diminish our manufacturing base and mean that, in future, China could have a monopoly of bus supply to the UK?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend is right. As we sit here now, China more or less has a monopoly on global bus supply. If we take Wrightbus, Plaxton, Alexander Dennis and Switch into the mix, the industry employs 3,500 individuals directly and an estimated 10,000 indirectly within the supply chain. This is an important sector.
I have been to the Switch factory in Sherburn in Elmet, which has orders from Transport for London, First Bus, Manchester Airport parking, City of York park-and-ride, Dubai and New Zealand. As I mentioned, Switch is part of the Hinduja Group and has started manufacturing UK-designed buses in India, including double-decker buses for the Indian market.
Ian Paisley
Is the right hon. Gentleman amazed that we have companies in the United Kingdom that build buses for Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, Germany, Hong Kong and countries all over the world, yet a scheme that is designed to help manufacturers is putting money into the pockets of China and not supporting indigenous employment in the United Kingdom? That is just not right, is it?
Nigel Adams
Not only does it not smell right; it is absolutely not right that we are not purchasing British-manufactured buses.
The model for supplying electric buses is very different from the model for supplying the existing fleets of diesel-powered buses, but electric buses are an excellent fit for the needs of a local bus service. Electric buses do not have the same range as diesel buses, but this is not a disadvantage because the distance travelled each day by local buses on a defined route is known precisely and is within the range of an electric bus working from a local depot. However, the cost of an electric bus is higher than that of an equivalent diesel bus and operators are not experienced in running electric bus fleets. For that reason, the industry is moving to a slightly different model, which should be investigated further, where buses are provided via service contracts, which cover the cost of the buses, the operation of the buses and the charging infrastructure. They can also cover, as part of that, battery upgrades and replacement costs. However, electric buses are far more cost-effective, with lower costs per mile once the transition is made and the infrastructure for charging and servicing is in place.
The key to this is the battery, which is a key component in an electric bus, or any other electric vehicle. For that reason, there is a lot of focus on battery technology, battery capacity and expected battery life. It might be thought that the bigger the battery capacity, the better the range of bus. That is not necessarily the case, but that has not prevented battery capacity from being a key part of the specification, including in some tender documents.
Therefore, battery capacity has been a factor that is believed to have unduly influenced some purchasing decisions. Buses manufactured in China are typically heavier than UK buses, so they have larger capacity batteries. In the case of Switch, the bus is designed around a lighter framework and less weight. Operating methods have a major impact on the capacity of battery required.
The ZEBRA scheme is especially important because, in addition to encouraging the take-up of electric buses, it is encouraging the purchase of new buses to replace an ageing fleet. The pandemic has had a profound effect on the number of passengers using local bus services and even now passenger numbers are far lower than they were before the pandemic. During the pandemic, bus services were supported by the Department for Transport. In August 2022, a further £130 million was made available to support bus services, which is a considerable sum. However, bus operators are now experiencing reduced passenger numbers and the inflationary pressures of fuel and wage rises. It is not surprising, therefore, that they are not placing orders for new buses in larger numbers. In North Yorkshire, a large number of bus services are currently not viable because of reduced passenger numbers.
ZEBRA is a major driver of investment in new buses and a key enabler as a step towards net zero. The £198.3 million of funding announced in March is sufficient to fund 943 new buses. That funding is built on the £71 million announced last year to support up to 335 new zero-emission buses in five areas, as well as hundreds more zero-emission buses that have been funded in London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I hope that that provides you with an insight, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that they will be thinking of nothing else in Ribble Valley aside from the electric bus market. I now wish to move on to how the Government’s ZEBRA scheme is working in practice and to look at the recent decision by Nottingham City Council to purchase buses from the Chinese manufacture Yutong.
Nottingham City Council has received £15 million of Government funding, yet it awarded the first 12 of its single-deck buses to Yutong. Within the tender, it did not ask for range requirements, instead asking for a specific battery capacity; it asked that the capacity exceeded 420 kW, which basically excluded all UK manufacturers. That is like asking someone to provide the size of the fuel tank rather than the range or the miles per gallon of a vehicle.
UK manufacturers run smaller, more efficient batteries than the Chinese manufacturers, so tend to achieve a similar range with a smaller battery. Nottingham City Council has set a target of becoming a carbon neutral city by 2028, yet it is prepared to ship buses from around the world, rather than buying from carbon neutral UK bus manufacturers. That does not make a lot of sense. It is also believed that the Chinese-made Yutong buses were not the cheapest to tender. I will give some other examples.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that China has not exactly covered itself in glory in relation to human rights and democracy?
Nigel Adams
As a former Minister for Asia, I know that too well. I have been at the Dispatch Box, where the Minister for Science and Investment Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), is sat this evening—we all look forward to what she has to say—and she was sat where I am, quite rightly giving me stick up and down dale about human rights abuses in China. I will be interested to hear what she has to say on this particular subject.
Let me give the House some more examples, including the decision taken by Leicester City Council, where the first ZEBRA buses were delivered—also Chinese. Cardiff Council ordered 36 zero-emission buses from the same Chinese company, and Newport City Council ordered a further 16 Chinese buses. They were all supported by UK Government funding.
I mentioned light goods vehicles, especially those used for delivery services. Bus manufacturing is a skilled, bespoke process, as operators seek individual design features. Light goods vehicles are manufactured on a production line and use mass manufacturing techniques; these are high-volume processes. Light goods vehicles are ideally suited to be electric vehicles, because they travel regular routes and not especially long distances. They are the next major EV opportunity, and the technology being used in electric bus transmission is directly transferable.
Ian Paisley
One of the ways in which the Government could buck the market and protect British manufacturing would be to say that 50% of the next number of ZEBRA buses that are ordered must be hydrogen buses. That would guarantee the location of the market and that buses are built by UK companies; it would force the market to go down that route and not force them only to buy electric buses.
Nigel Adams
That would make sense. I would like to think that the purchasing authorities taking such decisions bear those factors in mind. The battery example calls into question whether the process is completely joined up between DFT and the passenger authorities and local councils making the decisions.
The zero-emission bus market is forecast to see significant growth and provide great export opportunities globally, with compound annual growth rates of more than 25%. The EV bus and light commercial vehicle market is projected to be worth about $50 billion by 2030. There is, however, a high risk that British manufacturers could lose out to international competitors whose Governments have taken bolder steps to support their domestic markets when it comes to growth and export opportunities. Switch, which is based in my constituency, has announced its plans to invest £300 million across the UK and India to develop its range of electric buses and light commercial vehicles, demonstrating its commitment to a shift to zero-emission vehicles.
The transition from internal combustion engines to battery technology is a major disruption to motor manufacturing, and Chinese companies have responded to that and enjoyed huge volumes of exports around the world. Based on a large Chinese domestic market, with 420,000 electric buses already amounting to 98% of electric buses worldwide, the UK faces a major challenge in gaining market share. However, the products available from UK manufacturers are competitive and ideally suited to the UK market, for which they were originally designed. The products are also suited for export. The double-decker, which I am proud to say was designed in my constituency, is to be built in volume in India to meet that specific market.
Without nurturing the transition and supporting British companies in the move to electric buses through the support that the Government are providing, we are in danger of losing the ability to compete. The Government have provided funding to enable local bus operators to transition to EVs. We have three fantastic bus manufacturers that can between them deliver the products required, and supply the orders and exports. As I mentioned, the next opportunity is likely to be light vans and delivery vehicles, for which electric vehicle manufacturing expertise will be critical. UK companies are prepared to invest, but they need the Government to back them, rather than to unintentionally support Chinese manufacturing jobs.
The Minister for Science and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) on securing tonight’s important debate and setting out clearly some of the challenges that UK bus manufacturers face. He knows that if I were on the Back Benches, this is exactly the sort of debate that I would have instigated, so I am actually pleased that he has raised this tonight. I give him an absolute assurance that this is not the end of the discussion; now that I am aware of this, it is only the start.
I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns that the procurement of these Chinese-made buses could adversely impact the UK bus manufacturing network and centre. In particular, I was concerned to hear my right hon. Friend say that some of these procurements that take place with China are not always the cheapest contracts, which is not great when it comes to making sure that we get good value for money. In particular, he mentioned that when councils are writing their specification tenders, UK manufacturers cannot bid as only the cheaper Chinese product fits their specification. I am sure that will be heard loud and clear in my Department and at the Department for Transport, and they will no doubt be writing in response.
It is true that, since 2019, Chinese companies have been enjoying huge volumes of exports around the world, with 98% of electric buses being found in China. I also share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), who chairs the bus and coach industry all-party parliamentary group, that we can allow one country to monopolise the market and that we should be doing everything we can to make sure that our supply chains are as clean and as transparent as they can be.
I will try my best to respond to all the points raised, but I will just run through what we are doing within the sector to help bus manufacturers. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, this sector is incredibly important for the Government’s green growth, making sure that we are levelling up across our country and driving emissions to net zero by 2050. In a previous life, I was the bus Minister, making sure that we were indeed supporting zero-emission buses.
My right hon. Friend mentioned how important the sector is to jobs. The sector employs 155,000 people—6.1% of total UK manufacturing employment—and a further 347 jobs are estimated to be supported by the industry in the wider economy. Within the framework, UK bus manufacturers are uniquely positioned, employing more than 3,000 people across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is a sector that we need to protect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty mentioned the prominent British companies, Alexander Dennis, Switch Mobility and Wrightbus, which employ more than 3,500 workers directly and 10,000 indirectly. These manufacturers also have the aptitude and capacity for completing the transition to fully electric bus fleets in the UK by the year 2030 without the need to import buses—that was a very important point to land.
As I am also joined by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), it would be remiss of me not to mention his visit to Ballymena factory to pay tribute to the company’s net zero emission products and to affirm the Government’s support for hydrogen. I believe that he also declared the innovative technology fund, which provided £11.2 million for Wrightbus. It is incredibly important that we are doing everything we can to support UK manufacturers.
Ian Paisley
It was an honour to be at the Wrightbus plant with the Secretary of State. He was so enthusiastic. I think he actually said that he was really into buses—he is a wee bit nerdy about that. It was brilliant to see a person who really took a specific interest in the manufacturing process and in understanding how important it is in terms of jobs leading through to good green technology. Will the Minister take up the point that I made during the debate, which is about ringfencing the next phase of ZEBRA funding for hydrogen buses? If that happens, British manufacturing will be protected.
Ms Ghani
To quickly address the hydrogen point, I am not sure that ringfencing is the appropriate word for me to use at the Dispatch Box, but there is funding available for hydrogen buses; I believe the ZEBRA scheme is helping the West Midlands Combined Authority to deliver 124 hydrogen buses and refuelling infrastructure. As my hon. Friend is raising the profile of the business in his constituency, it is right that we do everything we can to ensure that the money is spent locally within the UK.
One point my right hon. Friend raised was why councils were shipping buses to the UK when they are not the cheapest option or carbon neutral. As he mentioned, the DFT’s latest ZEBRA scheme has been designed in line with the principles set out in the national bus strategy for England, placing partnership work between local transport authorities and bus operators at the heart of improving bus services.
That is why the DFT has asked for local transport authorities to submit proposals that have the support of bus operators, to ensure that they work together. Once funding has been awarded to local transport authorities, they will work with bus operators to implement the proposals, but ultimately decisions about the procurement of zero-emission buses will be made locally by local transport authorities or bus operators. DFT is not able to require bidders to design their procurement process in a way that would explicitly favour UK bus manufacturers.
Nigel Adams
On the point about not favouring particular manufacturers, is the Minister aware that in March, in its promotional material for announcing the new fund, DFT used a sparkly new electric bus as part of that marketing? The marketing geniuses in the DFT may or may not have been aware that it was a Chinese Yutong bus that was used to promote the scheme, but the idea that we are promoting Chinese buses is slightly alarming—I am turning to the box where the Minister’s officials sit, but I am sure it is not the young lady there who was responsible. Only when UK manufacturers complained was the photograph changed to a British Alexander Dennis bus.
Ms Ghani
First of all, it is not a DFT official in the box, but a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy official. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend knows, I would have kept an eye out to make sure it was not a Chinese bus, but most definitely a UK bus, and I will do so in future.
The answer I am giving is not exactly what my right hon. Friend wants to hear, but I want to repeat the issue he raised: when the procurements are put together, if they deliberately exclude UK manufacturers, that is something that needs to be looked at. Now that it has been raised in this debate, I will ensure that both BEIS and DFT officials respond in writing to ensure that that point is covered.
To quickly cover why China has the largest electric vehicle battery industry in the world, because that is important for resilience and ensuring that we support UK manufacturing, we know that China has 98% of the market. We know that we must be resilient, and that is why we have a number of programmes in place, especially the Advanced Propulsion Centre, the Faraday Battery Challenge and Driving the Electric Revolution.
For example, the Advanced Propulsion Centre provides £11.2 million for the development and manufacture of low-cost hydrogen fuel cell bus technology and the hydrogen centre of excellence with Wrightbus in Ballymena, as mentioned earlier, to further the development of hydrogen technology and drive product sales across the world. We need to be doing more of that kind of work with Members of Parliament, raising the profile of what can be done locally.
We have talked about the grants available through the Advanced Propulsion Centre, but we also have the ESTHER project, which includes the provision of £9.1 million within the £22 million ESTHER project to develop hydrogen fuel cells—again, that was mentioned earlier. Then there is the consortium led by Intelligent Energy, which includes bus maker Alexander Dennis Ltd. Funding has also been provided to ensure that the ESTHER consortium develops and integrates valuable technology delivery skills, and creates supply chain advantages for the UK, so that it can capitalise on this technology and unlock additional research and development funding from UK suppliers.
A lot of work has been taking place on localised supply of key components to meet the growing demand for electric vehicles, but we need to make sure that local companies have the opportunity to bid for tenders. I should mention the net zero strategy produced in October 2021, and the Government’s promise of £350 million over the next three years to deliver the automotive transformation fund.
I keep talking about the funding available, but that may not exactly address the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty raised. To conclude, the issue has been brought to our attention, and I will do my very best to ensure that DFT and BEIS respond fully. My right hon. Friend is aware that if I were on the Back Benches, I most definitely would have raised this issue, even if—especially if—he was on the Front Bench; I would have given him quite a tough time.
I assure hon. Members that this is not the end but the start of a conversation. We need far more transparency, especially regarding those councils that seem to be giving the majority of their contracts to one particular country or place overseas; that is not good news for us here. We recognise the challenges that we face. We need to help our local authorities to procure buses from the UK. Of course, the supply chain for zero-emission buses will always be global, but we want to make sure that UK bus manufacturing remains strong, and this obviously involves the key components. I will end there. I am keen to meet my right hon. Friend as soon as possible to make sure that everything discussed today is put in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Adult Social Care Information (Enforcement) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Helen Whately)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Adult Social Care Information (Enforcement) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The draft regulations allow the Secretary of State to impose a financial penalty on adult social care providers that fail to submit information required under section 277A of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, or that provide false or misleading information. In essence, the statutory instrument will ensure that the Government receive a regular, standardised and accurate set of data from providers of social care to give us an up-to-date understanding of how the care system is functioning, what problems are emerging, and where those problems are. That will mean, in turn, that the Government can support providers and the social care system as a whole to serve the care needs of the population.
To give hon. Members a bit of context, at the start of the pandemic it rapidly became clear that the centre was completely lacking in up-to-date information about the functioning of the social care system. For instance, the Government did not know how many people were receiving care, where people were receiving care or where capacity was in the system, and we lacked provider-specific information about the workforce. The Government relied on data mainly captured through aggregate annual returns from local authorities and periodic returns from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, supplemented by briefings from the Care Quality Commission, for instance on the state of care, and from Skills for Care on the workforce. But by the time we received that sort of information it was of little use for responding to situations on the ground. However, there was a real-time source of data known as a capacity tracker, which enabled providers to share information about their bed vacancies.
Taking a pragmatic approach to the immediate situation, I decided that we should build on the capacity tracker, and use it to collect the information that we desperately needed to give us a picture of the frontline of social care. We worked with the care sector to develop the set of data collected through the capacity tracker to give us near-real-time data about what was happening on the frontline of the system—adding, for instance, metrics on the numbers of people receiving care, workforce absences, covid testing, vaccination rates, and access for visitors. During the pandemic, completion of the capacity tracker was voluntary, albeit tied to the receipt of funding from the infection control funds distributed to care providers. It provided an enormously valuable source of data and insights, enabling the Department of Health and Social Care to focus attention and resources where they were most needed.
Since the pandemic, most providers have continued to complete the capacity tracker, which has continued to be a valuable source of data, but with the ending of the infection control funds completion rates have declined. That is why we have taken steps to put provider data collection on a sustainable long-term footing through new powers inserted by the Health and Care Act 2022 into the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The Secretary of State now requires registered adult social care providers to submit data through the capacity tracker tool. Recognising that data collection can be onerous for care providers, we have always tried to strike the right balance between asking for important data and avoiding imposing a disproportionate burden. Specifically, in making this data collection mandatory, we have reduced its frequency from weekly to monthly, and we have removed data fields when the information was no longer critical.
Through the 2022 Act, the Government can now require that information from providers. Today’s legislation will enforce that requirement through financial penalties that have been developed to ensure that the mandation of the data submission is both effective and proportionate. The draft regulations cover the amount of the penalty, the service of notices, a right to make representations, and a right to appeal to the tribunal. The draft regulations set out that the penalty will be the same as a provider’s Care Quality Commission registration fee, which is scaled according to provider type and size.
It is the Government’s intention that the enforcement should be used only as a last resort. A notice of intent will be given before imposing a penalty, and the provider will have a right to make representations on why it should not be imposed. Thereafter, a final decision will be taken; if it is decided to impose a penalty, a final notice will be given. The provider will then be able to appeal to the first tier tribunal. There is also provision in the draft regulations for notices to be withdrawn and for the recovery of financial penalties in the county court, and a duty to review the regulations every five years.
We need the draft regulations because we need to be able to enforce the information duties created by the Health and Care Act 2022. The Act inserted new section 277A into the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to enable the Secretary of State to require information from regulated providers of adult social care services about themselves, their activities and persons to whom they have provided care. New section 277E allows us to enforce that duty to provide information through the imposition of financial penalties. We hope—and very much expect—compliance to be the norm so that financial penalties are not required. However, a deterrent is important, and the draft regulations provide the powers to impose financial penalties if needed.
The Government’s priority is to support providers to share their data wherever possible. The data required will be proportionate and providers will normally be given three months’ notice of any changes to data requested, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Financial penalties are normally a last resort, for when a provider continues to be or is persistently in breach of their data obligations, despite multiple offers of support from our delivery partners.
In our data strategy, the Government have set out our vision of how data will be used to improve the health and care of the population in a safe, trusted and transparent way. Our ultimate goal is to have a health and care system that is underpinned by high-quality, readily available data, which is collected and shared appropriately with those in the sector who need it. That will improve adult social care commissioning practice and outcomes for people who are receiving care, and provide greater oversight of the sector.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the Minister back to her place in the Department of Health and Social Care. Hopefully, there will not be too many issues still on her desk from her previous time as a Minister; let us hope that those who served in between managed to clear the in-tray.
I am pleased to speak to this statutory instrument on behalf of the shadow Health and Social Care team. We see no reason to oppose the measures before us; it is sensible that adult social care providers will be required to supply the Department of Health and Social Care with important data. It is striking that prior to the pandemic there was no comprehensive national data from providers on workforce status, bed availability or the number of people in receipt of care. As the Minister said, having access to that crucial data will no doubt improve policymakers’ ability to judge risk in the care system, which we know to be under significant stress. Without the requisite data, they are unable to make those detailed assessments right now.
I am reassured by what the Minister said about the data being subject to GDPR restrictions, and the fact that data will be shared appropriately with local authorities and integrated care systems. It is right that when a provider is persistently in breach of its data obligations and has not made appropriate attempts to rectify them, financial penalties will be scaled to the provider’s type and size. That is common sense.
The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated that it will consider improving the accessibility of data available to providers and any opportunity to link the capacity tracker to other data sources. In her closing remarks, could the Minister provide a short update on that work and whether the capacity tracker data will be publicly available, so that the state of the social care sector can be robustly assessed in the public domain?
You will be pleased to hear, Sir Edward, that those are the remarks of the official Opposition. We do not oppose this instrument—indeed, we actively support measures to improve transparency in our social care sector.
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish for his welcome and his comments about this legislation; I am glad to hear that he considers it sensible and that the Opposition will not oppose it. I agree that it was striking that there was not a comprehensive dataset before the pandemic. I am glad that he sees the scaling of penalties as common sense and that he supports appropriate sharing with local authorities and integrated care boards.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the intention to improve accessibility for care providers. We absolutely want to do that as well as to link to other data sources, to ensure that multiple organisations such as the Government, the Care Quality Commission or local authorities are not asking care providers for similar but slightly different data. That would clearly not be helpful: the more we can have an “ask once” common dataset, the better. That is what we will work towards.
I am but a few days into this particular job as Health Minister, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the comprehensive update that he asked for, but I look forward to doing so on a future occasion. He also asked about the extent to which the data would be publicly available. The capacity tracker dataset is already published monthly. I share with him the objective of transparency; when I was care Minister previously, I worked hard to ensure that we could share the data and be transparent about what we need. I am committed to ensuring that we continue to make the data publicly available—at an appropriate level, clearly: we would not want any adverse or unintended consequences. Transparency is, as the hon. Gentleman says, very important.
In conclusion, the Government want to build a better picture of adult social care services across England so that at local, regional and national levels people in the sector have the information that they need and can use it to help them provide higher quality care and support to those who need it. For too long, very little information has been shared across the sector and there has been limited standardisation of how data is collected, shared and used. We now have the opportunity to resolve the issue. The draft regulations will ensure that we get vital information from all registered adult social care providers and that when providers do not make good on a request for data or do not have a reasonable excuse for not doing so, they are held to account. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2022
Draft International Development Association (Twentieth Replenishment) Order 2022
(2 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2022.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft International Development Association (Twentieth Replenishment) Order 2022.
Mr Mitchell
It is a great pleasure to serve under your benign chairmanship, Mr Sharma. It is 10 years since I last had the last had the privilege of addressing the House on the subject of international development as a Minister and 25 years since I last spoke as a Minister on a statutory instrument, when I was a junior Minister in the Department of Social Security, which is now the Department for Work and Pensions. It is a pleasure to be back.
Both orders were laid before the House on 23 September. They will permit the UK Government to make financial contributions to the World Bank’s International Development Association—or IDA for short—up to the stated values. IDA provides grants or loans on concessional terms to 74 of the world’s poorest countries. It uses an innovative finance model that combines donor contributions with income from loan repayments and borrowing from the markets. That means that for every £1 we put in, IDA generates more than £3.50 for the world’s poorest countries, providing excellent value for money for UK taxpayers.
IDA is normally replenished by donors every three years. However, to respond the impacts of the pandemic, IDA stepped up to provide $35 billion dollars annually to the poorest countries in the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22, rather than the $27 billion dollars previously envisaged. As a result, the latest replenishment, IDA20, took place one year early.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I say what a pleasure it is to have the right hon. Gentleman back as a Minister? We always liked him when he was in the role previously. There obviously is life after death, politically.
I used to chair a committee of the World Bank. I am a bit worried, because the Minister is saying this after a weekend when we heard that some international aid money is going to be spent on work with poor families within the United Kingdom. When I worked for the World Bank, some of the match funding came from pretty dubious sources such as big oil companies; is that still the case?
Mr Mitchell
It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, because I know how much he did for the World Bank and Britain’s relationship with it. The reports at the weekend were about spending on refugees in particular, principally from Ukraine but also from Afghanistan, Syria and Hong Kong. In the first year of their residence here, it is entirely in accordance with the principles that govern the official development assistance rules—in other words, the development spend—that the first year’s expenditure should be covered. As the hon. Gentleman implied, that of course imposes considerable strains on the development budget and leads to spending in the UK, but we all accept that it is perfectly legitimate public expenditure within the definition.
Following negotiations throughout 2021, the UK and other donors committed to a record-breaking $93 billion replenishment in December. As announced to Parliament through a written ministerial statement earlier this year, the UK pledged £1.4 billion, positioning us as the third largest donor after the US and Japan. That was a 54% reduction on our pledge to the previous replenishment round, IDA19. This is in line with our international development strategy, which set out how we will rebalance the aid budget towards the bilateral programmes, thereby giving us greater control and flexibility over how taxpayers’ money is spent.
Since the replenishment was agreed in December, Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has had a devastating impact on developing countries across the globe, which face growing debt, food and energy crises. As a result, extreme poverty is rising for the first time in two decades. Once again, IDA is responding flexibly, using financing from the UK and other donors, to support the poorest countries to respond to rising inflation and food insecurity.
The World Bank is providing $36 billion this year as part of its wider global crisis response package. For example, over the last few months, IDA has financed social protection payments to support over 400,000 households in Somalia who face food insecurity. It is helping half a million households in Ethiopia to cope with drought by providing livestock feed, water and veterinary drugs. IDA has also provided an additional $1 billion of exceptional financing for Ukraine without diverting funds from the poorest countries.
The UK can be proud of our role as a major donor to IDA. We have shaped its strategic direction and priorities to align them with our own, and ensured that IDA resources have the best possible impact on the world’s poorest people. That was confirmed by the review into IDA by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact—ICAI—earlier this year. It found that the UK was the most influential donor, that IDA represented excellent value of money, and that our priorities were well aligned.
In the IDA20 replenishment negotiations, the UK secured commitments from the World Bank to use IDA’s balance sheet to increase the overall volume of financing by an additional $14 billion, reduce learning losses in 20 countries, with a particular focus on girls’ education, support all IDA countries to better prepare for and respond to future crises, expand the provision of core services to people with disabilities, and strengthen disability statistics in 34 countries.
Mr Sheerman
My daughter, who works for the International Rescue Committee, has just come back from Somalia. She is very worried that so much aid is not getting to the people who really need it, particularly people with disabilities. I am keen to understand whether we are ascertaining that aid gets to the right places at the right time.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman’s daughter is right, and all of us are horrified and extremely worried about what is happening in the horn of Africa, where the dreadful spectre of famine looms, and indeed has started in some parts. There is no question about that. He will understand that it is 10 years since I last stood at the crease, but I am pretty confident that the quality of development spending over those last 10 years has increased. He is quite right to put his finger on the importance of getting humanitarian aid speedily to the people who most need it. Without it they will perish. I am afraid that there is no better example of that than the horn of Africa at this time.
IDA will also help to deliver the Glasgow climate pact by using 35% of its finance to tackle climate change, and by supporting 30 countries to develop long-term strategies to transition towards net zero. Since its creation, there has been strong support across the House for IDA, and recognition of the positive impact it has had on the lives of millions of the world’s poorest people, including people from marginalised groups, such as those with disabilities, women and girls.
The other draft order permits the UK Government to provide an additional £119 million to support IDA’s participation in the multilateral debt relief initiative, which, through the G8 presidency, the UK played a leading role in creating in 2005. The multilateral debt relief initiative enables the World Bank and the African Development Bank to cancel debts that were owed to them by countries at the time through an agreement that donors would compensate the banks for the loss of repayments. The order allows the Government to continue to make good on that commitment by contributing £119 million between 2031 and 2033.
IDA is an important development partner; it tackles global challenges that the UK cannot address alone. The contributions covered by these two orders will deliver UK foreign policy and development objectives in countries with the greatest need, and they are an important part of this country’s commitment to the world’s poorest. I commend the orders to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield on his appointment, and I look forward to working with him. There is much that we agree on, but I will certainly still be on his case and hold him to account. I am grateful to him for outlining the draft International Development Association orders and I welcome the support they indicate for tackling poverty and disease, giving millions the opportunity of an education and tackling climate change in line with the Paris agreement.
Global co-operation has never mattered more: the world reels from the pandemic; we face energy, debt and food crises; the climate emergency is wreaking havoc; and 100 million people are now displaced around the world. Over the past 62 years, the International Development Association has provided nearly half a trillion dollars of investment in 114 of the world’s poorest countries. The technical assistance and grant and concessional finance that IDA provides has been vital for those countries, which are unable to borrow on global markets to develop their economies and lift their populations out of poverty. As a result, many borrower countries have since graduated from debt distress and gone on to be real success stories of the world. Our country can be proud of the role it has played in supporting that historic progress, where many hundreds of millions more human beings have been able to flourish and live good lives.
It has been 18 years since a quarter of a million people marched on the streets of Edinburgh as part of the Make Poverty History movement. I know that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was a strong supporter of that campaign in the run up to the historic Gleneagles G8 summit. It was an outstanding example of what British leadership on the world stage can achieve, and one of the proudest legacies of the last Labour Government. Since then, the multilateral debt relief initiative has enabled us to make substantial progress toward the global goals. It has had a transformative impact on many poor countries, freeing up their Governments to invest billions in global goods, such as health systems, climate action and education, that would otherwise have been spent servicing debts. Will the Minister tell us how much debt UK support has enabled IDA to cancel over the recent accounting period?
Much of the progress we have made in recent decades is at risk of reversal. The pandemic and Putin’s disastrous war in Ukraine have knocked us backward. Some 263 million more people will crash into extreme poverty this year. In times of crisis, the British public have stepped up, whether by helping neighbours through covid or opening their wallets and homes for Ukrainian refugees, and they expect their Government to play their part too. The aims of the 20th IDA replenishment are to support poor countries to recover and rebuild from the pandemic, while fostering greener, more resilient and more inclusive development. We strongly support these aims, so we will not seek to divide the Committee on these orders.
However, I must raise several issues of concern with the Minister, not least the impact of his Government’s decision to reduce the UK’s contribution to the International Development Association by half. The decision to reduce our contribution by £1.5 billion was first reported in March, as part of the former Foreign Secretary’s strategy to divert aid spending from multilateral to bilateral projects. This is less than half of the £3.1 billion provided in 2020, and the lowest for 20 years. The international development strategy, when it was finally published in May, confirmed this tilt away from our historical strengths in poverty alleviation toward transactional objectives and short-term political self-interest.
Since then, we have had two more Prime Ministers and two new Development Ministers, and these orders appear to have been the last thing that the hon. Member for Chelmsford did before she returned to the Back Benches. Can I check with the Minister that this is still his policy? With specific regard to the decision to take from the budget’s multilaterals, I remind the Minister of his comments in response to the international development strategy. He said this was a decision that the former Foreign Secretary
“should never have had to make”.—[Official Report, 6 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 921.]
He went on to make some good points that I agreed with, because they are points that I have made time and again.
The shift to bringing more programming in-house is a huge strategic call, because it puts significant additional pressures on British international development expertise to design and deliver effective multimillion-pound programmes. Yet, since this Government’s disastrous decision to abolish the Department for International Development, we have seen a brain drain of development expertise from Government. This has been bad for transparency, for British influence and impact and for securing value for taxpayers’ money, as the appalling mess that has been made of the FCDO budget this year shows. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield himself said, the merger has been an absolute disaster. He said,
“Most importantly, the top 100 people who were responsible for driving forward the Government’s agenda in DFID have gone. Of course they have, because they have been headhunted by the international system, whether in New York, Geneva or the charitable sector. They have gone because they see a Government who do not recognise or appreciate that extraordinary skill that existed in DFID. The Government are now faced with a large budget but a diminishing level of expertise.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 923.]
I ask the Minister how he expects to secure value for taxpayers’ money when this Government have vandalised the very expertise they need to take on this increased responsibility. Does he dispute the findings of his Government’s own multilateral development review, which found that funding through multilaterals can deliver more bang for buck, reduce admin costs to the taxpayer and reach places the UK itself cannot? He may be aware that in that review the International Development Association received top marks from this Government, both for its strength as an organisation and its alignment with the UK’s own policy objectives. Out of 38 multilateral agencies, only investments in the World Bank and the Global Fund achieve that. However, if rumours are true, we are about to decimate our contribution to both those organisations.
Even the explanatory memorandum to the replenishment order we are discussing explicitly says that IDA is
“well-aligned to UK development priorities”
and
“one of the most important partners to the United Kingdom for achieving its poverty reduction aims”.
It acknowledges that
“for every £1 of grant finance provided by the United Kingdom, the Association will provide around £3.95 support to borrower countries”.
That was echoed in the Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s review of IDA earlier this year, which found it to be in alignment with UK priorities. The review said IDA’s ability to generate significant amounts of funding from other sources, and the scale and reach of its operation and expertise, provided good value for money. Could the Minister explain why this Government are targeting IDA for cuts while no other G7 economy is reducing its contribution in that way?
IDA’s contribution to global development is great, and I praise its work during the covid pandemic and the speed of its response, especially in terms of funding social protections for those who lost livelihoods and funding vaccines for low-income countries, which was essential. We do not seek to divide the Committee on the replenishment order, as we recognise the importance of IDA’s work. However, I would like to request further information from the Minister on how the UK Government are improving the management of IDA, ensuring that it maximises its poverty reduction efforts and works to strengthen its focus on climate action. How will he ensure that we remain a strong and influential presence at the World Bank while reducing our contribution?
What are the Government doing to ensure IDA is laser-focused on helping the poorest and most fragile countries? As ICAI has recommended, will the Minister confirm that he will not reduce the engagement and technical expertise that the UK invests in its relationship with IDA, so that we can remain an influential presence? Does he accept ICAI’s recommendations of increased accountability for the “leave no one behind” commitment and compliance with agreed standards for environmental and social protections?
One area where we would like to see more progress is IDA’s dependence on lending to Governments, which means many valuable projects in fragile countries get stuck due to concerns about corruption. It has meant that while IDA disbursements to non-fragile countries have doubled in 15 years, support to some of the most fractured, conflict-driven countries has grown much less. Does the Minister agree that IDA can do more to diversify the delivery partners it works with to ensure that projects in fragile countries actually reach the people they are meant to?
As Labour raised during the previous replenishment, we remain concerned about the declining development impact of the International Finance Corporation and the net loss it has incurred to the World Bank in recent years. What representations have Ministers made about the decision to subsidise underperforming IFC projects? Given that the IFC as a whole is focused on larger formal sector firms in richer countries with easier access to market finance, does he share my concerns that these investments represent a relatively ineffective approach to poverty reduction, particularly during the downturn of the pandemic?
Finally, I was profoundly disappointed to read that the new Prime Minister has decided not to attend COP27 in Egypt as we hand over our presidency. It is a crucial opportunity to meet other global leaders, see to fruition some of the good work started in Glasgow last year, and galvanise ambitious global action to tackle the issue that will define this century. It is an issue we all have a common interest in fighting and something that this Government have called their No. 1 international priority. Can I ask the Minister if that remains the case? If so, will he accept ICAI’s recommendation to advocate for a stronger focus on climate action at IDA if the Government are to meet their own climate ambitions?
The next Labour Government’s approach to international development would underline the importance of tackling global poverty, reclaiming the UK’s past leadership in international development and within the multilateral system and bringing Britain back to the world stage as a trusted partner. For Labour, the power of co-operation is unmistakeable: we can choose to turn to each other when confronted with global crisis, rather than inwards. We can choose to renew and update the world’s approach to international development, learning from each other.
We can, and must, address the world’s biggest challenges together. The International Development Association has played a big part in helping us achieve that goal over many years, and has been a very effective vehicle for doing so. The Labour party will not oppose today’s orders, but I reiterate my concern about the decision of this Government to retreat from the multilateral system, doing such damage to Britain’s reputation and influence on the world stage.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I rise to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield on taking on the incredibly vital job of Minister for Development. It was 17 years ago that he first gave me the opportunity to be part of a community in Africa: it was a pre-school in an orphanage, and we were able to roll up our sleeves and see at first hand what a difference our international aid and international help can make, not only helping the local community to build but helping our own safety and security at home. It is heart-wrenching to leave a job that I loved so much, but it is absolutely wonderful that it is being taken on by such a brilliant champion for development. I know that we will all have his back.
Covid, conflict and climate change have had a desperate impact on the world’s poorest countries, and all have been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, which has pushed millions more people into poverty, hunger and starvation. However, against that backdrop, the World Bank does exceptional work for the world’s poorest. My biggest bugbear with the World Bank is not what it does, but the fact that it does not talk nearly enough about what it does—so many people should be so joyful about that great work. Not only do we have a uniquely strong voice as one of the largest shareholders in the World Bank, but we are one of the few that uses it. As such, I encourage my right hon. Friend to use that voice for the vulnerable in three different ways.
First, please encourage the World Bank and all multilateral development banks to look not only at immediate needs, but deeply at tackling the impact and causes of climate change. During my visit to Ethiopia two weeks ago, I saw how tempting it is to continue to fund day-to-day needs, but the needs of climate change are the biggest ones. It is the biggest issue that we face; if we do not get to grips with it, every other issue will continue to explode.
Secondly, with so many countries facing unstable debt, please continue to use our voice to ask creditors to act quickly in debt negotiations. We know from our constituents that if an individual or a company, let alone a country, is facing unsustainable debt, the longer that issue is left to fester, the worse the rot becomes. It becomes septic, and the economic situation just spirals down and down. That is not in the interests of the creditor or the debtor, so please continue to press for creditors to come to the table.
Thirdly, please continue encouraging the World Bank to innovatively expand its balance sheet. That is an issue that the UK has been pressing on, because we know that across the world many developing countries need more financial assistance. We also know that traditional donors cannot plug all the holes in that assistance, so finding new ways to fill those holes is vital. I know that my right hon. Friend, with all his experience in financial services as well as in the developing world, will be a great champion of bringing those two parts together.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I will be brief, because most of what I was going to contribute has been said already.
The SNP’s position on this matter is clear: we have long supported the relief and cancellation of debt for poorer, struggling countries, empowering them to better tackle poverty and to build and improve their infrastructure. As an executive board member of the International Monetary Fund, the UK is in a prime position to raise that sensible and just proposition. I urge the Minister to relook at the example of Zambia, and to stop ordinary people paying the price of aid debt. The decision to reduce official development assistance was cited as a temporary measure. Does the Minister intend to shift away from that policy, or will it continue under his tenure in the Department? I would like to have some answers on those matters, and hopefully we can continue to discuss them further.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I will contribute two quick thoughts. First, I echo what has been said by several people: it is great to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield back in a place that he knows so well.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston made a point of signalling her party’s enthusiasm for re-separating what was the Department for International Development from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—that is, separating out what is now the combined Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. As my right hon. Friend will know, some 36 years ago, as a young first secretary at the British high commission in Nairobi, I was responsible for small aid projects. One thing that I quickly learned at that time, when ODA was part of the FCO, was that structures are much less important than actually doing the business required.
Page 4 of the explanatory notes on the draft International Development Association (Twentieth Replenishment) Order 2022 talks about the financing needed across east and southern Africa, with particular emphasis on starving people in Ethiopia, Somalia and the horn of Africa in general. It is incredibly important to be able to use a hub such as Kenya as the place from which a lot of help can be directed. In that context, it is even more important that the work being done on international development should be well co-ordinated and come under the leadership of our high commissioner in Nairobi—exactly as it used to when I worked in our high commission there all those years ago.
I urge my right hon. Friend to focus on what really matters—getting the right help to the right people, at the right time and in the right way—rather than on structures and reorganising and separating Departments. That is not, and should not, be the focus of His Majesty’s Government.
Mr Mitchell
I welcome the comments made by members of the Committee. The IDA is an important partner in delivering life-changing support for the poorest and most vulnerable people around the world. It increases the reach and scale of UK aid spending, and represents considerable value for money.
I start by responding to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, with whom I work very closely back in Birmingham. Indeed, we co-chair—or I did until last Thursday—the all-party parliamentary group for levelling up Birmingham. I wish her every success in that work, and I will be supporting her all the way. She made the very good point that this is not a Conservative or Labour policy, but a British policy. Many people in Britain are immensely proud of the good that Britain does in some of the poorest and most wretched parts of the world. The policy is not owned by any one party; it is something that is of value to all of us, and we all strongly support it.
The hon. Lady asked me a number of questions. I have identified seven, but if I miss anything out I will certainly respond to her by letter. She asked how much debt has been cancelled during this period. The figure is £3.2 billion, of which the UK has paid £1 billion; if I am not correct, I know that an official near me will shake their head. The total value of the multilateral debt relief initiative, including all the MDBs, is £43.3 billion. She referred to the “brain drain” from dismantling DFID, and quoted a number of things that I have said. I am pleased to assure the Committee that collective responsibility is not retrospective, and so I cannot be held to account by the Government for what I have said in the past.
The hon. Lady made several extremely good points, and I am very happy to take responsibility from now on for the work that the Government do on development. She mentioned the importance of improving the quality of IDA. I will write to her on that point, because she is on to an extremely good issue; it would be good for me to be able to come back to her and set out precisely how IDA has improved since I last had responsibility for this matter. She asked whether the spending of IDA is still focused on the poor, and I can assure her that it certainly is. IDA is still providing the vast majority of financing to Governments—50% of it is spent in Africa, and 40% is spent in fragile states. I hope that that reassures her.
The hon. Lady also asked whether I accept ICAI’s recommendations. I set up ICAI 12 years ago, and it is a brilliant organisation. It is the taxpayer’s friend. It often causes Ministers and civil servants discomfort, but that is its purpose. It is there to stand up proudly and independently, and to confirm whether the expenditure is in the best interests of the taxpayer and is doing what it says on the tin. I have enormous respect for ICAI, which is an extremely good organisation, and I hope that its power will continue to increase.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend make the case for ICAI. As he has professed his keenness on the organisation, does he support ICAI’s recommendations on preventing sexual violence in conflict and the need for us to do more for women and girls through our development policy?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area, for which he deserves both thanks and credit. The answer is that I do support those recommendations. It is a very good report by ICAI, and I very much support what it has said.
There were two more questions from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. She is absolutely right to say that we are providing substantially less money, but we have been right at the top of the list in the past. Indeed, before 2010, we were the largest provider at the IDA replenishment. Our contribution was scaled back a bit then, because my view was that it was too much. It has now come back to a more European level, and it is still larger than the amounts in the replenishment that France and Germany have allocated. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that this is a prudent way to adjust a budget that has been diminished by the reduction in gross national income, and by the decision of the Government to lower the amount temporarily from 0.7% to 0.5%. It does not in any way express a diminution in the respect that we hold for the work of the World Bank and IDA; indeed, that work is absolutely brilliant. IDA is one of the only organisations where, through a trust fund mechanism, it is possible to pursue very direct needs and requirements and to bring the might of the World Bank to bear on that in a multi-country way. I hope that I have dealt with the majority of what the hon. Lady said.
I thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire for her remarks, and I hope that I have covered them in what I have said already. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for his kind words, but also for reminiscing about 36 years ago, which was just before I was first elected to the House of Commons. It shows that we are both older than we look. He is right in saying that the brilliant work that the high commission in Kenya is leading is very important, and I pay tribute to the staff for that and for the important work that they do in the region. He talked about the structures, but I do not think that today is the time for me to respond to that. However, he also advocated the one-platform approach, with which I strongly agree. Although that was there anyway, it would, of course, have been strengthened by the merger. The grip on that, which is now quite rightly exercised by the high commissioner or the ambassador, is absolutely right.
I come finally to my right hon. Friend and predecessor, the Member for Chelmsford. I pay tribute to her for the work she did in this job. Of course, it came as no surprise to me, when I came to the Department, to hear what a fantastic contribution she made during her time there. That is because, as she rightly said, many years ago she and I went to Rwanda to learn at first hand what works and what does not work in international development and to see what was happening in a very poor country that had had the most traumatic and dreadful past and how it was pulling itself up by its bootstraps and making changes to its social infrastructure, educating girls and boys and developing healthcare. She and I learned valuable lessons from that trip, I hope.
I am very grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said today. She rightly pointed out the importance of focusing on the poorest. She talked about the importance of focusing on debt, and gave good examples of why that was so. She talked about the importance of innovation and expanding the balance sheet of what the World Bank does, so that, at this critical time, it can go even further.
It is 10 years since I was last the British governor at the World Bank—it is a position that I understand I have now taken up again. I give the Committee this assurance: I will seek to ensure that the World Bank continues the magnificent work it has done in the past and that Britain’s diminished replenishment does not affect our absolute commitment to the noble goals and aspirations that the World Bank epitomises.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2022.
Draft international Development Association (Twentieth Replenishment) Order 2022
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Development Association (Twentieth Replenishment) Order 2022.—(Mr Andrew Mitchell.)
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
Public Ownership of Energy Companies
(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 608056, relating to public ownership of energy companies.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this important and prevailing issue—so prevailing that, within one week of the petition closing, another one, with the same title, was opened. I encourage anyone who supports the call for the Government to take back ownership of strategic energy assets to consider signing the new petition, because the issue is clearly not going away any time soon, and Parliament will undoubtedly be asked to revisit it. The new petition will remain open until 1 March next year.
The petition before us closed on 9 August and attracted over 109,000 signatures, including over 200 from my constituency. Before moving on to the essence of the debate, I thank the signatories to the petition and I particularly thank David Abrahams-Edley for starting it. It is David’s action that brought us here today for what I am sure will be an enlightening discussion. It is worth mentioning that David’s petition was started in February this year, just after Ofcom—Great Britain’s energy regulator—announced there would be a substantial, 54% price cap increase from 1 April. The fact that the petition was started before the announcement of an additional, eye-watering rise of 80% from 1 October shows a foresightedness that appears to have largely escaped the Government. I will say more about that later.
The petitioners call for the Government to
“take back ownership of strategic energy assets”
and
“accept that the Free Market has failed the energy sector”.
They believe that
“it is in the national interest to renationalise our energy assets”
because, even back in February, people were
“having to choose whether to heat or eat.”
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
In August, the Financial Times estimated that if a buyer was not found for Bulb the cost to the public purse could have reached £4 billion by spring next year, although transfer of ownership has now been agreed. Does the hon. Member share my concern that bailing out privately owned companies in this way could have a catastrophic impact on the public finances, whereas nationalising them could be much cheaper?
Martyn Day
The hon. Lady makes a good point. It is reasonable to say that UK Governments of all stripes have overseen the deeply dysfunctional system of privatised energy companies, and we are where we are today. We need to get out of the hole that we are in.
It goes without saying that the situation that people are now facing has worsened considerably. In September, inflation exceeded 10%—its highest rate in 40 years.
It would be helpful if we quickly reminded ourselves what a free market is or is meant to be. Voluntary exchanges take place, accounting for supply and demand, and that is the basis of an economic system without Government intervention, with a key feature being the absence of coerced transactions or conditions on transactions. However, we all know that free market economies do not exist in the real world, because all markets are constrained in one way or another, with Ofgem and the introduction of the price cap being the obvious interventions in the market we are debating, and that is before the current energy crisis triggered even more interventions. So when the opening paragraph of the Government’s response to the petition states:
“Properly regulated markets provide the best outcome for consumers as a driver of efficiency and innovation”,
it raises various questions. Clearly, consumers are not benefiting from the best outcome. Does that therefore signal that the free market has indeed failed the energy sector, as the petitioners believe, or that the energy market is not being properly regulated? Either way, something is not working. Will the Minister tell us what the Government can do to fix it, if he does not agree that nationalisation is the right approach?
It is reported that economists who measure the degree of freedom in markets have found a generally positive relationship between free markets and measures of economic wellbeing. Unfortunately, most people in the UK are not enjoying economic wellbeing—we only have to look at the end of the Government response, which details what is described as the “unprecedented scale” of financial support that the UK Government are providing, to see that. Consequently, although Government intervention in this regard is welcome—indeed, necessary—it also serves as evidence that
“the Free Market has failed the energy sector”,
as the petitioners say.
At this point, a bit of background about the Government action in relation to the current energy crisis would be helpful. We likely all remember that the proposed solution of the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) to situation at the time was to reduce every domestic electricity bill by £200 and then recover it over a five-year period. That initial intervention was the
“token gestures of mandatory loans”
mentioned in the petition. In case anyone is confused by the revolving doors at the top of this Government, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) was the Chancellor when David’s petition was started, not the third Prime Minister we have seen this year, as he is today.
Thankfully, that part of the petition was addressed by the then Chancellor, and his so-called loan-not-loan was ditched and replaced by the energy bills support scheme, under which domestic electricity consumers were to receive £400 of support with their energy bills, paid as a grant over six months, starting from the beginning of this month.
Then our second Prime Minister this year, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), announced the two-year energy price guarantee—an intervention in an intervention—which superseded the proposed energy price cap increase of 80% and limited the price that suppliers can charge customers for units of gas from 1 October. That move was of course widely welcomed, not least as the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk was reported to be acting
“so people and businesses are supported over the next two years”,
but it was simultaneously criticised for being misleading. A UK Government press release on 8 September stated:
“a typical UK household will pay no more than £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years from 1st October”.
However, the MoneySavingExpert Martin Lewis, who is arguably the most trusted man in Britain, commented:
“I’ve seen a lot of confusion, so let me start by saying there’s NO MAXIMUM ENERGY BILL.”
Not surprisingly, that confusion continues.
Exactly two weeks ago, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), our fourth Chancellor this year—so far—announced that, instead of lasting two years, the energy price guarantee would last only until April next year. In just over five months, many could be placed back on the energy regulator Ofgem’s price cap. According to energy analysts Cornwall Insight, that means another massive hike in bills for millions of people. The current prediction under Ofgem’s existing cap methodology is an increase of 74% more than the energy price guarantee.
I hope everyone here is keeping up with the Government actions taken so far to manage the UK’s energy crisis. Recapping on these recent events demonstrates that the energy crisis could have been handled in a more straightforward way if strategic energy assets were not open to the free market economy but owned by the Government, as the petitioners call for.
In the previously mentioned UK Government press release of 8 September, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk was reported to say:
“Decades of short-term thinking on energy has failed to focus enough on securing supply”.
I am sure that that is a sentiment the petitioners wholeheartedly agree with. Indeed, they call for a 25-year strategic plan. However, like me, I do not think they would agree that launching
“a new oil and gas licensing round”
and lifting
“the moratorium on UK shale gas production”
is the way forward. That is regressive and builds on a nonsensical investment allowance that, unbelievably, incentivises investment in fossil fuel extraction instead of a just transition. Investment in energy security should be targeted at renewables, carbon capture and storage, and our net zero future. Have the Government forgotten the commitments they made to the world at COP26 last November? Additionally, the press release was entitled,
“Government announces Energy Price Guarantee for families and businesses while urgently taking action to reform broken energy market.”
If that reference to a broken energy market does not align with the petitioner’s claim that
“the Free Market has failed the energy sector”,
I fail to see what would.
Returning to a question I posed earlier about whether the energy market is being properly regulated, will the Minister explain why the Government’s response states that they continue to believe
“that properly regulated markets…provide the best outcome for consumers and promote market competition as the best driver of efficiency, innovation and value”?
Aside from the fact that market competition has all but disappeared, with the removal of lower-price tariffs from the market, and with around 24 million households out of 28 million on standard variable tariffs at the end of August, I do not think people across the UK believe they are getting value from the energy market, not least because of the punishing standing charges that are levied before even a kilowatt of power is used. Perhaps the Minister can come up with something to change my mind on that.
The Government response also mentions that
“properly regulated markets…incentivise private capital to invest in the energy system”.
My basic understanding of investment is that private capital is invested to make money for the people who have money to invest in the first place. Would it not therefore make more sense if those energy assets were in public ownership, so that the return on investment came back to the public purse, not the coffers of the energy companies? Of course, the temporary energy profits levy gains 25% of profits from oil and gas firms, and it is reported that it will raise £5 billion in its first year. That will help, but does the Minister agree that 100% of profits would help more?
The Government response stated that
“if the Government renationalised energy companies, the British taxpayer would have to compensate directors, shareholders, and creditors to the tune of tens of billions of pounds—money that would be better spent supporting families.”
This is where I return to the Government’s lack of foresightedness. Have they considered that the taxpayer has already been saddled with the burden of paying for the Government’s cost of living support for years to come? Has any assessment been done comparing a one-off payment to directors, shareholders and creditors with the repeated, ongoing costs that have been forced on the taxpayer? Why should the public be paying for energy costs while companies rake in significant increases in profits earned from UK oil and gas extraction?
Earlier this month, the chief executive of Shell said:
“The solution should not be government intervention but protection of those who need protection.”
That was before Shell’s third-quarter profits of $9.5 billion were reported just last week—eye-watering profits for the super-rich, compared with eye-watering bills for those who can least afford them. The Government are making the rich richer at the expense of low-income and middle-income households. Can they take immediate and prudent action to protect those most impacted by this energy crisis, now and in the future?
I am reminded of a famous George Bernard Shaw quote:
“Success does not consist in never making mistakes but in never making the same one a second time.”
Can the Minister convince me, as well as David and the other petitioners, that the Government’s refusal to nationalise the country’s strategic energy assets is not, in fact, an ideological blind spot? A nationalised energy sector would have the potential to deliver an integrated approach, guiding the country away from its dependency on unstable fossil fuels, thereby tackling climate change while, at the same time, protecting consumers. Are this Government capable of using some foresight?
I feel I have barely scratched the surface of the issues surrounding today’s petition, but I look forward to hearing the contributions of the other speakers. I particularly look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Murray. I pay tribute to everybody who has signed the petition.
Energy is a necessity for all of us, yet people are at the mercy of big business when it comes to deciding who can afford to heat their homes or run their businesses. Profits at the world’s biggest oil companies have soared to nearly £150 billion so far this year. At the same time, as the e-petition acknowledges, people are having to choose between heating and eating. That cannot be right. As Lord Sikka has written:
“It is Christmas every day for oil and gas companies, and their shareholders and executives are laughing all the way to the bank, leaving the rest of us to pick up the cost in higher energy prices, inflation, bankruptcies and a deepening cost of living crisis.”
Labour called for a windfall tax on oil and gas back in January so that some of the eye-watering profits that are being raked off by big business could support people to pay their bills. However, it took months for the Government to U-turn and follow Labour’s lead, and even then the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, could not resist resorting to his instinct to put big business first and everyone else last. He allowed those energy giants to shield most of their profits from the very levy that he was announcing. The Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022, which the current Prime Minister designed, allows energy companies to apply tax savings worth 91p in every £1 invested in fossil fuel extraction in the UK. Promoting fossil fuel extraction instead of investment in renewables is irresponsible as we face the climate emergency, and it is an insult to young people and to future generations. Labour has called for the tax to be tightened to remove the option for energy firms to claim tax relief on 91% of the levy if the money is reinvested.
It is notable that, during the passage of that Act, the Government voted against a Labour new clause that would have required an assessment within three months of the Bill becoming law of how much extra revenue would have been raised if the levy had been introduced on 9 January 2022 rather than 26 May 2022. The 9th of January is significant because that is when Labour first called for a windfall tax—four and half months before the Government came forward with their U-turn. Why did it take the Government so long to act? I would be grateful if the Minister could respond on that point. There have been reports over the weekend that the windfall tax on energy companies could be raised to 30% and extended by three years. Perhaps the Minister could give us more information today, and let us know what discussions have taken place about that in Government.
It is clear that there is a need for long-term change where energy is concerned. As the independent campaign group We Own It has highlighted, of the top 10 countries in the world that are leading the energy transition to renewables, only the United Kingdom does not have a publicly owned renewable energy generation company. Of those that do, Sweden owns 100% of Vattenfall, one of Europe’s largest producers of electricity and heat; Norway owns 100% of Statkraft, Europe’s largest renewable energy producer; Switzerland owns 100% of Axpo, the country’s largest producer of renewable energy; Iceland owns 100% of Landsvirkjun, the country’s largest electricity generator; and France will soon own 100% of EDF, a world leader in low-carbon electricity generation and a company that many of us in this country use—despite the fact that the French people will own 100% of it fairly shortly. The other countries—Denmark, Austria, Finland and New Zealand—all own at least 50% of renewable energy generation companies.
There is a lot of public support for the United Kingdom to go down a similar path. There are no profits for shareholders in a publicly owned energy company. A poll for We Own It, carried out by Survation, found that 66% of those surveyed wanted energy in public ownership. Earlier this month it was reported that a YouGov poll found that 55% of more than 1,700 adults who were surveyed across Great Britain favoured public ownership of energy. In August, a poll by 38 Degrees found that 73% of voters would favour temporarily renationalising energy companies if they cannot offer lower bills.
Public ownership of services is understandably popular, whether that be energy, water, buses, trains or the NHS. The NHS has been massively opened up to the private sector on the Conservative’s watch, with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being handed to private companies to treat NHS patients. Privatisation is never a guarantee of quality. According to a study by the University of Oxford, private sector outsourcing in the NHS corresponded with significantly increased rates of treatable mortality, potentially as a result of a decline in the quality of healthcare services.
To return to energy, Common Wealth reported recently that 72% of voters think it is a good idea to set up an energy company that is Government owned and aims to create low-cost environmentally friendly energy. Labour has announced a plan to establish Great British Energy, a new publicly owned, clean-generation company that will harness the power of the sun, wind and waves to cut energy bills and deliver energy security and independence for our country, as well as good, secure, high-paid jobs.
Margaret Ferrier
On that point, in September, in response to a written question on an impact assessment for nationalisation, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said:
“The Government does not intend to make such an assessment. Nationalisation will not solve the current challenge of high global fossil fuel prices and the impact this is having on the cost of energy.”
Does the hon. Member agree that it is difficult to see how Ministers can speak with such certainty if they will not even make a full assessment?
Margaret Greenwood
The hon. Lady raises a really interesting point, and I thank her for it. To me, it speaks of ideology rather than taking a practical approach to what needs to happen to secure our energy and bring down our energy costs.
Among other things, GB Energy will enable long-term investments in a range of new and emerging technologies. It will also ensure that home-grown research and development leads to domestic manufacturing, and nurture partnerships with small and medium-sized enterprises and large local employers. It will enable the UK to retain the strategic assets that we need to build national resilience.
To reiterate my earlier point, of the 10 countries in the world who are leading the clean energy transition, only the UK does not have a public generation company. The Government should reflect on that and be bold, as a Labour Government would be.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray, and a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), who always makes such a compelling case for public ownership. I was pleased that she mentioned the escalating privatisation of the national health service, which she has worked hard to expose. It seems to me, and to many others, that the Government have an ideological opposition to public ownership: no matter the evidence, reality or public opinion, the Government will resist it.
Let us take a look at the petition that secured today’s debate: 109,000 people signed it, showing the strength of support for bringing energy into public ownership. A Survation poll this year showed that not a bare majority of the public, but 66%, believe that energy should be in public ownership. That includes a majority of Conservative party voters, and maybe even members too. The energy sector is being used as a cash cow for shareholders. We have an energy system that is privatised at every single stage—generation, transmission, distribution and supply. That means that at every opportunity, profits are extracted so there are higher bills for ordinary people, and so there is less investment and a worse service, resulting in a failure to make the green transition work.
Let us take the big six energy suppliers. Common Wealth shows that £47 billion-worth of dividends and share buy-backs have occurred since 2010. That money should have been in a public system, but it goes much deeper than that. Even the National Grid is paying out billions each year in dividends. It is lose-lose for everyone, apart from those who own our system. Who does own energy? Other states have bought our system, as is the case with EDF, for example. So have billionaires. Northern Powergrid is owned by the US billionaire Warren Buffett. UK Power Networks is owned by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing.
The high prices are not just about the global crisis. Of course, we are in a global crisis, but privatisation makes it much worse. In many other countries, energy bills have not increased as they have here. Their Governments are using public ownership as a tool to help people. In France, for example, publicly owned EDF kept energy bill rises to just 4% in April 2022, while our prices soared and soared. Norway has been paying 80% of people’s bills above a capped price.
Even before the current energy crisis began, domestic energy bills steadily increased by 50% in real terms—inflation-adjusted—from 1996 to 2018. We see and people out there feel what privatisation means in practice. In practice, privatisation of our energy system means higher bills than needed. Research shows that prices are 20% to 30% lower in systems with public ownership. Privatisation means, in practice, wasting vital funds on lining the pockets of shareholders. Privatisation means, in practice, failing to invest enough in connecting renewable energy to the grid, with the needs of the current fossil fuel firms put first.
What is the way forward? This petition, signed by well over 100,000 people, shows the way forward: nationalise the big five energy supply retail companies, most of which are just owned by bigger companies anyway. I welcome the plan from the TUC setting out how a publicly owned energy retail system could deliver a social pricing structure that lets everyone afford the energy they need to cook, clean and stay warm all year round, while the wealthiest with extravagant energy use pay more per unit. The way forward is also to bring the privatised monopolies of the National Grid and regional distribution into public ownership to help us prepare for the energy transition that we need. The way forward must include introducing permanent—and high—windfall taxes on North sea oil and gas companies that use the revenues to cut people’s bills, invest in renewable energy and pay for further nationalisation policies that will benefit the country.
We must create a new state-owned renewable energy company to ensure that the errors of privatisation are not repeated. It is useful to reflect on the fact that nine out of 10 countries leading on green transition have a state-owned company leading the way on renewables. We cannot become fixated on continuing and defending privatisation because of ideological dogma and the hero worship of the Thatcher period. As someone once said, “What matters is what works.” Public ownership works; privatisation has failed. Let us have an energy system that puts people and planet before profit. If we do, that is a good way to set about helping to get people through this cost of living crisis and making way for a better, greener, fairer and more decent future.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Murray. This winter, more than three quarters of UK households will face fuel poverty. Many will have to make impossible choices between putting food on the table or keeping the lights on. We are now at the dystopian point where local councils are forced to open warm banks to prevent people from freezing to death in their own beds. Unfortunately, this was the harsh reality for many across the country long before this current crisis. The UK is ranked sixth highest in long-term rates of excess winter mortality out of 30 European countries; that is literally thousands of people dying from fuel poverty because of extreme costs every single winter.
According to research from National Energy Action, the UK experiences mortality rates of, on average, 32,000 more deaths in each December to March period than across the rest of the year. Of these, 9,700 deaths are directly attributable to the avoidable circumstances of living in a cold home. That is about the same as the number of people who die from breast or prostate cancer each year. How shocking is that? The scale of the surge in fuel bills represents the gravest threat to living standards since the second world war. This winter, as fuel poverty skyrockets and inflation hits a decade-high peak, the impact on families cannot be overstated. Unless dramatic action is taken by the Government, countless people could even die, and that responsibility will lie in the hands of the Government and their friends in the energy lobby.
Thinking locally, my inbox is full of desperate pleas from my constituents—from carers, pensioners, local businesses and ordinary people who have not the slightest clue how they or their business will survive this winter. Sadly, they feel incredibly let down by the people in this House and this Government. They think that their pleas are not being recognised, heard or even valued.
Ilford is a proud and diverse working-class community. I have lived and worked there most of my life, and I am proud to still call it home now. It represents the best of our country: its diversity, industry, entrepreneurialism and communal spirit. However, working-class communities like Ilford are suffering—they are being left behind to freeze this winter. The Government tell us that we must all tighten our belts during this crisis and be prepared to make tough decisions and sacrifices. Why do these tough decisions seem to fall on working-class people every single time, when many at the top think that things have never been so good?
This year, Britain’s oil and gas giants are taking home record profits. Last week, Shell announced profits of £8 billion—double its profits for the same period last year. In August, the big five posted quarterly profits of £50 billion. These energy companies are literally profiteering off the backs of the unimaginable suffering of millions in the UK, paying out huge multibillion-pound dividends and bonuses to their wealthy shareholders. It is an immense cost, and it is hurting people.
It is not as if those companies are running an exemplary service for which they should be rewarded. While supporters of privatisation may claim that it benefits consumers and lowers prices, the opposite has been true. Even before the current energy crisis, domestic energy bills had increased by 50% since energy was first privatised by Margaret Thatcher. The UK energy industry is now so bloated and out of touch that it is unable to deliver for the citizens of this country. I argue that it has, in fact, stifled innovation and held back the fight against climate change. Because the market is so desperately out of control, the UK has lost a decade of potential progress on decarbonising buildings, and that has made the task of decarbonising before it is too late all the more challenging. It is hardly cost-effective for the taxpayer, either. Since June 2021, this Government have spent more than £2.7 billion to bail out these failing energy companies.
It is indeed a great energy rip-off. It has sparked palpable public outrage, with people organising on WhatsApp and the internet about not paying their bills in the same way as with the poll tax revolts in the ’80s. People are sick and tired of being taken for mugs by the ultra-rich who are ransacking the economy and making even more money on a daily basis.
There is clearly an alternative. Private UK energy providers must be replaced by a single publicly owned energy company that is run in a way that involves workers and—more importantly—consumers alike. It is the right thing to do for the families who have been suffering for so long. Bringing those energy companies into public ownership, or, as Labour has proposed, starting a new company that could begin to take control and offer better services for all at cheaper prices, would allow us to put a freeze on any further price increases for the remainder of this Parliament—at least until the end of 2024. There could be cuts to current charges and the company could deliver a moratorium on disconnections.
Bringing energy companies into public hands would also generate huge revenues for the state. Analysis by the TUC shows that the Government are missing out on between £63 billion and £122 billion of direct income over the next two years because of past decisions to privatise power plants and the resulting lack of UK public ownership of electricity generation.
Bringing energy companies into public hands would also truly put Britain back at the heart of the battle against climate change—the biggest issue facing humanity. Indeed, the election in Brazil was won partly on that basis. Research by We Own It found that state-owned utilities invest far more in renewables, as they can make use of the state’s ability to plan for the long term and ensure that more ambitious climate targets become a reality.
UK public energy would accelerate the deployment of new clean power. It could include developing new technologies where the private sector is slow to scale up—priming the pump for the private sector to get with the programme—such as floating offshore wind or zero-carbon hydrogen. It would also deliver thousands of good, green, unionised jobs. Evidence commissioned by GMB suggests that where public bodies invest in renewables directly, orders are far more likely to be placed through UK supply chains, ensuring that we all benefit from the climate transition. Nine out of 10 countries leading the green transition have a state-owned company of some description—why do we always choose, through sheer ideology, to do things differently, when there is something that could work for our country and our people?
The energy companies have proven, time after time, that they cannot be trusted to keep bills at affordable levels or to keep executive pay under control. Public ownership could generate billions for the Treasury. It could be the linchpin for a genuinely revolutionary green industrial strategy that could deliver jobs and transform communities from the top of Scotland to the bottom of Cornwall. It could protect millions across the country from the very worst whims of disaster capitalists who are looking to make a quick buck out of the suffering of others.
Some 66% of the public believe that energy should be brought into public hands. I hope that His Majesty’s Government and the Minister will listen and take action. The ability to make a difference on the issue is in their hands, but I suspect that it will be a Labour Government—hopefully soon incoming—who will begin to deliver the change that this country needs.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mrs Murray. I commend the petitioners. It is clear that we need a serious debate about energy, strategic assets and how the energy market operates. For too long, what has constituted a so-called debate in this place has been the argument that private is good, and nationalised or public sector is bad—or vice versa. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be too much debate today either: most of the speakers are in broad agreement. It prompts the question: where are all these compassionate Conservatives, bringing forward their views, sticking up for what is going on and putting forward other ideas? [Interruption.] I see that someone is pointing to the Minister from a sedentary position. I state the obvious: the Minister has to respond. We will get his point of view, but where are all the Conservative Back Benchers?
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for securing the debate on behalf of the petitioners. He spoke in a balanced way, while also highlighting the abject failures of this UK Government. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the free market has effectively collapsed and failed. There has been insufficient regulation over the years. He also said that, if there was a properly regulated market, the citizens of the UK would feel the benefit, and there would not be such high levels of fuel poverty. He highlighted that the problems were exacerbated by Chancellors coming and going, and Prime Ministers coming and going, and the fact that when the current Prime Minister was Chancellor, he had no idea of the scale of the problem. The then Chancellor tried to introduce a £200 energy loan scheme, which would clearly never address the issues that real people face as they struggle to pay their energy bills.
Another point that my hon. Friend made on behalf of the petitioners was the need for a 25-year strategic plan. I certainly agree. In the long term, we should be looking at how we get to net zero. What do we need to do to get there? Where should we build the generation facilities to facilitate that, and in the cheapest possible way? What grid upgrades will we need? What other measures should be implemented, such as energy efficiency and upgrading homes properly? That would be long-term planning, and it would realise the most benefit for people in the UK.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) effectively highlighted the dilemma that many people now have: heating or eating. Sadly, in some cases, they can afford to do neither, because they cannot even turn on their gas hobs to heat their food. She highlighted the failings in the design of the oil and gas profits levy, and the obscene oil and gas profits that are being realised. That was another common theme from speakers. The hon. Member rightly highlighted the success of smaller countries, such as Norway, Denmark, Iceland and so on, in public ownership and leading the way in the renewable transition. That is not lost on us MPs from Scotland.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) asked: who actually owns the energy companies at the moment? We keep hearing the UK Government talk about energy security, yet they are quite happy to have many foreign owners of our energy companies. That is a real paradox. The response to the last written question I tabled about the consortium building Sizewell C showed that China General Nuclear still owns a 20% stake. When will the Government realise that that partnership should be dissolved, and that they need to end their obsession with Sizewell C?
The hon. Member for Leeds East mentioned social pricing structure; I would call it social tariffs. Now is the time for that to be considered. We need layered tiers based on usage, because we all know that people on the lowest incomes use the least amount of energy, so they would benefit from that. We can also use social tariffs to protect the most vulnerable. It is much more progressive, because those who can afford to pay more for the energy that they use do so.
The hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) made the final Back-Bench contribution, which started with eye-watering figures about the tragic consequences of fuel poverty. The reality is that fuel poverty kills people. Roughly 10,000 people a year die prematurely because they cannot afford to heat their homes. That is a national scandal that needs to be remembered. I would like the Minister to explain how the Government will address that, because we cannot let that scandal continue. Clearly, it will get worse, as fuel poverty rates have increased massively. Have the Government even assessed what that means for future excess deaths?
A year and a half ago, the so-called price cap was £1,100 per annum for an average household. Now people are expected to be grateful for the support package that the Government announced, which is equivalent to £2,500 per annum for an average household. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk highlighted the fact that the previous Prime Minister did not even understand her own policy. She kept stating that she was ensuring that people would not pay more than £2,500 for their bills. Average bills in Scotland are likely to be £3,300 even under the support scheme. That shows the gravity of her misinformation. Too many people will be under the illusion that their bill will be smaller than they actually will be. Frankly, it is dangerous for people’s financial management.
The Government’s own impact assessment for the Energy Prices Act 2022 estimated that the support package would prevent average bills from rising to over £4,400 come January 2023. The former Prime Minister was claiming that the support package would prevent energy bills from rising to over £6,000 per annum. Given that the UK Government made the last-minute decision to slash the support period, will the Minister advise us what he thinks Ofgem’s cap level will increase to for the 22 million or so dual fuel customers who are currently on standard variable tariffs when the support package ends in April 2023? When will the Government announce their plan to protect the most vulnerable, as they claim they will?
The reality is that more and more people are already in debt, and they have been put on to prepayment meters, so why is the Government’s support package not even contingent on not forcing more people on to prepayment meters, which have higher standing charges? National Energy Action estimates that with the current support package, there will still be 6.7 million households in fuel poverty. Can the Minister provide an estimate of how many people will go into fuel poverty come April 2023, when the support package ends? How many households do the Government think are vulnerable enough to merit further support, and when will we hear what that support package will look like?
Fuel poverty on this scale is why people are angry and want a more serious debate about the merits of nationalisation and putting people before profits. They know that the energy profits levy for oil and gas companies does not go far enough, and that the investment allowance of 91p in the pound perversely incentivises investment in fossil fuels over renewable energy. For too long in the energy retail sector, the excess profits being made by the big six were deemed acceptable by the Government. When they eventually moved to a price cap, the truth is that it came in too late, because by that time the market was being squeezed by new entrants that thought that they could come in and make easy money in the energy retail sector. Thirty companies have gone bust since July 2021 and many of them had been using customers’ money for their cash flow, effectively operating their own Ponzi schemes while the Government and the regulator were sleeping on the job. The reality is that, unfortunately, it is now billpayers who are picking up the tab for these losses and covering the customer credit that these companies effectively stole. Why has there not been stronger action to bring the guilty people in these companies to account?
The largest energy company to go into administration, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) pointed out, is Bulb, which has cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. What is the Government’s estimate of the special administration regime costs for Bulb? What we have seen in this energy market—and in the retail market in particular—is similar to what we have seen in other markets, particularly the rail market: profits are being privatised, but the debts and the risks lie with the people. How can that be a fair system?
While Bulb was in a special administration regime, its chief executive was still allowed to pick up his salary of £250,000 a year, supposedly for his expertise. That is the same man whose expertise took the company into administration. Only a Government who see raising bankers’ bonuses as a priority could think that that chief executive should have been kept in place with a £250,000 salary.
Another example of privatising profit while taxpayers take risks is something I touched on earlier—the Government’s obsession with new nuclear power. Hinkley Point C is nearly 50% over budget and EDF’s latest programme shows that it could be 2030 before both units are operating, which would be five years behind schedule. Yet the Government still tell us that replicating the world’s most expensive power station at Sizewell is the answer to our cost and security crisis.
It beggars belief that the Government want to give EDF a 60-year contract while moving the risk on to the bill payers under the regulated asset base model of funding. This is a project that the Government’s own impact assessment shows could cost £63 billion for capital and borrowing costs. We have a classic example of how the free market in nuclear energy generation has completely failed, yet the Government are stepping in to the market to support a fully nationalised French company and transfer the risk to UK bill payers.
What frustrates me is that Labour continues to goad the Tories to build even more nuclear power plants. It is groupthink madness and it is tying up future generations of bill payers to pay not only for these costly new power stations but for the nuclear waste legacy, which is already estimated to cost about £140 billion. How will that approach reduce bills in the future?
Switching slightly, if we look to Scotland we see that it provides an example of a nationalised utility company that has kept all its assets under public ownership: Scottish Water. Water and sewerage bills are cheaper in Scotland compared with the rest of UK water companies; comparative performance is better, as measured by the regulator; and of course any surpluses or savings are reinvested. By contrast, the privatised water companies south of the border have taken something like £60 billion in dividends since privatisation and, as we know, sewage discharges into rivers and seas by these private water companies are out of control. Will the Minister comment on the comparative success of the nationalised utility company in Scotland and say what lessons can be learned from that? In a similar vein, what assessment have the Government made of the dividends paid out in the energy sector over the years with regard to risk and balance, and whether the dividends paid by the energy companies have indeed been excessive?
When we look at the oil and gas industry elsewhere, we see what nationalised companies have achieved in returns for the benefit of their citizens. In Norway, Statoil generated profits for the citizens of the Norway while the Norwegian Government still took taxes and put some of that money aside in a sovereign wealth fund, which now sits at $1 trillion, making it the largest such fund in the world.
That energy company, which is now Equinor, operates in 30 countries around the world and has massively diversified into renewable energy. Although it was technically privatised, the Norwegian state is still the majority shareholder, with a 67% shareholding. It really is the ultimate success story, whereas in Scotland’s case, we know that by comparison the UK, with broad shoulders, has squandered all the oil and gas revenues—some £380 billion over the years.
Independence will allow the Scottish Government to create an investment fund that would invest in renewable energy; could be used to support the decarbonisation of homes; and could take stakes in renewable generation while also levering in private investment. The Energy Prices Act gives the Secretary of State powers to buy energy assets. Is that a nod away from ideological opposition to all forms of nationalisation, and can the Minister tell us whether the Government will be using those powers to buy some energy assets, for which the Energy Prices Act allows?
I have highlighted a lot of the benefits of having publicly owned assets—for instance, the success of Scottish Water—but I do not believe that now is the right time to renationalise energy companies in full. The amount of money to pay out is untold billions, and it will scare off future investors and the market. The only estimates on costings that I have found are from the Centre for Policy Studies which, I accept, is a right-wing think-tank—not necessarily one that I would normally utilise. The CPS estimated that it would cost something like £55 billion to nationalise transmission assets, but £185 billion to nationalise the entire sector. Those are eye-watering sums that might not be manageable in this difficult climate.
The same principle applies when Scotland becomes independent, because there is no point creating additional debt and investor turbulence. However, that does not preclude a Scottish energy company being set up and working in collaboration with the private sector on a mixed-equity basis to ensure that maximum investment is levered in, but also that the state gets returns for the good of the population and revenue streams that allow for reinvestment.
With independence, we can end the ridiculous situation whereby people in the highlands of Scotland pay a surcharge on their electricity bills while renewable energy generation in the highlands supports the rest of the UK. They are bringing down bills across the UK, while they pay a surcharge on their own bills. It is completely topsy-turvy and unfair, and it something that the Government refuse to address. Again, it is another inequity that only independence will resolve. Although Scotland is an energy-rich country, we do not yet have the powers to unleash our potential and create a fairer society, but I have a feeling that that day is coming, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I understand that people watching the debate online were unable to view the first 20 minutes. I reassure anyone watching that the full recording of the debate will be made available online later.
I call the shadow Minister, Dr Alan Whitehead.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Thank you, Mrs Murray.
Before we go any further in this debate, we ought to be clear about what the petition is calling for. I congratulate the petitioners on bringing forward the petition, which has received over 100,000 signatures, 500-plus of which are from my city of Southampton. I congratulate the petitioners on bringing it forward because it really underlines just what a dreadful state we are in at the moment with our energy provision and energy markets. I take the petition to mean that the Government should effectively expropriate all generation, all transmission, all distribution and all retail energy; place it, with compensation, in the public sphere; and then run a fully nationalised energy system, as was the case 30 to 40 years ago, before the privatisation experiment came into being.
I can see why many people consider that that is the brief solution to the awful mess that we are in the moment. They see that they are paying sky-high energy bills and that, at the same time, a number of energy companies are making sky-high profits not from their ingenuity in suddenly developing new ways of delivering energy, but from doing what they have always done: supply gas to the UK market for the production of power, for which retail customers are paying sky-high prices.
Those customers scratch their heads about why that has happened: “How is it that we are paying absolutely out-of-the-window high energy prices while companies are making such enormous windfall profits?” They scratch their heads when the Government spend such a long time deciding whether to alleviate some of the problems caused by those sky-high bills by introducing any form of windfall levy on those companies, and when the Government put an enormous loophole in the windfall tax so that the companies get back most of what they would have paid in windfall tax if they are, so they say, in a position to undertake further gas and oil exploration. The grotesque result is that Shell has not—
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should address the Chair.
Dr Whitehead
I apologise, Mrs Murray—I will face the right way from now on.
The grotesque result is that Shell has stated that it has not actually paid any windfall levy because it has got it all back through that loophole. Customers see that the regulation of the system is so dreadful that they are paying enormously high prices for their power as if all of it came from gas, even though half of it now comes from much cheaper renewables. That is because the market is regulated in such a way that the marginal cost of gas provides the whole of the price for the market, and it is a substantial part of the reason why prices are so high. In short, customers have seen for themselves a thoroughly broken energy system in operation. They have perhaps concluded that the privatised norm of the last 30 years has failed, and that placing energy back in state hands is the relatively straightforward answer.
What a delight it is to see so many Conservative Members in the Chamber to support their Government’s response, which states:
“The Government does not agree that nationalisation of energy assets is the right approach. Properly regulated markets provide the best outcome for consumers as a driver of efficiency and innovation.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if proper regulation did drive energy efficiency and innovation? We know that it simply does not; the failure of proper regulation is at the heart of the many problems in our energy markets. We also know that the Government themselves have recently resorted to measures that might be compared to nationalisation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) said, Bulb—the seventh largest retail energy company in the country—went bust a little while ago, along with 40 other retail energy companies. Bulb, however, was regarded as too large to fail and was effectively nationalised by Government. It was put into special administration and has sat there for quite a while, at a cost to taxpayers of about £3.5 billion. It has just been sold for scrap, as it were, with its customers being transferred to Octopus Energy for, we think, several hundred million pounds—far less than the amount that taxpayers put in as a result of the Government’s reaction to appallingly bad regulation. Does the Minister have further information on exactly how much Octopus paid for the remains of Bulb, so that we can get an accurate grip on how much money has been retrieved from that episode?
An energy Bill that was recently mysteriously withdrawn by the Government proposed that the operator of the national transmission system be fully detached from National Grid and placed in the public sector. That means that it would no longer be a part of National Grid, even at a distance. As set out in the Bill, the future system operator would have full power to plan the system, commission investments in it, and run and balance the system overall as a public sector organisation. However, as I say, that Bill has mysteriously disappeared, but I would be interested to know whether the Minister continues to support the idea that the future system operator be a company in the public sector, not the private sector. I would also be interested to hear when that energy Bill will return to Parliament, if at all. It contains a great deal of things that could lead to better regulation of the energy system, which is exactly what the Government are saying is the alternative to nationalising it.
Although it is true that part of the answer to the problems we face in the energy system at the moment is proper regulation—and the Government have an enormous amount of work to do get it properly regulated—we also have to give careful consideration to where our energy system is going now, because it will not be successful in reaching its targets, particularly in the low carbon context, if we simply continue the privatisation experiment of the past 30 years. Of course, the energy system is changing before our eyes. All the old considerations about 80 or so power stations providing power for the grid and then to customers through retail sales are effectively disappearing. We now have about 1.5 million inputs that are owned by all sorts of different people. Indeed, some of that input is from companies and bodies that are not in the private sector, but are community owned or locally owned. There are all sorts of generators providing a different form of input to the grid.
Of course, the grid itself is changing rapidly. National Grid Electricity System Operator, the forerunner of the future system operator set out in the energy Bill, considered in a recent holistic design plan that accommodating the new way in which the energy system is going to work, and making sure that it works well in future, would require a huge recalibration of the grid system, both onshore and offshore, at the probable cost of about £62 billion. An enormous amount of investment is needed to make the future energy system secure, and to get the green and low-carbon generators into it for the future. We will not sort that out by just hoping that somehow the market will come to the rescue and provide all the investment for the future based on our current regulation and system. My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West, for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) both pointed to how that needs to be done. Perhaps we should not have to rely on the private sector to come to the rescue and sort out the future system.
The Labour party wants a Great British energy company —a publicly owned company at the heart of investment and driving forward, planning and managing that new energy system. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, that company would stand alongside companies elsewhere in Europe that have already started that energy revolution with investments not just in their own countries but on an international scale. Companies such as Vattenfall in Sweden, which owns the largest onshore wind farm in the UK, Ørsted in Denmark, Equinor in Norway and a number of others across Europe are making investments in the future system and, moreover, keeping the equity in those investments for the people of the countries on whose behalf they are working. Either individually or in partnership with the private sector, they are turning over those investments for those people, and keeping their equity in them.
In this country, as members of the public and customers we are spending enormous amounts of money each year on providing energy transmission and distribution companies with the means to invest in the grid system—the assets of which stay with those companies, even though we the public have paid for those assets. That is also the proposal for the new nuclear programme—we pay the money, they get the asset—but a Great British energy company would put a stop to all that. The assets would stay with the public and the money would come back to the public purse. That is the right approach. Our investment ought to go towards producing our future energy system.
I reject the Government’s idea that this will all happen via better regulation—though it would be nice if that did happen—and the operation of the market. We need to be much smarter than that. I do not agree that we should nationalise the energy system as it stands. Among other things, if a lot of the junk and clapped out stuff in the energy market were nationalised, the people who own those stranded assets would be delighted to have them put out to grass and taken off their hands as the energy system changes, so that they could run off with the compensation money.
We have to think smartly about the future of our systems. They will certainly not be funded, run or sorted out on the basis of the failed privatisation experiment of the last 30 years.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. May I take this opportunity to say what a pleasure it is to be back on the Front Bench after the turmoil of the last few months?
Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing the debate, and David and the 100,000 public petitioners who triggered it. As an open democrat, I welcome the fact that the public are able to trigger debates. It is important that we respond, and I am glad that the public will be able to see the response both in real time and recorded. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I am grateful to all those who have taken an interest in the topic.
The petition received over 100,000 signatures and calls on the Government to do two things: to set out a coherent 25-year plan for UK energy security and strategy, and to take back ownership of our strategic energy assets. As the Minister for Science, Technology, Research and Innovation in the Department, I am delighted to be replying on behalf of the Minister for Climate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).
Let me put everyone out of their misery of expectation and anxiety about what I might say. I absolutely agree that we need a 25-year coherent plan for energy, which is why the Government have put just that in place. I also agree that we need to think much more strategically about our energy security resilience and energy economy, but the Government do not agree that nationalisation is the right way to achieve the objectives that many, but not all, of us share. I say that not in the spirit of complacency at all.
It is fair to say that successive Governments over the last 40-odd years have taken cheap energy rather for granted, and have not foreseen the urgency of decarbonising our energy supply nor the geopolitical perils of being dependent on overseas suppliers, often from hostile or unsavoury regimes.
George Freeman
I will just finish this list, if I may. I approach this issue with no ideology, either. All parties have had their problems in the past: in the ’60s and ’70s Labour was rather heavily dominated by the union barons, and the nationalised industry did not do nearly enough to promote innovation. I notice no Liberal Democrat Members here; theirs and the Scottish National party’s tribal opposition to nuclear leaves them playing one-club golf. I do not think there are any easy solutions to this issue, but I do not want to dismiss the urgency of the problem.
Margaret Greenwood
The Minister is talking about a 25-year strategy. Given that we are facing a climate emergency, could he explain what the thinking was, and presumably still is, on allowing companies to shield 91% of their profits from a windfall tax designed to tax profits? That means that they are able to invest those profits in fossil fuels.
George Freeman
I will happily set out the explanation for our position, which I think will deal with that point. If it does not, I am sure that the Climate Minister will want to follow up with the hon. Lady. We profoundly believe that the way to deliver a low carbon, net zero, sustainable, resilient British energy market and supply chain is to harness the market—the enterprise, the investment, the leadership and the management excellence of the free market—but not in an untrammelled way. I will set out in a moment how our approach is not at all about the free market but about harnessing the market with a lot of regulations, shape and structure, harnessing the genius of the market to public ends. That is a fundamental difference.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous with his time. He talks about harnessing the market, but he is talking about directing that investment at fossil fuels. How does he square that with our need to meet net zero? That does not make sense.
George Freeman
I will deal with that point as I come on to explain our position on net zero and the extraordinary success that the market has had, with appropriate regulation.
George Freeman
I would like to make some progress as I have hardly even got through my first paragraph, but I will give way.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for giving way again. On energy resilience and his point about harnessing the market, we know that energy resilience requires long-duration storage. That can be provided by pumped-storage hydro, a technology that already exists. SSE has all the permissions in place to build a new pumped-storage hydro scheme at Coire Glas. It will have 1.5 GW output. All the private investment is there—we are talking about harnessing the market, but the private investment is already there. All that is needed is for the Government to negotiate a cap and floor price mechanism for the sale of electricity. Will the Minister commit to having officials speak to SSE and other operators in the pumped-storage hydro market to bring these schemes forward?
George Freeman
I did make clear that I am not the Climate Minister, so I am not going to make that commitment on his behalf, but I will make the undertaking that he will follow up that specific point with the hon. Member.
I will make some progress and summarise, not least for those listening and watching, the background to this debate and where we have been with British energy policy. Almost four decades have passed since the privatisation of the British energy system began—long enough that I forgive all those watching who may have forgotten why the original decision was taken.
Back in the 1970s, nationalised industries were run by Government, along with many others, and they were in a very bad state, not least the energy industry. These inefficient monopolies were leaking cash, and they needed much more money to upgrade their age-old and similarly leaky infrastructure. Privatisation, beginning in the 1980s, has completely transformed that situation. I am not suggesting that the energy market is functioning perfectly, but it has transformed that situation.
It is a shame that this debate has had so little balance and so few references to any of the successes of any private industry. Indeed, at times it sounded like a Corbynite litany of anti-capitalist, anti-business complaints. This debate needs some balance. I am not saying that the energy market is perfect, but let us at least acknowledge the extraordinary progress in the last few years.
George Freeman
No, I am going to make some progress. Since privatisation, the UK’s energy sector has attracted around £20 billion a year of private capital investment into our energy infrastructure. That money would otherwise have had to come from higher taxes or additional borrowing. Those are policies that the Opposition may prefer, but we prefer to secure private capital to secure those public goods.
The cost of transporting a unit of electricity has fallen by 17% since the 1990s, while investment has increased. Energy efficiency has gone up. Reliability has increased. Customer service has improved—though it is still not perfect. The number of power cuts has almost halved. These are the real lived experiences of people over the last 30 or 40 years of privatisation. Finally, current market arrangements have allowed for massive decarbonisation of our energy system, with dramatic drops in the cost of renewables.
It is worth making the point that between 1990 and 2019, we grew the UK economy by 76%, and we cut our emissions by over 44%, decarbonising faster than any other G7 country. That is an extraordinary achievement, secured by the private sector working in partnership with Government. There is more. In the last 15 years, not only have we led the way in decarbonisation; we have also led the way in many of the specific areas of clean energy. We have put it at the heart of the UK’s commitment to reduce emissions as we expand our economy.
Personally, having arrived here following the 2010 election, I would have liked to have seen the coalition and the Lib Dem-run Department of Energy and Climate Change take the opportunity of a “buy one, get five free” nuclear deal and double and modernise our nuclear capacity. The Lib Dems were religious in opposition to anything nuclear—a position seemingly mirrored by the SNP—but they also thought it would take too long to come on stream. I have news for listeners. It would have been on stream now. We would have had a high-quality, green, resilient supply of nuclear energy for one more generation, guaranteeing clean and green resilience, and many jobs in Scotland, and we would have been able to use this period to invest in the range of renewables that hon. Members have hardly mentioned. I will come to those in a minute.
Nobody can look back and say that this was all easy. A lot of mistakes have been made, but the truth is that our net zero strategy is the most comprehensive of its kind. The British energy security strategy sets out extra ambitions to those we set out in 2010. It is on track to secure 480,000 well-paid jobs by the end of the 2030s, unlocking £100 billion in private investment by 2030 and mobilising £30 billion of Government investment. That is not the free market with no support from Government. It is a massive programme of Government in partnership with the private sector, and that is why we have driven down emissions at the fastest rate in the G7.
Dr Whitehead
Does the Minister agree that, as has been suggested in this debate, quite a lot of the investment that has been achieved for future energy—indeed, it is coming in now—is from companies representative of other states in Europe putting forward that investment, so we could say that he would be happy to have publicly owned investment in this country, provided it is not from the UK? Is that the right conclusion to come to?
George Freeman
I am not totally sure I understand the question. The point is that we live in a modern global economy. I do not think anyone other than political dinosaurs would think we can ring-fence all investment to only one country. We live in a global economy, and that is all to the good. This country benefits hugely from that investment. A huge risk of the proposed renationalisation is that, internationally, it would destroy investors’ confidence in the UK, and that is something we have to think seriously about. We do not have a right to attract international investment. We need to be competitive, and this debate has lacked that point.
We are a world leader in offshore wind, with an ambition to deliver up to 50 GW of offshore wind power by 2030, including 5 GW of floating wind. That is something to be proud of. In my part of the world in East Anglia, the southern North sea is rapidly becoming the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. With proper interconnected offshore grid connectors, we will be able to use off-peak energy to generate green hydrogen. That is an exciting development and it has all been provided by the market—not the free and untrammelled market of the profiteering stereotype, but businesses investing in partnership with Government.
We continue to break records in renewable energy, which has more than quadrupled since 2010, with low-carbon electricity overall now giving us more than 50% of our total generation. It would have been nice to hear Members at least pay tribute to that achievement, rather than attack the profiteering businesses that have been at the frontline of delivering it.
We have installed 90% of our solar capacity in this country since 2010, which is enough for 3 million homes. That has happened—
George Freeman
No, I am going to make some progress.
That capacity has happened by harnessing the power of the market. I do not think anyone would suggest we have had an untrammelled free market. I am not here to make that case; others may. It has been a partnership of the private and public sector. That is why the Government continue to believe in properly regulated markets.
I have written and spoken widely about the opportunity Brexit gives us to set our own regulatory standards—not in a race to the bottom, but in a race to the top—and to set the standards in the smart grid, in digital energy and in new forms of energy. There is a huge opportunity for us to use that freedom to incentivise private capital to invest in the energy system, provide the best outcomes for consumers, and promote market competition as the drivers of efficiency, innovation and value.
My party believes profoundly that private ownership of energy assets, properly regulated, improves performance and reliability, and offers consumers greater choice and higher standards of products and services. No market is perfect. There are always pay-offs and balances, but it is very difficult to see how nationalisation would work, particularly as it has been set out this afternoon, with no detail, vague assumptions that there will be lots of money, which would come in the end only from taxation or borrowing, and very little understanding of how it would be done. Anyone listening to this debate has not heard a serious proposal for how nationalisation would happen. They have simply heard a ragtag of arguments against the private sector and against business.
The argument becomes even more important when we look at the global market and the international energy market in which we find ourselves. These days, no energy market exists in isolation. We do not exist in a vacuum. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have revealed painfully the interdependence of our global energy supplies. We are not in a position where we can unilaterally declare independence from the global markets. Any renationalised energy company would still have to buy its gas on the global market at the same price—there is no way round that. But it does heighten the urgency of reducing our dependency on foreign actors, hostile states and those who might use their energy power to exercise geopolitical influence on us.
We are absolutely committed, as we have set out, to diversifying our energy supply and resilience. We understand that sky-high global energy prices, caused by Russia’s appalling invasion of Ukraine, are having real consequences for consumer bills across the country, exacerbating the consequences of the pandemic shutdown of the global economy and its refiring up and opening, which has driven inflation into the system. European gas prices soared by more than 200% last year, and coal prices by more than 100%, leading to an inevitable increase in the cost of energy, which drives the cost of living across our economy.
That is why, through our British energy security strategy, we are absolutely committed to—and are already implementing—support for diverse sources of home-grown energy to provide greater energy security in the longer term. Let me unpack that: we have set out, first, a comprehensive long-term plan, just as today’s motion calls for, to 2050 for our energy system in 2020’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution and the energy White Paper. It needed doing and it has been done. Secondly, the British energy security strategy, published in April this year, charts a pathway to reducing our vulnerability to international energy prices by reducing our dependence on imported oil and gas.
We will achieve our ambitions by accelerating the deployment of wind, solar and new nuclear energy, supercharging our production of low-carbon hydrogen, and within my portfolio supporting next-generation energy sources including fusion and small modular nuclear. We will support North sea oil and gas in the near term for security of supply, and the important work that is being done in Scotland, particularly on the North sea transition, to turn that infrastructure into the infrastructure for clean, green energy.
Thirdly, we will ensure a more flexible and efficient system for both generators and users, undertaking our comprehensive view of electricity market arrangements to ensure that consumers fully benefit from the next phase of our energy transformation. That is why we have committed to publishing, with Ofgem, a strategic framework this year on how networks will deliver net zero. Fourthly, not only are we thinking about reforming energy supply, but we have an ambitious programme of energy efficiency measures to lower demand, and to bring down bills and emissions.
Nationalisation, however, will not solve or help to tackle those challenges, for a number of reasons. First, as I have said, nationalised energy companies would still have to buy gas on the international markets. There is no price reduction that comes with being nationalised. Secondly, if a Labour Government, or perhaps more likely a Labour-SNP-Lib Dem coalition, who were committed to renationalisation came into office, their measures would mean that the British taxpayer would have to compensate directors, shareholders and creditors to the tune of tens of billions of pounds—money that would otherwise be spent on schools, hospitals and public services. Thirdly, the sort of nationalisation that has been talked about blithely but not explained would hugely damage our ability to attract the international investment that I have set out, which is key to delivering net zero.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister is either not hearing what is being said by the Opposition, or he is going out of his way to put it in an entirely different light. Neither the Scottish nationalists nor the Opposition have said that we want to renationalise the whole energy industry; we have said that different ways of working from the complete market fetishism that has been going on would be much better for attracting investment from the private sector. A reliable partner in Government could, among other things, bring the cost of capital down. That is very different from what he is talking about.
George Freeman
It is. It is also different, as the record will show, from what Opposition Members said. For an hour, I listened to a reheated hash of the same old anti-capitalist, anti-business, easy—
George Freeman
Yes, I did, and the record will show it. Those interested in how we might build a modern energy economy will observe that there was very little detail on how nationalisation will be done. Very little was said about innovation, new sectors, or how we create exciting areas of innovation, use the smart grid, create a network of incentives, penalties, rewards and points, and empower consumers. There was none of that. It was a litany of the same old Labour and SNP anti-business, anti-capitalist talk of profiteering companies. Those are, by the way, the same companies that pay dividends into the pension funds of our constituents—and probably the trade union barons who are lobbying for this nationalisation. It is old-fashioned economics that has been proven not to work. I was hoping to come this afternoon and hear—
George Freeman
No, I have had enough of giving way. All Members are doing is repeating the same points that we have already listened to, and I want to make some progress.
I will turn to the winter support for energy bills, which is a really important issue and relates to the second half of the petition. We are absolutely committed to reducing the impact on people’s bills of the terrible global events that I have described, including the impact of the war in Ukraine and of the reopening of the global economy after the pandemic. As this Prime Minister and the two previous Prime Ministers have made clear, we are absolutely committed to helping the British public through this, and we are taking action at an unprecedented scale.
First, our energy price guarantee will save a typical British household about £700 this winter. Secondly, that comes on top of the £37 billion package of support announced earlier this year, which will give all households circa £400 off their energy bills through the energy bills support scheme. That means a typical household saving about £1,100. Thirdly, we are taking further, targeted action to ensure that the most vulnerable can stay warm this winter: the UK’s poorest families will continue to receive £1,200 of support—including £400 from the energy bills support scheme—provided in instalments over the year, with additional support for pensioners and those claiming disability benefits.
Fourthly, the Government are investing more than £6.6 billion across this Parliament in critical work to improve energy efficiency and decarbonise heating. We will deliver upgrades to more than half a million homes in the coming years through our social housing decarbonisation fund, home upgrade grant schemes and energy company obligation scheme, delivering average bill savings of £300. Fifthly, we have extended the energy company obligation from 2022 to 2026, boosting its value from £640 million to £1 billion a year, helping an extra 450,000 families with green measures such as insulation.
Sixthly, it is not just households; we are also taking action to support schools, hospitals and businesses. Through the new energy bill relief scheme, the Government will provide a discount on wholesale gas and electricity prices for all non-domestic consumers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
This is not the free-market, laissez-faire, devil-take-the-hindmost economics that has been portrayed this afternoon. This is a Government taking huge and unprecedented steps—on a scale with those we took in the pandemic—to help families, households, businesses and charities to deal with the global cost of living crisis. Again, it would have been nice to hear some reference from Opposition Members to the immensity of that package.
I come now to energy profits—an issue that Opposition Members raised. We are not just cutting bills in the short term; we are thinking about how we can guarantee an affordable, clean and secure supply of energy for this winter and beyond. We have listened closely to the public debate about the profits enjoyed by energy generators thanks to high international gas prices. We have not just listened; we have acted. That is why in May we introduced a 25% surcharge on extraordinary profits in the oil and gas sector, which will raise about £5 billion over the next year. That revenue will support our support for those hardest hit by the rise in the cost of living and cost of energy.
We have brought forward primary legislation to give us powers to deliver a temporary revenue limit for renewable generation in the wholesale market. The details of that proposal will be set out in subsequent secondary legislation, and we are committed to collaborating closely with industry to develop it further. This will return a substantial amount of excess profits—profits made through the price surge—to consumers via suppliers.
Alan Brown
To get some sort of level playing field, why is there not a renewable energy investment allowance that allows tax write-offs for greater investment in renewable energy, when there is one for oil and gas. It just makes no sense if the Minister is talking about having a cleaner, greener system going forward.
George Freeman
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the facts as I have set them out. We are attracting billions of pounds of investment into clean energy—into a whole raft of new renewables. I do not think anyone would argue that the UK is struggling to attract international investment. What we need to do, which I completely accept, is not just to accelerate the deployment of wind and solar, but to continue to invest in the technologies of tomorrow to ensure that we are able to increase global and UK energy supply for a modern society and economy in a way that is clean, green and smart and that develops new jobs.
I am surprised that Opposition Members are not more excited by the opportunities in this sector for Scotland, which would be recklessly undermined by an uncosted, unthought-through plan for both nationalisation and independence, without credibility for how those plans are going to be funded. That is why our energy security strategy sets out a long-term plan for the whole UK that reduces our vulnerability to international energy prices by reducing our dependence on imported oil and gas.
We know that this is a very difficult time for families and businesses who are struggling, and that this issue is a matter of genuine public concern—as this petition rightly shows. However, I hope that I have reassured the hon. Members who are present in Westminster Hall and the constituents who they nobly represent that we are addressing this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Recent reports have shown that a lot of people on prepayment meters are not taking up the support. What steps can his Government take to make sure that 100% of people can take up the support that they need, because my big concern is that the most vulnerable people will struggle in this situation?
George Freeman
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the particular circumstances of those people on prepayment meters and those who are most prone to energy poverty and vulnerability. Again, I am not the energy Minister so, with permission, I will allow the Minister for Climate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, to follow up that point with her.
This is a long journey. It is one that we, as a country, started on a little late, but we have led the world in moving at pace, and that is a tribute to all the parties involved, to be fair. The last Labour Government before 2010 began some important measures; we in the coalition took things forward; and the Conservative Governments have pursued things at pace since. I believe that we are on the road to success and I have no doubt that consumers will be at the heart of Government policy every step of the way.
Right now, that means we are focused on doing all we can to support consumers through the very difficult winter ahead, but nationalisation is not the right solution. I will just say that it has been rather extraordinary for me this afternoon to see how strongly the old anti-capitalist politics of the hard left have been shown to continue to thrive in the Labour party and the Scottish National party. We have heard aeons about anti-business millionaires and profiteering, and there has been no talk about companies generating the profits that drive dividends that supply pensioners with revenue, or public sector workers with their pensions, or, for that matter, the trade unions with their pensions.
We have heard nothing serious from the SNP about how it would pay for independence, which has traditionally been based—on its own assumptions—on the revenues from oil and gas. The SNP is anti-nuclear—it appears to be anti-everything that will score a point—but there is no serious and costed plan for how Scotland could be in the vanguard of the new energy economy. The Liberal Democrats, who are not present here today in Westminster Hall, have described Labour’s policy of nationalisation as “pointless and costly”.
Dr Whitehead
We have not got a policy of nationalisation. The Minister is not telling the truth.
George Freeman
Thank you, Mrs Murray.
We have heard nothing today about the really exciting opportunities in our energy sector: the new renewables, including those in marine, tidal, geothermal, hydrogen and fusion, that this Government and I, as Minister with responsibility for research, are supporting. There are also opportunities for the UK’s cleantech sector—the small and large companies that are in the frontline of developing global solutions for new energy. We have heard nothing about the smart grid, the importance of incentives or the digitalisation of the grid to create a micro-market and bring net zero down to the ground in different communities. We have heard very little about energy use. We have heard a lot about generation, but very little about how transport and agriculture—the two big industries on the frontline of energy usage—are making huge strides in decreasing their reliance on energy. Instead, we have heard quite a lot of the old dogma of decline.
To be honest, I think that explains why there are so few colleagues from other parties here this afternoon; most of them are more interested in trying to develop practical solutions. I honestly think that the 100,000 people who petitioned for a proper debate about long-term energy strategy deserve something slightly better than we have heard today, and the Government are determined to provide it.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Mr Martyn Day, you have two minutes to wind up.
Martyn Day
I am incredibly grateful to the Members who came along today, and I express my thanks to them on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I hope that the petitioners and those watching feel that we have at least opened the debate on this area. I think we have a long way to go before we satisfy the concerns that have been raised.
The Minister spoke about exciting opportunities, but with families in my constituency and throughout the country perhaps facing a choice between starving to death and freezing to death this winter, that is not exciting—that is terrifying. The energy market is broken beyond repair and it needs urgent action. We are not out of this crisis yet, but we still have no clarification from the Government as to their future plans for energy support past April next year. That is what the public want to know. The Government need to relook at those issues to find a solution that works in the long-term for everyone in this country, not just the well-to-do, the millionaires and the profiteers. We need action that helps people on the ground now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 608056, relating to public ownership of energy companies.
Written Statements
Energy Support Package: Secondary Legislation
The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)
The Energy Prices Act 2022 received Royal Assent on 25 October 2022. The Act establishes the legislative framework necessary to deliver the Government’s energy support package and will ensure that households and businesses receive the urgent support they need to help pay their energy bills this winter.
To ensure these crucial schemes are placed on a secure legislative footing, the Government are tabling a number of statutory instruments (SIs) using the powers in the Energy Prices Act. These SIs contain the detailed regulations necessary to deliver our support schemes. They are essential in ensuring that the entire energy support package can be delivered this winter. To ensure energy consumers receive the urgent support they require, we are laying the majority of these regulations using the made affirmative procedure.
The Energy Bill Relief Scheme Regulations 2022
These regulations, subject to the made affirmative procedure, make provisions for the effective operation and implementation of the energy bill relief scheme. The GB energy bill relief scheme is established under sections 9 and 10 of, and schedule 1 to, the Act. The regulations provide powers to the Secretary of State to require suppliers to discount business bills, to require regular reporting by suppliers, to request information from suppliers and customers, and to require an audit of the supplier in relation to the scheme. In addition, the regulations will enable Ofgem to enforce the obligations placed on licensed suppliers under the schemes. Additional details of the schemes will be set out in accompanying rules. Guidance will also be issued.
The Energy Bill Relief Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022
These regulations, subject to the made affirmative procedure, make provisions for the effective operation and implementation of the energy bill relief scheme (Northern Ireland) which is established under sections 11 and 12 of, and schedule 2 to, the Act. The regulations provide powers to the Secretary of State to require suppliers to discount business bills, to require regular reporting by suppliers, to request information from suppliers and customers, and to require an audit of the supplier in relation to the scheme. In addition, the regulations will enable the Northern Ireland utility regulator UREGNI, to enforce the obligations placed on licensed suppliers under the schemes. Additional details of the schemes will be set out in accompanying rules. Guidance will also be issued.
The Energy Prices (Designated Domestic Energy Price Reduction Schemes for Great Britain and Designated Bodies) Regulations 2022
These regulations, subject to the negative procedure, designate the domestic electricity price reduction scheme and the domestic gas price reduction scheme in Great Britain (the energy price guarantee) under the Energy Prices Act 2022. The effect of designation is that the provisions in section 2 and section 3 of the Act apply, including obliging suppliers to apply to join the scheme and, when joined, to remain in and comply with it. Ofgem is empowered to enforce compliance with the obligations set out in sections 2 and 3 using its existing enforcement powers. The regulations also designate district councils for an area in England for which there is a county council as a designated body for the purposes of section 15 of the Act. The effect of designation is district councils can now take action to support steps taken by the Secretary of State to meet energy costs under section 13 of the Act.
The Energy Prices (Domestic Supply) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022
These regulations, subject to the made affirmative procedure, provide the definitions of “NI domestic electricity supply” and “NI domestic gas supply” for the purposes of reducing the charges for such supply under the domestic electricity/gas price reduction schemes for Northern Ireland (the energy price guarantee NI), made under section 5 of the Energy Prices Act 2022.
The Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022
These regulations, subject to the made affirmative procedure, will require defined intermediaries provided with the benefit of support from the energy bill relief scheme to pass on that benefit to end users. An example of an intermediary and an end user is a landlord and tenant. The regulations also require intermediaries to provide information to end users on the benefit provided to the intermediary and whether, and how much, they are required to pass on to the end user, including where relevant a justification of why the pass-through amount is just and reasonable. The regulations provide for the ways in which an intermediary can effect a pass-through, as well as the details of enforcement through civil proceedings should an intermediary fail to effect a pass-through.
The Energy Bills Support Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022
These regulations, subject to the made affirmative procedure, will require defined intermediaries provided with the benefit of support from the energy price guarantee, and/or the energy bills support scheme to pass on that benefit to end users. An example of an intermediary and an end user is a landlord and tenant. The regulations also require intermediaries to provide information to end users on the benefit provided to the intermediary and whether and how much they are required to pass on to the end user, including where relevant a justification of why the pass-through amount is just and reasonable. The regulations provide for the ways in which an intermediary can effect a pass-through, as well as the details of enforcement through civil proceedings should an intermediary fail to effect a pass-through.
The Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022
These regulations, subject to the made affirmative procedure, will require heat suppliers to pass through the cost reductions they receive via the energy bill relief scheme to their heat network customers and to explain to consumers their plans to reduce bills. The energy ombudsman will provide consumers with independent redress if heat suppliers do not comply with these requirements. The regulations also require heat suppliers to notify the Government (or an authorised person carrying out regulatory functions) of the address details of all the buildings supplied by a heat network. This will ensure that the energy ombudsman has access to a complete database of heat suppliers when investigating consumer complaints.
[HCWS349]
Bulb Energy Administration and Energy Bill Relief Scheme
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Grant Shapps)
I am today updating the House on the mergers and acquisition process for Bulb Energy Ltd (‘Bulb’) in special administration.
Bulb Energy Ltd (‘Bulb’) was taken into special administration by an order of the court on 24 November 2021. Ofgem applied to court, with the consent of my predecessor but one, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), based on their determination that the special administration regime (SAR) was the most appropriate route for protecting Bulb’s circa l.5 million customers in the circumstances prevailing at that time—a recommendation which had subsequent BEIS accounting officer and ministerial concurrence.
The court appointed three individuals from Teneo Financial Advisory Ltd (‘Teneo’) as joint energy administrators and, following an application by Teneo, directed they enter into the circa £l.7 billion funding agreement with BEIS to support the achievement of their statutory objective of ensuring continuity of supply to Bulb’s customers at the lowest practicable cost until such time as the company may be rescued, or the business transferred to another company or companies. Bulb’s parent company, Simple Energy, was taken into “normal”—not special—administration on the same date by their secured creditors.
The energy administrators and their MSA advisers have delivered a competitive and extensive sales process over recent months, culminating in their recommendation to transact Octopus Energy’s bid as the optimal way to achieve their statutory objectives. Their recommendation has been reached after an extensive negotiation process to secure the best terms in the circumstances and detailed analysis of the counterfactual options, all of which show less favourable anticipated outcomes and carry significant operational and execution risks.
I have therefore approved the Octopus bid transaction and associated amendments to the existing funding facility and establishment of their new loan facility.
The BEIS-led consultation process on the energy transfer scheme (ETS) has commenced. Subject to Government approval, the energy administrators will arrange for a court hearing date for commencement of the ETS and to enable the completion of the transaction as all agreements take effect by mid-November.
Energy bill relief scheme (EBRS)
Vital businesses, charities, schools and hospitals up and down the country have seen an unprecedented rise in energy prices following Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, and this new Government will take the difficult decisions when necessary to support our essential British businesses and public sector services. Support has already been introduced to help families with their energy bills this winter, and this new measure will help support growth, prevent unnecessary insolvencies and protect jobs.
The energy bill relief scheme (EBRS) will provide a price reduction for all eligible businesses and other non-domestic customers such as charities, schools and hospitals, who have recently experienced unprecedented rises in gas and electricity prices. The EBRS is a significant Government intervention reflecting the seriousness of the situation we face. It aims to support growth, prevent unnecessary insolvencies and protect jobs.
Subject to the will of Parliament, the price reduction will come into force at the beginning of November 2022 in time to cover energy consumed in October and will apply to the non-domestic customer’s actual gas and electricity consumption. It is intended to run for six months from 1 October 2022 until 31 March 2023. The price reduction will be linked to the wholesale element of a non-domestic customer’s gas and electricity bill. The actual price reduction received will vary depending on the contract type that a non-domestic customer is on, as well as the tariff and volume used. Government will reimburse suppliers in accordance with the scheme.
Funding for the EBRS will be sought through the estimates process. Any future costs for the delivery of the EBRS can only be projections and will depend upon energy usage levels and changes to the wholesale price of energy. As a result, the EBRS will give rise to an uncapped contingent liability. A review of the EBRS will be published after three months to assess effectiveness of the scheme and consider how support might be extended, further targeted, or revised beyond the initial six-month period for non-domestic customers most at risk from inflated energy prices. The Treasury-led review will determine support from April 2023—an update will be provided in due course.
I have laid before Parliament a Departmental minute describing contingent liabilities arising from the energy bill relief scheme (EBRS). It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above, for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present Parliament with a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
I regret that due to the urgency of this scheme, I have not been able to follow the usual timelines for issuing notice at least 14 parliamentary sitting days before the liability begins to be incurred.
The Treasury has approved spending for this proposal in principle. I will continue to update Parliament on this scheme.
[HCWS348]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Grand Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
Monday 31st October 2022
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 View all Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 30-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (31 Oct 2022)
Baroness Smith of Newnham
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the definition of freedom of speech in section A1 is identical to that within A3.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 1 and other amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, with his permission, as he cannot be with us in Committee today.
Quite often in Committee, the first amendment can seem a little trite. Sometimes it inserts “and” or deletes a semi-colon, because the way we have to table amendments is sometimes a little esoteric. On this occasion, the first amendment fits with the wide range of amendments that form this group—namely, in Amendment 1, my noble friend suggests that after “speech” we should insert “within the law”. This goes with a whole set of amendments that, in many ways, are trying to ensure that the variety of issues within this legislation, if it is necessary and has to pass—like my noble friend, I query its necessity—are dealt with. The first amendment seeks to make sure that we are clear about what we are looking at in the concept of freedom of speech. Reaffirming that within the law is clearly important.
My noble friend also tabled a range of amendments to insert or withdraw “beliefs”. He says that they are self-evident but, in particular, he wants the Committee to think about what His Majesty’s Government mean by “beliefs” in the context of this legislation, because the problem that this legislation purports to resolve is about freedom of speech in higher education, but that concept is not always well-defined.
At this point, I take a moment to declare my interests. As outlined in the register, I am an academic employed by the University of Cambridge, a fellow of Robinson College Cambridge and a non-executive director of the Oxford International Education Group, plus I sit on the odd advisory body of other places of higher education. Therefore, I have a professional interest in the Bill, but I also have an interest in ensuring that any legislation that we pass is absolutely clear. One of the biggest problems for many of us, whether in higher education or other parts of public service, is not necessarily whether the legislation exists but how clear it is and how effectively the people subject to it are going to be able to monitor it—is it clear to everybody? One of the best examples of this was the Licensing Act 2003. When it was introduced, it was full of uncertainty, vagueness and lack of clarity. It took many amendments and much work by local authorities to understand what the Government wanted.
It is important that in this legislation we are clear what is meant by “beliefs” and what the Government’s understanding of “beliefs” is. Also, as Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, points out, we need to be clear what we are talking about in the context of freedom of speech in higher education. Although there are no Liberal Democrat signatories, I have no hesitation in putting forward Liberal Democrat support for Amendments 3 and 11, because both amendments are extremely important to bring clarity. I shall not pretend in Committee to channel my noble friend Lord Wallace; I shall simply move the amendment in his name, support those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and look forward to hearing the debate at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 2, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. The amendment seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to explore what the Government mean when they refer to
“freedom of speech within the law”
in new Section A1(2). Secondly, it seeks to avoid a possible inconsistency between the freedom of speech that the Bill seeks to protect and promote and the right to free expression that is protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
There is a bit of history behind this amendment. I drafted it just after the Bill received its Second Reading in the summer. At that time, the Prime Minister was Boris Johnson, the Secretary of State for Justice was Dominic Raab and the Bill of Rights had just been introduced, which I think it is right to say he particularly favoured. The point that concerned me at that time was two Bills dealing with freedom of expression or the right to freedom of speech proceeding together without any connection between the two. What happened, as we all know, is that there was a change of Prime Minister. When Liz Truss became Prime Minister, Dominic Raab was no longer the Secretary of State for Justice and it was made known that the Bill of Rights was no longer to be proceeded with. However, there has been another change: we have a new Prime Minister, Dominic Raab has come back in again as Secretary of State for Justice and it is possible that the Bill of Rights may be resurrected and create the problem that I was anticipating in the summer. I stress that one of my motivations behind this amendment was to be sure that both bits of legislation, if they are to proceed, are in communication with each other and that, when we use the expressions “freedom of expression” or “freedom of speech”, we are talking about the same thing.
I come back to the point that I mentioned at the beginning: the phrase “within the law” needs some explanation. It seems to assume that the law already tells us what the freedom amounts to. I think that most people—certainly most lawyers—would tend to look to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as telling us what the freedom amounts to, because it spells it all out and it is suitably qualified for various reasons when you read the second part of Article 10. I should have thought that to build it into this Bill makes good sense. The amendment seeks to explain and give body to the expression “within the law”.
Those are the two reasons: first, to give greater body to the phrase “within the law”, so that everybody understands what it means and to preserve consistency with Article 10, which is part of our law; but also to avoid a possible inconsistency with the Bill of Rights, should it be reintroduced, because it would be unfortunate if that Bill, when it talks about freedom of speech, as it does, should be using a different basis for legislation. I should explain, and I am quoting now, that Clause 4 of the Bill of Rights says:
“When determining a question which has arisen in connection with the right to freedom of speech, a court must give great weight to the importance of protecting the right.”
It goes on to say:
“In this section ‘the right to freedom of speech’ means the Convention right”.
It then sets that out in full in the way that my amendment does.
My amendment is based on the wording that can be found in Clause 4(2) of the Bill of Rights as it was, and it is the best I can do to bring the two Bills into line. With great respect, I do not think that this amendment does anything to harm this Bill or in any way interfere with the basic principles which the Government are seeking to achieve by promoting this legislation. All I am trying to do is avoid misunderstandings and inconsistencies. With that background, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I start with my declaration of interests: I still hold academic posts at Cambridge, and I was the general secretary of what was the Association of University Teachers, now UCU—it is a rather different beast these days, but none the less, it was part of my history. It is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I think the distinction he makes, and the way we could embody consistency between potential pieces of legislation, is very important.
Although Amendment 22 is in a different group, I will make a point now which might mean that it does not have to be repeated later. It is very important to the academic world to know exactly what we as legislators mean by the different terms used. These terms are used very widely in academic life; they always have been and so they should. They were widely defended in academic life as being fundamental to its culture. I would like to believe that they are fundamental to the culture of many other parts of life as well, but they were fundamental to that culture. One of the reasons it is so important to express these concepts in this Bill, and one of the reasons I can understand why the Government have produced it now, is that, sadly, the challenges to freedom of speech and academic freedom have become much more acute and have not been dealt with particularly effectively.
I hark back to the earlier period precisely because the sector itself would have then dealt with these things very firmly and effectively. It was the DNA of the sector. Nobody would have questioned the right of people within the law to espouse views that were unpopular, take sometimes dogmatic positions and engage in every kind of argument under the sun, and, if others wished to try to rebut those arguments, to hear those other arguments in the same spirit. That was—I hope the Committee will forgive me for repeating the point, but it seems so fundamental—the DNA of this sector. I would like to feel that, when the final draft of this Bill appears, it will contain expressions about that which will be instantly recognisable to the people who used to celebrate those values. They will then see this as theirs, not just ours—not just what legislators think is right but what the sector was committed to and always believed was right. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has done us a great favour in saying that.
I also support wholeheartedly my noble friend Lord Collins’s amendments. I want to make one brief point about the concept of “within the law”. Generally speaking, I would hope that I understand what those words mean, but there are some areas where freedom of expression arises where I am not entirely sure that I do. I want to mention those here, not because I want to restrict people’s freedom of expression but because I do not want us to do undue harm to anybody. I am thinking here of the kind of coverage given in public by some people to the murder of the children at Sandy Hook and the case, which I believe will be reported on “Panorama” this evening—goodness knows how I know, but I have heard this—to do with people making gross allegations about what happened at the Manchester Arena bombing.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments in my name in this group, Amendments 13 and 28. In doing so, I am conscious of speaking after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, with whom I agree on the matter of principle—a nice easy place for me—but disagree on the response of substance. It always fills me with trepidation to think that I am not on the same page as he is on some things.
I shall address the two amendments in the reverse order and speak to Amendment 28 first. That amendment should have been coupled with a proposal to delete lines 36 to 38 on page 2, which it appears to replicate in some ways; that will be corrected at Report, if we get that far.
The substance of what we are discussing is essentially clear. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has rightly pointed out that the Bill lacks a clear definition of what is meant by free speech, and on that we agree. He proposes that the definition of free speech be tied to the convention right in relation to free expression. My view is that that does not take us far enough. The convention right is, first, subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which has a history of narrowing that definition over time and creating more exceptions—for example, for the protection of reputation, and so forth. Because it is one that can be appealed in the European Court of Human Rights, it is likely to be interpreted in a very legalistic way by universities and to lead to a great deal of litigation. As the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, rightly said, universities need to be persuaded to own this as a project and not regard it simply as a further aspect of the legal thicket through which they have to work.
There is also great advantage in having a definition of freedom of speech which is a British tradition and based on British notions of common law: the notion that you are free to express anything which is not specifically prohibited by law. That is a different approach, if I may say so, from the one being advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
Amendment 28 is an attempt to put that approach—the idea that you can say something as long as it is not prohibited by law—into statute. That is the essence of Amendment 28. It contains an exception for Holocaust denial, but otherwise I think it resolves this question of defining freedom of speech in a clear and unambiguous way. I say this without knowing any more than the noble and learned Lord does about the Government’s current intentions in relation to the Human Rights Act, but my definition would future-proof the Bill against any attempt to resile from the European Convention on Human Rights that might come forward in such legislation, if it appears.
I now turn to Amendment 13, which is an attempt to define what is meant by reasonably practicable on the part of universities. Here, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has made clear, drawing on his experience as an academic, there has been a significant change over the years in the attitude of universities towards these tricky and difficult questions. As he says, some years ago, when he was perhaps a younger academic, university authorities themselves were committed to freedom of speech and it was they who would be protecting those who wished to express controversial and difficult appointments from the activist behaviour, riots or mobbish-type behaviour that might seek to close them down. As the noble Lord implied, the situation now is that, very often, the problem arises not simply from the student activists but more from the university authorities. We perhaps need a more directive approach, one that makes clear the burden on university authorities to protect free speech, as we can no longer rely on that innate instinct of theirs to do so.
As I said, Amendment 13 is an attempt to do that. First, it makes it clear that doing nothing is a reasonable activity—so that not intervening in order to close things down is a perfectly reasonable activity—and that there should be a clear obligation of tolerance on universities, allowing them to restrict only speech that harms the functioning of the institution. That is a vague phrase which perhaps could be improved in discussion as we come to Report, but I suggest that that latter category would include anti-social behaviour of abuse and insult, or destructive behaviour or racism. Those things could be taken to harm the functioning of the institution, but they would be narrowly drawn so that, in practice, the university had a legal obligation to defend people’s right to their free speech.
It is, if I may say so, a different approach—a slightly fresh and unusual approach. We are understandably so used to relying on the European convention as the basis of our interpretation of rights in the modern age, but our rights go back to well before the drafting of and our accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. We have a proper and correct, distinctly British approach to rights: the notion that one should be able to say something that is not prohibited by law and free to do so is a much wider notion than that imported in the European convention. I think it is a defensible one, and I think the notion in Amendment 13 of what constitutes reasonably practicable addresses the change in circumstances since the 1986 Act in a way that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, identified. I believe it makes the fairly vague obligation on universities in that Act much clearer and much more deliverable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. In this very short but interesting debate we have already seen the problem that the Government are essentially seeking to address—a failure of leadership in many of our universities—through legislation that, given the amendments we have seen today, I suggest will be very hard to implement.
I remain unconvinced that this is the right way to tackle what is undoubtedly a problem in our universities. I first came across this when meeting Professor Kathleen Stock, who was subjected to horrific abuse in her own university for simply saying that your biological sex cannot be changed by feelings of identity, which I think are quite unexceptional and certainly legal remarks. Many other women academics in universities have felt threatened and censored for the simple act of trying to engage in these kinds of debates, particularly in relation to women’s sex-based rights. Unfortunately, many universities have allowed abusive behaviour to go unchallenged.
It seems to me that, at the heart of it, there is a question as to whether, even at this late stage, we can look to universities to put their house in order. I think that that would be a much more appropriate way forward than seeking to implement what I am convinced will be wildly impractical legislation. Already, our very civilised debate over what we mean by free speech suggests that this will be a huge problem when it comes to implementation.
The recent survey by the Higher Education Policy Institute showed a distinct shift in attitude by students, who it says
“have a very different conception of academic freedom and free speech norms than earlier generations”.
It suggests that these may have
“swung too far in one direction, with relatively few students recognising the unavoidable trade-offs involved with ever-greater restrictions on legal free speech.”
HEPI has come up with a list of things that it thinks universities might take forward, which seem very sensible to me. They include:
“reassessing formal procedures, such as existing codes of practice … ensuring consistent good practice, such as balancing controversial speakers with others … giving students improved information on academic norms, including in freshers’ weeks”.
I still think it might be better if the OfS, HEPI and the universities were allowed to work this through together. I suggest to the Minister that, if I were him, I would delay the date on which the Bill came into force to give universities time to try to change the culture and atmosphere within universities. This would be a much more practical and effective way of going forward.
However, if the Government are determined to press ahead, they clearly need to answer a lot of questions about the practical implementation of what they are proposing and the guidance to be given to universities. This is the reason for my Amendment 25. The question is how far intimidatory tactics against people speaking in universities are to be allowed under this legislation. We have seen intimidatory tactics. They can take a range of forms, including open letters demanding that an academic should be sacked for what they have said, vexatious complaints, petitions to publishers demanding that work be withdrawn, campaigns of defamation and smears, demands to prevent an academic being platformed, attempts to prevent events going ahead by threatening trouble if they do, and disrupting events that do go ahead. The targets of these tactics are typically women who believe that sex matters and have the courage to say so.
One possible response to these kinds of attacks is to frame the attempt to silence as itself a form of free speech, but this confuses the right to protest with a right to silence others. Speech that is merely intended to silence the speech of others, far from contributing to knowledge and learning, narrows the scope of the educational sphere. I argue that to frame attempts to silence as equally valid speech ignores the educational purpose of the university.
The amendment would explicitly exclude attempts to silence the speech of others from the scope of the core “secure” duty in the Bill and would require universities to take positive steps to mitigate the effects of those exercising what has been described as the “heckler’s veto” without disproportionately affecting the right to lawful protest. It would also clarify that the use of what I have described as the heckler’s veto to silence legitimate debate and dampen academic freedom on campus is not in itself protected speech.
This is a probing amendment because I want to hear what the Government have to say about our concept of free speech, how far it goes and what is to be done with intimidatory tactics. However, I am still left with the sense that the Bill as it stands is unworkable and will be an absolute nightmare for universities to implement. If only universities had shown leadership in the last few years this would not have been necessary.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 30. I should first apologise for not speaking at Second Reading. Because of other commitments I could not be there at the beginning and the end, or indeed to speak in the middle.
Amendment 30 seeks to add to the proposed matters to be addressed in the education providers’ code of practice. It would add a new paragraph to new Section A2(2), which would impose an obligation within the code of practice to put in place measures to ensure that politically motivated complaints against academics do not lead to time-consuming investigations. Education providers should have procedures enabling them to dismiss vexatious, frivolous, malicious or politically motivated complaints made against a member of their community—in other words, to snuff them out at the start. It might be that sensible universities will do that anyway, but if it is made part of a mandatory condition of the codes of practice then they will all have to do that, and make certain that they do.
It is plain that there are plenty of academics who hold unfashionable views of one kind or another, and they sometimes bring in unfashionable speakers with minority views. It is also plain from newspaper reports that we operate in a climate of fear, in the sense that academics and students are sometimes afraid for their careers. Without going into any unnecessary detail at this stage, the latest incidents were at Cambridge, where Professor Arif Ahmed, who is professor of philosophy, invited Helen Joyce, who has rather clear views on sex issues. We do not have to go there, but there was a tremendous hullabaloo and his own college, Gonville and Caius, made life very difficult for him.
What might have happened is that there might have been a complaint after the event or at the time. If a summary procedure is open to the university, it would see at once that such a complaint should not go any further but should be snuffed out at the beginning. This amendment is designed simply to provide for that and to encourage universities and other education providers to do things quickly and appropriately. That will help to improve the atmosphere.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 36 in my name. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading. I was then in the acute phase of Covid-19, so I guess noble Lords will all be rather pleased that I was not in the Chamber at that time.
I begin by saying that I believe that this is an unnecessary Bill that is clearly playing politics with the very important issue of how critical and independent thinking happens in our country. I share the view of the University and College Union that there are great threats to academic freedom in our country at the moment. Those threats include the extreme casualisation of many parts of the university workforce, low pay and the fact that universities are being forced increasingly to act like businesses. We see the impact that that has had on freedom of speech. At Leicester and Sheffield, universities I know quite well, we had seen that whole departments doing really creative, original, critical thinking have been decimated or destroyed by the imperative to go for business returns. However, I will resist the urge to make a Second Reading speech, tempting as it is, and focus on my Amendment 36, which is drawn from an amendment that was tabled in the other place and makes a crucial point.
Anyone who read the Times this morning will have seen some very disturbing articles about harassment, particularly sexual harassment, in our military. That is a reminder of how institutions that have existed for many centuries have accumulated cultures that tend to be extremely hierarchical, and it tends to be the more junior elements who suffer pressure from the more senior. That is where harassment can be a particular issue, as was identified by the article in the Times about the military this morning.
I bring a little personal experience in that, many years ago, before the Green Party took over my life, I was very interested in history. I went to a great many academic history seminars and one thing I noticed in those seminars was that questions were asked by the senior professors, then by the professors, then by the associate professors, then by the senior lecturers, and then by the lecturers. Universities and academia in general can be surprisingly extremely hierarchical organisations. When we talk about protection from harassment, we have to look particularly at the situation of more junior staff, especially those with the casualised contracts I mentioned earlier, as so many are.
I would prefer that the Bill did not exist at all, but since it does exist, I believe it is important that we have this protection against harassment, particularly harassment against more junior members who may find themselves effectively subjected to a barrage of attack under the guise of free speech. It is crucial that the Bill does not empower that to happen.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendments 13 and 28, which I have put my name to. In general, I support any amendments in any of the groups coming up that aim to strengthen, extend or deepen the Bill’s duty to academic freedom and free speech, and that give some ballast to seeing free speech as not extraneous to the purpose of universities but core to their mission.
The key point in Amendment 13 for me is that it notes the nature of the speech as covering speech of a
“political, philosophical or academic nature”
and that
“‘Speech of a political nature’ includes … debate of any question of public interest.”
That is the kind of broad definition that we need at the present time. Amendment 13 also seeks to clarify when steps are not reasonably practicable. It avoids the excuse often given, “We tried to be reasonably practicable but”, and instead makes free speech the default position, meaning that we are not just paying lip service to it.
This is important because we have to remember that, in the Education Act 1986, there was a clear duty to ensure free speech, academic freedom and so on. But, as other noble Lords have mentioned, it might already be in the law and yet the situation is deteriorating. In that sense, I am looking to bolster and improve or strengthen the free speech aspects of the law, not just to repeat them with threats—which is sometimes the way some people talk about the Bill.
The fact that those censorious trends have carried on despite the commitment to academic freedom in the Education Act 1986 is because universities generally argue, when controversies arise, that they are balancing academic freedom against other increasingly onerous statutory duties and institutional values. One excuse given is that of avoiding harassment, which is why I am rather concerned about the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I have recently found harassment to be a weasel word: for many words that we think we know what they mean, we often discover it is not quite as it was previously.
It is also why I support Amendment 28. I put my name to it because it aims to provide an enhanced sense of freedom of speech but it also—and this is key—clarifies the relationship between free speech on campus and other legal duties. The Equality Act 2010 specifies that universities must prevent harassment directed at members of their community who have protected characteristics. Section 26(4) of the Act, in which harassment is mentioned, is reasonably clear and caveated—it is not a blanket provision that anyone can say “harassment”—but because harassment is defined partially by the perception of the victim, it becomes problematic for us.
Over recent years, we have seen that universities are often overzealous in interpreting their responsibilities under the Equality Act, stressing the subjective perception of complainants and ignoring other tests in the Act. To give a couple of examples, that has resulted in the no-platforming of visiting speakers such as Professors Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman at the University of Essex, when it was claimed by trans activists that allowing them to speak would itself constitute harassment of trans students and staff, and the university authorities accepted that. They have since received apologies, but that is not the point I am making. This harassment excuse has added to a climate that morally devalues free speech by suggesting that it is itself harmful and that free speech can be harassment, especially to identity groups.
I suppose that gets me into the bulk of what has been discussed already: how do we define free speech? At the moment, free speech is constantly maligned as nothing more than hate speech. It is constantly said to me, “Oh, you support free speech. That is because you want the excuse to have hate speech”, or, “What is your attitude to hate speech?” I am concerned that hate speech is also ill-defined and too often amounts to little more than speech that we hate.
Perhaps we have to bite the bullet in our definitions here and recognise that there is a huge range of ideas that can be and are silenced as hateful. Even if we take hate speech at face value—something that most of us would agree was hateful, such as racist speech, bigoted views or whatever—as a free-speecher, and as I think is true in academic circles, I think we have to defend views that we do not like or consider to be bigoted. We might then have an argument about which of those views is bigoted or hateful. That is especially important in a university context because that is where we think we have the seat of debating, debunking and demolishing false ideas; that is one of the key purposes of universities in and of themselves.
One reason I worry about Amendment 3, from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is that it claims that freedom of speech should not include freedom to espouse Holocaust denial—this is an awkward thing to talk about. It is also in Amendment 28, to which I have added my name, but I feel queasy about it. I want to probe why we would make Holocaust denial a special case. I understand that the Holocaust is a special case, and we all understand that Holocaust denial is abhorrent and monstrous, and part of the vile anti-Semitic playbook, and needs to be challenged at every opportunity. But it is not illegal in the United Kingdom. I wonder whether it is appropriate to use this legislation to make this one named exception. It might give a green light to it being said of other speech, “If that can be exempt from academic freedom, why cannot this particular hate speech be banned, even if it is legal?” There is a disingenuous strand of argument that says that the Bill will allow Holocaust denial, as though the nation’s students and academics are just waiting for the Bill to pass so that they can all rush out to deny the Holocaust. It just confuses what is really at stake here.
I want to say just a couple of other things. I have every sympathy for the amendment on the hecklers’ veto proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. But in a Bill that is meant to increase students’ rights to speak their mind, it might seem a bit of a problem to hint at restricting students’ freedom to speak, even if it is to shout loud slogans. I am genuinely torn on this, but I feel that it is the wrong thing to do, as it gives the impression that only certain people are allowed to speak; I am not keen on it.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
I begin by saying that, although I do not know how many others here have, I have on more than one occasion been banned, or attempted to be banned, from speaking at a university. I was last issued a banning order by the University of Nottingham in 2009, I believe, which I ignored. Various people were running around with tape recorders. The argument put forward then was that I might say something offensive because I was speaking at the Jewish society.
In the 1980s I was banned, and I had to have a meeting reorganised in a local hostelry. I was banned then because—it was very simple and straightforward—I had had the audacity the year before to visit the state of Israel. I spent four days there with the Government, but I also spent four days with Fatah, the Palestinian liberation organisation on the West Bank. It seemed to me a balanced visit, and very interesting and educational. But I was banned from speaking at a university and in two other universities my publicity was withdrawn, which made it rather difficult for anyone to attend a meeting because they did not know that one was taking place.
So this is not a new problem—and nor is it a new problem in terms of debate. I recall well the speaker tour of the Paedophile Information Exchange across universities, which took place in 1978 and 1979. Many universities had such speakers; the content was not illegal but without question it was an organising campaign for that organisation, much more than an educative one. That was certainly my assessment of it. I recall in 1985 the banning of Jewish societies, on the basis that they were bound to be racist because they were full of racists and therefore should not be allowed any space in a university. I make the point simply to inform the debate—we are not talking about a modern phenomenon.
I want to pick up one particular point from these amendments: the proposal on Holocaust denial. It is true that Holocaust denial is not a criminal offence in this country, unlike in other countries, such as Germany and Austria—I think seven or eight countries across western Europe have that. To me, that does not seem a sufficient reason not to have such an egregious denial of history in this legislation. It would be a positive outcome if the Government wished to go further in terms of criminal justice. That would be done by a separate department, with separate legislation, and it may well get some support. In this context, it seems that provisions on the acceptability of entirely turning history on its head would be helpful to our universities, although the main problem we have these days is of course Holocaust distortion and minimisation. I would not suggest going further into a much greyer area, but I think this proposal ought to be considered very strongly by the Government.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the former warden of Wadham College, Oxford, and as an honorary fellow there and at St Edmund Hall, Oxford.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in which he identified a problem but suggested that this Bill was not the right way to confront it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly said, the problem is a very deep-seated cultural issue that I doubt will be dealt with significantly by this legislation, should it pass. It is my experience of running a college that has led me to feel rather queasy about some of the slightly nightmarish, as I see them, schemes and bureaucracies proposed by the Bill.
Of course, there is an issue. The case of Kathleen Stock is the most egregious example. In my view, she was disgracefully mistreated by her university and professional colleagues, not to speak of the students at the University of Sussex, some of whom seemed to be clearly breaking criminal law with the demonstrations they mounted against that highly respected academic. Young men—they seemed to be men—wearing balaclavas, holding flares and chanting threats against her seemed to me clearly to represent a breach of the criminal law, and it is a great shame that the university did not see it that way.
However, it is not just Kathleen Stock. The events in a Cambridge college over the past few days have also been deeply disturbing. The idea that a writer such as Helen Joyce, who I would regard as entirely in the mainstream, should be regarded by the most senior figures in that college as unacceptable as a speaker seems deeply depressing and redolent of a cultural problem, not just in that college.
An amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, therefore attracted my interest. It is the one that relates to the question of a hecklers’ veto. The way I perceive it, the issue in universities is not so much that events are being stopped by demonstrators standing outside chanting and making a nuisance of themselves; it is the more or less cowardly response of university and college authorities who decline to host events when they fear or are warned that that sort of response will eventuate. This is a true hecklers’ veto. I have some sympathy with that amendment, although I share again the hesitation expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the Bill should contain a clause which is anti-free speech, if you like, rather than it being consistently pro-free speech.
I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but I strongly disagree that Article 10 is somehow deficient for our needs in this area. On the country, it provides generous and comprehensive jurisprudence on the right to free speech; it is suitably qualified and well understood by our courts, public bodies and public institutions. It is certainly well understood in the University of Oxford, the university I have been most associated with. I think Article 10 is entirely fit for purpose and I strongly support the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to reference it in this legislation. It would provide consistency and legal certainty, so I hope the amendment will not in the end be controversial with the Government.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I did speak at Second Reading, so I really am not going to make a Second Reading speech; I am not going to say I am not and then do it. Although I have been clear that I think the Bill is a mistake that will lead to a great deal of time-consuming, heartbreaking and expensive litigation for our universities, which should instead be engaging in what they should be engaging in, including creating the culture that we all want, I say in some sort of spirit of bipartisanship to the noble Lords and Ministers opposite that the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is a learned and friendly gesture indeed.
All these amendments and everything that I have heard so far merely emphasise the dangerous complexity of legislating so clearly in the realm of a convention right without referring to it at all, save the statement that the Minister is required to make on the cover of the Bill about compatibility with Article 10. It is clearly the Government’s intention that this Bill, wrong-headed though I think it is, should comply with Article 10, so to try to redefine Article 10 in a slightly different way in the body of the Bill is a mistake that adds to the complexity and the danger for different regulatory bodies, be it the Equality and Human Rights Commission or the Office for Students. The noble and learned Lord has helped by making it clear that freedom of speech within the law in the United Kingdom means compliance with Article 10 of the convention. Frankly, that was pretty much the case before incorporation by way of the Human Rights Act.
I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that, with the resurrection of the former Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, he wants to future-proof and hopes for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act, but even the rather botched and misnamed Bill of Rights Bill purports to comply with Article 10. It is jumping the gun to try to define freedom of speech within this sector differently from the way it is defined in every other aspect of UK law and life.
I also say to the noble Lord, whose libertarian instincts on free speech I share, that, as a matter of jurisprudence and law, he is mistaken in a number of ways. It is all very well banging the drum for the common law, but there literally was no actionable right to free speech in this country until Article 10 was incorporated by the Human Rights Act. There could be under a future Bill of Rights, but there literally is not this magic thing in the common law that will protect people’s free expression without Article 10. Why? Because Parliament is sovereign and every other law that impacts on free speech will trump the free speech that I believe the noble Lord wants to see. Evidence for that lies in the issues around policing and all the other things that he has touched on in the Chamber in his time in the House. Parliamentary sovereignty will trump common law, and without Article 10 there is currently no actionable right to freedom of expression in this country.
With respect, his Amendment 28 fails to achieve what he would like. It is much more limiting a protection than the protection in the extensive jurisprudence of Article 10. For example, to say:
“‘Freedom of speech within the law’ means”
freedom of speech that
“is not prohibited by law”
is somewhat circular.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it sounds to me that the noble Baroness is making the case for why Article 10 is insufficient. It applies already and it is not working. She has given a number of reasons why it is not working. It has not achieved the culture shift that—I think this is common ground—we believe needs to be achieved.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Inasmuch as there is a limit to what any legislation can do without the resources and culture, clearly that is the case. This is an argument that people make against human rights all the time. My point is simply that, if you are legislating for free speech in any sector in this country, you have to make reference to the human right to free speech in this country. Our current legal regime means that that is Article 10.
Lord Moylan (Con)
With respect, I have not made a case against human rights. The definition I propose does not impinge on or restrict Article 10; it actually gives greater freedom and greater rights. I quibble at that point, because it is quite a serious point if it is being suggested that I am trying to impinge on existing rights. I am not.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I beg the noble Lord’s pardon. I take the point, and I tried to make it clear that I know that he has a very libertarian instinct towards free speech, which I share. I tried to argue that his Amendment 28 is more restrictive than Article 10; that is a matter of the way that it has been crafted.
My general point is that if this area of complexity that we are entering is to be made even more complex and potentially incoherent by having two different definitions of freedom of speech—one for everyone in the country and in the Council of Europe, to some extent, under Article 10 and another in relation to universities only—then that is at the heart of the problem in a thoroughly problematic Bill.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, I also apologise for not having participated at Second Reading. I have a perfectly excellent excuse: I was having knee surgery, which I am afraid has not worked out as well as I had hoped, so I will have to go back for some more. That is my reason for not having attended before.
I should disclose my interest in this Bill. In previous lives I was for nine years chairman of the LSE and for seven years, until last year, the master of Clare College, Cambridge. I am an honorary fellow at both places. I am currently president and a non-executive director of the University of Law.
Unlike some noble Lords who believe that there is no need for this Bill, I take the view that there would be great value if legislation was in place that enshrined the duties spelled out in Clauses 1 to 3. On the need for the statutory duties, I respectfully agree with the points the Minister made at Second Reading, especially when he listed numerous examples of recent behaviours that were designed to stifle freedom of lawful speech or had that effect. I completely agree. I take much the same position as the one advocated at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. There is a serious problem, but in key respects the Bill addresses it, though not necessarily in the best way and possibly in the wrong way.
As far as the matters that are being discussed are concerned, I will deal very briefly with one point. It has become apparent from a number of points that have been made thus far that there really should be a definition in the Bill, and ultimately in legislation, of freedom of speech within the law. At the moment, the Bill contains no definition provision at all. My view, for what it is worth, is that the definition put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is a perfectly excellent and workable suggestion.
I would not go so far as to say that I disagree with the proposal in Amendment 28 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and others because at the moment I have not fathomed in my own mind the relationship between the noble and learned Lord’s proposal and the noble Lord’s. There may be some scope for a combination of the points made in both amendments—I do not know. If anything was to be added to the definition in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I would be interested in seeing precisely what that was before coming to a final conclusion on the validity or worth of one amendment versus the other.
The one point that I would pick up on in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—the noble Baroness adverted to it moments ago—relates to the reference to “any confidentiality agreement”. In my view, that is far too wide. Non-disclosure agreements have developed a good deal of notoriety, especially over the last few years. If the non-disclosure agreement were to be used as a mechanism effectively for suppressing free speech—of course that is very often precisely why they are devised and forced on one side to sign up to—the reference to the confidentiality agreement proposed in Amendment 28 would not be acceptable.
There may be very good occasions when a confidentiality agreement needs to be properly respected and observed, when it is not being used for that offensive objective, to suppress free speech. There will be many circumstances, commercial as well as in a university environment, where the need for confidentiality is absolutely critical, but I would not agree simply to have a broad exclusion for confidentiality agreements.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in my own right, as opposed to speaking for my noble friend Lord Wallace, apart from one point about Amendment 1. The point of adding “within the law” is to fit with new Section A3, but that would be subsumed by the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The idea of defining freedom of speech is highly desirable, and that amendment appears to do the job.
I have some difficulties with Amendment 28, and it would be interesting to understand what the movers of that amendment mean in proposed new subsection (2). The relationships between this legislation and the Equality Act, and this legislation and other pieces of existing legislation, need to be thought about. I have some concerns about what the ramifications of proposed new subsection (2) would be.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, and one we could continue for some time, because it is about trying to reach a consensus about concepts—I have my name down to Amendments 3, 11 and 30—but it is also about how we talk about free speech in universities and about academic freedom. There has been confusion in the debate about those two things. One of my amendments tries to say that we should not forget academic freedom and how important it is to university life, and asks about the constraints on it, which are not necessarily all the things that we have been talking about. In my experience, academic freedom can be constrained by economic factors and income streams that universities might have. Research can be restrained for those sorts of reasons, and academics who followed a particular route of research have been constrained by those other pressures.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, is absolutely right. He and I have shared the same experience: political views can be unpopular, and some of the demonstrations that we have faced have been quite violent. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has sadly left the Room, but we had a debate on Friday on his genocide Bill, as well as a debate on Thursday about Ugandan Asians. I remember standing up and defending the need to protect Ugandan Asians and facing a quite violent reaction from people. It was not limited to the streets; it was in other institutions, even in my own trade union and my own party.
As a lifelong trade unionist—I am not making a Second Reading speech, but talking specifically about my amendments—I have long experience of how politicians want laws to change culture, which is impossible. The most successful progress in industrial relations has been made not by legislation but by consensus, agreement and discussion.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, we have begun our debates in Grand Committee with a group of amendments all of which, in one way or another, address the main duties in the Bill relating to freedom of speech.
Amendment 1, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, would add the words “within the law” and is intended, as she explained, to ensure that the reference to the importance of freedom of speech in new Section A1 is identical to that within new Section A3. Let me straight away assure her that the speech protected by the Bill is only speech that is within the law.
The duty in new Section A1 to have particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech is part of the duty to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech within the law. It emphasises the significance of freedom of speech as a concept and ideal, but a provider needs only to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech if that speech is within the law. So the reference to freedom of speech within the context of the duty to have particular regard does not need the narrowing descriptor of “within the law”.
This is different from the duty in new Section A3, under which a provider must promote the importance of freedom of speech within the law. The duty to promote is about encouraging a culture of free and open discussion on campus. In this context, the importance of freedom of speech does need the narrowing descriptor of “within the law”.
Amendment 2 seeks to make clear in the Bill that freedom of speech in the Bill is an aspect of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I listened with great care to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and those who spoke in support of what he said. Amendments 3 and 28 also propose definitions of freedom of speech. Amendment 36 seeks to prevent freedom of speech being used as a defence against behaviour which amounts to harassment under the Equality Act.
Freedom of speech is a term that has been used in domestic legislation in a higher education context since the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. It is well understood in that context and there is no intention to change its meaning in this Bill. It is important to note, for example, that it covers both verbal speech and written material, including in electronic form. Accordingly, freedom of speech is a broad concept, and is indeed protected under Article 10 of the ECHR as an aspect of freedom of expression. It is worth adding that Article 10 includes the freedom to receive information from other people by, for example, being part of an audience or reading a magazine, which this Bill does not cover.
There is, in fact, already a non-exhaustive definition of freedom of speech in new Section A1(11), which provides that
“references to freedom of speech include the freedom to express ideas, beliefs and views without suffering adverse consequences”.
We did not consider it necessary to include in this definition a reference to Article 10. The Human Rights Act requires that, so far as possible, legislation
“must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with”
the rights under the ECHR. We are clear that the Bill is entirely consistent with that requirement.
The activities mentioned in Amendment 3—teaching, researching, engaging in intellectual inquiry, contributing to public debate and criticising any institution—are all covered by the concept of free speech as just described. However, affiliation to an institution and being a member of a trade union body are not per se matters of speech and so are not covered by a Bill that is about speech.
As regards Holocaust denial, referred to in Amendments 3 and 28, let me make clear that any attempt to deny the scale or occurrence of the Holocaust is morally reprehensible and has no basis in fact. In many cases, those who deny the Holocaust also have links to neo-Nazi extremism, anti-Semitic violence and intimidation. The European Court of Human Rights has held that Holocaust denial is not protected speech under Article 10 of the ECHR, as such speech is intolerable in a democratic society, and that Holocaust denial, even if dressed up as impartial historical research, must be seen as connoting an anti-democratic ideology and anti-Semitism.
There is no place in universities for extremist views that masquerade as facts but are in fact complete fiction and are deeply offensive. We certainly do not encourage higher education providers, constituent colleges or student unions to invite individuals who deny that the Holocaust ever happened to speak on campus. However, I should note that it is not the intention of the Bill to change what speech is held to be lawful or unlawful.
I turn to other aspects of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. It is not necessary to specify that speech that is unlawful, whether because it is in breach of a legal duty, a confidentiality agreement or intellectual property rights, is not included. Finally, on the element of Amendment 28 relating to the Equality Act, and also Amendment 36, it is important to note that, when considering a claim of harassment, courts and tribunals must balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, which could include the rights of freedom of expression, as set out in Article 10 of the ECHR, and academic freedom, as set out in the Explanatory Notes to that Act. Guidance has specifically made clear that the harassment provisions cannot be used to undermine academic freedom.
Amendments 9, 10, 27 and 42 are designed to probe the meaning of “beliefs”. As I mentioned earlier, new Section A1(11) has a definition of freedom of speech which includes
“the freedom to express ideas, beliefs and views without suffering adverse consequences”.
This builds on the current wording of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. It is vital that students, members, staff and visiting speakers can speak freely on campus about their beliefs, without damaging their prospects or suffering other repercussions. Beliefs are not the same as views.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt, but the Minister said a couple of times that subsection (11) is a definition of freedom of speech. I respectfully suggest that it is no such thing; it simply says that
“references to freedom of speech include the freedom to express ideas”,
and so on. It is not a definition at all. It merely gives an example of what freedom of speech would be. The point about the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in particular is that it requires the introduction of a definition into the Bill, not simply the provision of an example of what freedom of speech might consist of. I suggest that a definition is essential, otherwise you will simply be scrabbling around to see what somebody thought freedom of speech might have meant in 1986. We have a perfectly excellent definition in the human rights legislation and the convention, and I am not quite sure why there is such a determination to avoid the obvious, so to speak.
Earl Howe (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point entirely. I think that I said that the definition I referred to was non-exhaustive. It is quite deliberately non-exhaustive, because it is a definition that we felt was appropriate for the purposes of the Bill. I suppose I could sum up the issue by saying that we believe there is a consistency between the Bill and the ECHR, even if there is not total congruency.
I emphasise that the duty in the Bill to take reasonably practicable steps means that providers, colleges and student unions can take account of all their legal duties on a case-by-case basis. If another legal duty requires or gives rise to certain action, it would not be reasonably practicable to override that.
Amendment 11 would provide that a non-disclosure agreement with a provider does not mean that members, staff, students or visiting speakers could not speak freely. There is an exception for intellectual property. I very much support the spirit of this amendment—in particular, victims of sexual misconduct and harassment should never be pressurised into keeping silent. The previous Minister for Higher Education, Michelle Donelan, strongly supported work in this area. She launched a voluntary pledge in January this year, in conjunction with Can’t Buy My Silence and universities, to encourage providers to commit not to using NDAs to silence victims of complaints of sexual harassment, abuse or misconduct, and other forms of harassment and bullying. To date, 74 higher education institutions and three Oxford colleges have signed up to this. The Government are working with Can’t Buy My Silence to call out those who have not yet done so.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Does the noble Earl not think that that is a good example of where good practice can be adopted not by legislation but by employers agreeing that something is not appropriate? Can he not proudly point to that as somewhere the Government have intervened and change has happened without the need for legislation?
Earl Howe (Con)
We certainly hope that this will gain traction. I agree that in most circumstances it is better to encourage voluntary action, as long as it works. This is very much a work in progress.
We have also asked the Office for Students to create a new registration condition to ensure that it properly tackles sexual misconduct. This would have real teeth and would mean that providers could be sanctioned with penalties, suspension from the register or even deregistration. This follows the publication by the OfS of a statement of expectations for providers in this area.
I make the point that we are the first Government who are prepared to tackle this issue. I shall continue discussing with colleagues on both sides of the House how best we can tackle sexual harassment and misconduct in our universities. I therefore have no difficulty in committing to taking this matter away and looking at it further.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Does my noble friend wish to expand at all on my Amendment 13 about “reasonably practicable”? The essential point is that there is an existing duty in the 1986 Act that has two parts to it to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech. If my noble friend’s position is that neither the definition of freedom of speech nor the definition of what is reasonably practicable is to be amended, why is he not frank in saying that there is no intention to change the current duty?
Earl Howe (Con)
I apologise to the Committee. I know that I have been speaking for a long time, but this is the very issue that I was about to come on to next, if my noble friend will allow me.
Amendment 13, which is the amendment that my noble friend was referring to, seeks generally to strengthen the test for what is “reasonably practicable”. It would mean that, in relation to speech of a political, philosophical or academic nature, it would always be reasonably practicable not to interfere; in relation to other speech, it would be reasonably practicable only if taking that step would prejudice the functioning of the provider. I hope that I have paraphrased the issue correctly.
The Government’s position, supported by the OfS, is that we stand for the widest possible definition of free speech—anything within the law—and that, where debate is particularly contentious, it is all the more important that everyone feels able to put forward their views and arguments and be heard, on all sides.
The “reasonably practicable” wording of the main duty means that providers can take account of all their legal duties on a case-by-case basis. But I must be clear that my noble friend’s proposed strengthened test goes too far in not allowing providers to take account of all the relevant circumstances, including their other legal duties—for example, to prevent unlawful discrimination or harassment, or to comply with the Prevent duty so as to stop students and others being drawn into terrorism. There may be occasions where it is not reasonably practicable to secure freedom of speech of a political, philosophical or academic nature, even if that speech is lawful, and we must not impose a test that has so few exceptions.
If I might address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, about conspiracy theories, the question of whether espousing a conspiracy theory is lawful depends on what is said. If it is defamatory, it would be unlawful. The point of the Bill is to take a wide approach to freedom of speech as a fundamental principle in a democratic society, but there is nothing in the Bill to encourage baseless or harmful claims, or bad science, on campus, for example.
Amendment 25 seeks to clarify the position regarding balancing the right to freedom of speech with the right to protest. The purpose of the Bill is to protect freedom of speech, but the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental tool of civic expression and will not be curtailed by this Government. Of course, it can itself be an aspect of freedom of speech. If there is a protest against a particular academic because they have said something controversial but lawful, providers will need to decide what reasonably practicable steps they can take to ensure that the academic can speak freely.
The intended effect of the Bill is not to prioritise one right under the ECHR—that is to say, freedom of expression under Article 10—over others, such as the right to protest under Article 11. The requirement to have “particular regard” to the importance of freedom of speech builds on existing provision under Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and could, in a particular case, prompt a higher education provider to prioritise freedom of speech over another convention right. However, this would remain subject to its assessment of what is reasonably practicable and would need to be lawful.
It is worth noting that a provider’s code of practice under new Section A2 must include the procedures to be followed when organising meetings and activities, as well as the conduct required in connection with them. This will ensure that staff and students are aware of their responsibilities as regards their own conduct.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested delaying Royal Assent to allow universities due time. Let me confirm to him now that implementation of the Bill will not be rushed. Various actions need to be taken before the new regime can come into force, including consultation with the sector and the provision of guidance, so providers, colleges and student unions will be fully engaged and able to understand their responsibilities under the Bill.
I turn next to Amendment 30 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, which seeks to ensure that codes of practice have a process in place for dealing with meritless claims against staff and students. It is an important point that providers should not have to spend time and resources responding to frivolous or vexatious complaints. However, I should make it clear that the duties in the Bill are imposed on the governing body of registered higher education providers. There cannot be complaints made under the Bill about the freedom of speech duties against staff, members and students of the provider, or visiting speakers, as the amendment suggests. Higher education providers will in any case have their own procedures already in place for handling internal complaints. As for burdens on providers, unnecessary bureaucracy can take up time that could be spent focusing on the academic experience and high-quality teaching, but these measures are absolutely necessary to protect the core value of freedom of speech and we consider that the duties imposed are proportionate and appropriate.
I hope my remarks have provided noble Lords with reassurance about the Bill’s approach regarding the main duties set out in it and that they strike the right balance.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, clearly, I have not quite been mandated by my noble friend to accept the noble Earl’s answer, but, given his answer, I shall beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1 and I suspect it will not need to come back on Report. The clarification on the other amendments associated with belief were very helpful, but that might be an area where further amendments are brought on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the definition of “members” in this paragraph.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, again I am moving an amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wallace. It might appear that he has been in a particularly frivolous mode in deleting the odd word. In this case, three of the amendments in the name of my noble friend, Amendments 4, 37 and 57, all suggest that we delete “member”. This is because the concept of “members of the provider” seems somewhat unclear.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 22. One of the things that I have inevitably observed over a long period is that the proportion of the academic and academic-related staff who are on full-time contracts of the kind that we used to describe as tenured contracts has declined significantly. In some institutions it has declined almost to the point where they are a small minority. I do not agree with why that has happened, but I understand why it has. Generally speaking, it is quite difficult to get rid of people who are tenured, and if you are in economically straitened circumstances, you are probably looking for the least protection possible for some grades of staff.
But it is also true that the number and proportion of staff, and I make the point about both, who are no longer tenured but are absolutely vital parts of the academic community and are now on part-time, hourly and short-term contracts—a whole variety of contracts that do not conform to what we would have thought of as tenured staff—are increasingly women and members of ethnic minorities. There are all sorts of reasons why that is the case. For women, it is often said that, because their careers get interrupted for various reasons, it is easier to deal with them if they are not in a tenured position. For example, you do not have to replace them for maternity leave purposes. This has had a detrimental effect on the security of employment that is also discriminatory.
I will make two points that I hope the Grand Committee will feel are not in any sense unhelpful. First, if we want to ensure that the whole of the academic community buys in effectively to these concepts and the Bill’s key propositions—I share with my noble friend Lord Hunt and many others who have spoken the belief that this is probably not the right way of going about it, but none the less we are going about it so I am going to do my best with what we have—then we need to make sure that universities understand that it means the whole of the community. I regret to say that many universities tend to think of the academic community as being the tenured staff; I fear that that is probably also true of some Cambridge and Oxford colleges, having known those colleges myself over the years. They have much less regard for whether other aspects of academic life apply to all the other academics. I am not even being particularly critical of that; I am just saying that it is one of the ways that the sector has evolved.
Secondly, as I have said, this has had a discriminatory effect. When we talk about the academic community, it would be very easy to say that we do not have exceptions in mind. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said just a few moments ago, we mean the whole thing, because we intend that the Bill’s impact should be on the whole of that community who are employed as academics, irrespective of the character of the contract they hold. I do not even believe that it would have any difficulty embodied in it for contractual or other purposes; it would simply be everybody who is employed to teach or research. I include in that “academic-related”, because, rather like the librarians in your Lordships’ House, there are a number of people who do background research that is fundamental to the academic conduct of an institution.
I commend this amendment without embarrassment, because either the Bill means what it says or it means it for only some people.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 26 and the consequential Amendment 71, which we need not look at. Amendment 26 effectively aims at much the same target as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. It may be that the definition is different and it may be that we can discuss this, but the point is exactly the same: it is to include the whole of the academic community in the university. We must get these words right. If there is a practical difficulty with the use of “emeritus”, for example, we can look at it.
What is really necessary is that “academic staff” is made clear in the Bill and that it covers the range of people who are most vulnerable. The most vulnerable are not those on full-time contracts; they are the doctoral students, other teaching staff and researchers, and those on part-time or less secure contracts. It is vital that, if they are pushing forward ideas that happen to be unpopular in their particular community, but are legitimately doing their job well, they are not dismissed or otherwise penalised for holding those views and expressing them.
Amendment 26 was tabled at Report in the Commons, and on 13 June, the Universities Minister offered the following clarification:
“To clarify, the Bill uses the term “staff” to broaden the existing reference to employees, as not all those who work for a higher education provider have an employment contract or employee status. I can confirm that it will include those on short-term, casual contracts and PhD students undertaking teaching.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/22; col. 72.]
I suggest that my amendment would go a little further and make it absolutely clear that it encompasses all those who will need protection.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, much has been said that I agree with. I shall speak to Amendment 26, to which I put my name. As people have been declaring their interests, I should say that I have never run an Oxford college and am never likely to, but in the Academy of Ideas, I have been working with students for a long time on the issues of free speech and academic freedom—that is the kind of work I do—and a number of those students go on to become young academics. I fully support the broadening out of what we mean by academics, because sometimes it means the seasoned prof rather than the broader community of the academy.
The recent report of the Policy Institute at King’s College London said that 41% of students agreed that academics who teach material that offends students should be fired. That is extraordinary, if you think about it: they think that they should be sacked if they teach the wrong things. I do not suggest that those students cannot be won round or that those academics will all be fired, but that is the kind of climate we are talking about. There is an institutionalised acceptance of this—which, by the way, I think is partly due to the students-as-consumer atmosphere, and the managerialism and commercialisation of universities. It is a bit like saying, “I don’t like what you teach, I find that offensive; you should be sacked.” That is one explanation of why nearly 36% say that they are self-censoring.
When I have talked to young academics, I have found that they are the ones who feel that they cannot speak out, and that they are looking over their shoulder all the time. A number of older professors who are prepared to speak out say, “Well, what can they do to me, I am about to be emeritus?” But even then they do not speak out because they say, “I don’t want my reputation to be sullied, to be slandered or to be called a bigot.” If you are trying to get research grants, or get on the ladder of work and so on, you are going to be wary.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I thought it axiomatic that references to academic staff in the Bill included all academic postholders, whether tenured or on short-term contracts. I had assumed that they were included. It would be very useful if the Minister could confirm that, because there is no doubt that academics who are working on short-term contracts are more vulnerable in this field than others. I myself had the experience of speaking to young academics—junior research fellows and so on—in that situation, who are a little nervous about expressing views which are, if I can put it this way, outside the cultural mainstream. They need particular protection in this area, so I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that “academic staff” includes those on short-term contracts as well as those enjoying tenure.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, is this not another example of why it would be helpful to have a definition provision in the Bill? If there was one, “academic staff” and “members” could be defined, and there would not be any debate about who did or did not fall into one or other of these categories.
In this context, it is worth bearing in mind another point. All universities, as institutions, will have either statutes—as in Cambridge, Oxford and some other universities, such as Durham—or their own constitution. You would glean from the constitutional documents of the institution who is a member of the academic staff and who is a member. We are a bit in the blind here, because in order to determine whether person X is a member of the academic staff or person Y a member of some institutional college, you will have to look at the constitutional documents of the organisation to find the answer. It would be quite helpful to have it in the Bill as well, so that there could not be any misunderstanding. Also, we could end up protecting through the Bill people who, strictly speaking, might not fall within the relevant definition of a particular institution. In that sense, the Bill could improve the position of individuals who are, to use a loose expression, associated sufficiently with the world of academia and who are deserving of cover here.
For example, there is a big difference in Cambridge. Once you are a student in a college, you are a member of that college for life. That may not be true in other universities—I do not know. For example, it probably was not true at the LSE; I do not remember. It is certainly true of any college in Oxford and Cambridge, so it is a bit unsatisfactory not to have a sufficiently clear definition applicable to everybody.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, picking up that last point, I support the amendments in this group that expand the definition of what constitutes an academic, but I wonder whether the Minister in his response can provide reassurance on the interaction between the academic freedom requirements of the Bill and the ability of universities to ensure high academic standards. Most of the amendments before us relate to the question of what constitutes freedom of speech, rather than academic freedom per se. I think the Minister said a moment ago that nothing in the Bill prevents bad science on campus. The corollary of that should be that nothing in the Bill should prevent universities preventing bad science on campus.
We cannot have a situation in which the academic freedom protections are used to allow those who do not believe that smoking causes cancer to continue at a medical school or those who believe in creationism to lecture in the physics faculty rather than the theology faculty, to cite a well-known example. Indeed, the University of Manchester had the discretion to take action against its PhD student who, noble Lords may have observed, is pursuing a thesis on paedophile masturbation, which is deemed not to meet sufficient academic standards. Yet under the definition of academic freedom here, those views could affect the likelihood of that person’s promotion or securing different jobs at the provider.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if a science department employs people who do not believe in science, that does not seem to me to be a free speech issue. Even with the PhD thing, they can have those views in the bar and nobody will care, right? It is about what they teach. I am not suggesting that people should be able to carry on doing their job if they are not able to do their job, but they should probably never have been employed or signed up for the PhD in the first instance.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
The noble Baroness is making precisely the point I was seeking to draw out. As we discussed at Second Reading, freedom of speech is not the same as academic freedom. We need to make sure that, in protecting both appropriately, we do not stand in the way of the kind of management action that it would be reasonable for universities to take. In a nutshell, we are saying that universities are not a single space. There is a space for freedom of speech, particularly in respect of students, but the classroom is a place for verified expertise. Perhaps in his response the Minister can give us the assurance that nothing in the Bill will stand in the way of universities continuing to exercise that function.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, first I need to apologise—I forgot to declare my interests in the debate on the previous group. I refer to my academic interests as set out in the register. I also forgot to thank the Minister and his colleagues for the meeting they had with many of us last week, which I for one found very helpful in trying to unpack such a complex area.
This is a vital group of amendments in probing the class of people protected by the new duty, which dovetails with what will come later—the new statutory tort. I suspect that, in replying, the Minister will try to give comfort that the class defined in new Section A1(2) is intended to be a very wide class and to cover tenured and non-tenured academic staff, postgraduate teaching students, et cetera. I am instinctively for that.
I would even go further and say that universities are vital centres of the communities in which they are situated. They have a wonderful economic and cultural impact in the towns, cities and rural areas where they exist. One of the many things that they contribute is public lectures and meetings, where people who have never even attended university themselves get the opportunity to come and hear from world-class academics and other speakers. That is all wonderful, but it creates challenges in relation to these very divided times we live in.
One of the smaller questions that I put to the noble Earl’s team last week—for me, this is a grey area; I am not an expert in education law—is the relationship between subsections (2) and (3) and whether there is potentially an even wider group of people who may be protected and therefore have the benefit of the statutory duty. To be clear, and to go back to my comments in the first group, I want freedom of expression to be protected for the broadest group of people in our society, subject to the caveats and balancing exercises in Article 10. If a member of the public comes to a public lecture, I do not want them to be unnecessarily censored, manhandled or thrown out just for having a different point of view, even though they are not a member, staff member or student of the university. I am confident that that is properly protected by Article 10. The beauty of Article 10 is that it does not really invite lots of financial damages and therefore does not cause too much of a nightmare for the university. However, now we are talking about a statutory tort and pecuniary damages, so we have to be a little bit careful about whether the point in subsection (3) about
“securing that … the use of any premises … is not denied to any individual or body”
is not too broad in relation to bodies which are not even constituent parts of the university.
I know that the noble Earl’s team have views about that, and I certainly believe that the Government’s intention is that only the people covered by new Section A1(2) get access to the statutory duty. Subsection (3) is not intended by the Government to throw the statutory duty wide open to anybody who is thrown out of a meeting for heckling, et cetera; but I urge caution, because this clause will be read expansively, not least because of the duty in Section 3 of the Human Rights Act to which the noble Earl referred in his earlier remarks. Maybe he will have something to say about that.
Even if every heckler who is ultimately thrown out will not be protected, because subsection (3) is not intended to expand upon subsections (2)(a) to (2)(d), we have quite an issue—that is, quite an expansive category of beneficiaries under “visiting speakers”. I am absolutely clear that to make sense, “visiting speakers” here must mean putative visiting speakers, otherwise there is no point to this paragraph. So many of the stories noble Lords have complained about are about people who could have come, would have come, were invited, were nearly invited but were never quite invited because of the atmosphere there, or were denied. So, I am quite clear in my own mind that in subsection (2)(d), “visiting speakers”, must and will include—and will be found by a court to include—potential, putative speakers.
I put the scenario to the noble Earl last week of the meeting that takes place to discuss the speaking programme. A controversial name is mentioned, and the decision is ultimately made that that person is not to be invited because of fear of controversy. People are tweeting after the meeting, because that is what people on Twitter do—I am not in that category—and we now have potential litigation from the putative speaker, whatever level of controversy they excite.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very important small group of amendments. It seems to me that the previous group was about what the law should say, while this debate has been about is who it is going to apply to. I was struck by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s description of the academic who might suffer. I was thinking back and remembering, and I need to say that I am an emeritus governor of the LSE, but I think I am absolutely not a member of the academic staff there. When I was at the LSE, I attended a whole year of lectures and I fell asleep at every single one, but I do not think that counts with this.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has been very clever in these two groups; his small amendments are exactly how you probe a Bill. I am full of admiration for his ability to do that, and I am grateful. The issue here has been mentioned by most noble Lords, because it is vital in legislation that we define who will be affected by the legislation and in what way. That is why my noble friend Lord Collins added his name to Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. My noble friend Lord Triesman made some very good points, as did the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and others. I think the Minister will need to continue the discussion on this because by now the Bill team and the Minister will realise that there is a lack of clarity here, which provides enormous risks to the effectiveness of this legislation.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this second group of amendments relates to members and academics, as covered by the Bill, but I will also try to address the questions put to me on related issues.
Amendments 4, 37 and 57 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, seek to probe the meaning of the term “members” in the Bill. The term “member” in the sphere of higher education has a specific meaning as a term of art. It includes in particular a member of the governing council of a university and those with certain honorary positions, such as an emeritus professor. Such a person may not be a member of staff of the institution and so needs specific provision in order to be protected under the Bill.
A member does not include a person who simply studies or used to study at the university, though some might use the term in that way. Current students would be covered by the term “students”. It also does not include a recipient of an honorary degree, which is awarded to honour an individual and does not give any academic or professional privilege.
The term “member” is well understood in both legislation and universities. In particular, it is already a category of individuals which is protected under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which sets out the current freedom of speech duties.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
It appears, according to Clause 2, that colleges are constituent parts of universities and are therefore brought into this Bill. Given that Oxbridge colleges refer to people as members, would it be possible for the noble Earl to think about further clarification? While I understand the general point that “members” might have a clear definition, it is not clear in the Bill as currently framed.
Earl Howe (Con)
I would be happy to take this away and investigate. Once I have done so, I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
I would be grateful for that letter as well. I suggest to the noble Earl that one of my experiences of these colleges is that they do not go back and read anything much later than 1650—I do not mean pm—and they probably do not care. If it is has to be clarified, it is much better that it is clarified.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I wanted just to cover another question that the noble Baroness put to me about retired professors. If a retired professor is an emeritus professor, they are protected by the Bill as a member. This is important if they still have a role in the university. If they have no such role, then in practice the provider will not have to take steps to secure their freedom of speech since they will not be speaking on campus or taking part in university life.
I turn to Amendments 22, 26 and 71, which seek to define academic staff for the purpose of the Bill. We have used the term “staff” to broaden the existing reference to “employees” in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, as not all those who work at a provider have an employment contract or employee status. This term is already used in the current definition of academic freedom in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 so is an understood term in this context.
“Staff” includes academics who hold honorary appointments for which they are not paid, for example honorary fellows. PhD students will be considered to be academic staff, for example, in so far as they teach undergraduate students. It will be a question of fact in each case whether they are covered as staff or students. The term covers staff at all levels, whether or not they are full time or part time, permanent or temporary. Visiting staff who are perhaps working at the university for a year are also covered. They must be distinguished from visiting speakers who are academics working at another institution, who are covered by the Bill as visiting speakers, rather than as staff of the provider.
I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and his question about the way in which academic freedom interacts with academic standards. I said earlier that there is nothing in the Bill to encourage baseless or harmful claims or bad science on campus, but it is important to recognise that a provider in this context is an employer, and that its staff will have signed an employment contract and be subject to its employment policies.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
Under the Bill as currently worded, would the emeritus professor at Sussex University—who was not an employee but would have been covered—who was sacked four years ago for saying that 9/11 was an Israeli plot have had the option of suing the university?
Earl Howe (Con)
I do not think it is for the Bill—or indeed the Government—to specify an answer to that question one way or the other. It would depend on the policy of the university as to whether it wished to still regard that person as an emeritus professor if it took exception to what he said. I think that is as far as I can go at the moment, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Mann—
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
So, is the Minister clarifying that there is nothing in the Bill that would prohibit the university from sacking that emeritus professor if the university determined that it was appropriate?
Earl Howe (Con)
Exactly right.
I was making the point that a provider in this context is an employer and that its staff will be subject to its employment policies. Those policies must, of course, take account of the high regard that academic freedom is held in. However, depending on the circumstances, a provider may need to consider factors such as whether it is appropriate for the academic to continue to teach students; whether the academic has met accepted academic standards for their speech; and the ability of the academic to properly represent the provider in terms of its values and the reputation of the department and the provider.
The Bill recognises the nuances of the potentially difficult decisions that will need to be made under it. The “reasonably practicable” test allows for case-by-case decisions to be made, taking account of all the relevant factors.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
Does the noble Earl nevertheless recognise that this is one of the weaknesses in the Bill that is causing consternation in universities: that it appears on the face of it to provide what I might describe as malignant actors—the sort of individuals the noble Lord has just referred to—with several new avenues to cause disruption, difficulties and problems for universities, including potentially launching a specific new tort? Is it not a weakness in the Bill that universities are likely to be subject to malignant activity?
Earl Howe (Con)
With great respect to the noble Lord, I challenge any university to point to a provision in the Bill that changes the duties and responsibilities it has at the moment to take decisions for itself about what constitutes malignant speech, unsound science or whatever it happens to be. The Government are not trying to interfere in any way with the autonomy of universities in that sense.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am really quite surprised, because I hoped that the noble Earl was going to respond to my question, which was based on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, with some magic provision in the Bill or in the parent 1986 Act—if I can put it like that—which ensures that academic standards are specifically protected and held in the balance with the vital freedom of speech. If that is not the case we really do have a problem, because we then have the potential for one of the scientists I described in my hypothetical to sue under the new tort on the basis that they are being dismissed because of their speech and beliefs. The university will say, “No, it’s because of your bad science”, but they could say, “No, it’s because of my speech and beliefs”, and then the university would face costly, lengthy litigation.
Earl Howe (Con)
We always have to come back to what the Bill specifies that a university should do, which is to take reasonably practicable steps. That is governed by the circumstances and facts of the case, which the university will have to weigh up: the pros and the cons, the arguments on either side. That is nothing different from what they do at the moment. In a later group, the ninth, I think, we shall come to the issue of tort and, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I will not cover that now, but I shall cover the questions that she asked me about who exactly we are referring to in subsections (2) and (3) of proposed new Section A1.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I think that, although I shall withdraw this amendment, we are likely to have a form of amendment coming back at Report, unless the Minister manages to pull some sort of rabbit of the hat defining members and other things in a clearer way than is currently in the Bill. But with what, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, sends his apologies for an unforeseen family emergency, so I will formally move Amendment 5 and speak to Amendments 7, 8 and 38 to 41.
Given that these originate with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, noble Lords can be assured that they are pragmatic and constructive amendments that will not necessarily detain the Committee for terribly long. Their aim is simply to make clear that universities should be allowed to move events around the campus without cancelling them, on the grounds that it should be reasonable to move a controversial and possibly noisy event so that it does not occur, for example, next to an exam hall at exam time. It is reasonable to move an event so that it happens on a part of the campus that makes event management easier or so that it does not conflict with other events at the same time.
Some people may argue that these flexibilities might mean the surreptitious or indirect cancelling of events, but other parts of the Bill address this concern. Indeed, to pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made earlier, in fact they may make it easier to invite people and expand the number of speakers invited to campus, knowing that these flexibilities exist. Per the rest of the Bill, universities and student unions would remain liable to sanction if they had in fact cancelled an event, not merely moved it, and the Office for Students would be able to respond to a complaint.
In a nutshell, these practical amendments that we hope the Government might consider as the Bill progresses would simply provide sensible if narrow discretion to universities and student unions to decide where and when events happen.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my Amendment 6 is on the same principle: unintended consequences. The Government would be very foolish not to listen in and to amend the Bill accordingly.
When I was a student leader, I had a range of tactics. With this Bill, I could put those tactics into play very easily. At the moment I go around a huge number of universities in another role; I was at one this morning. A week ago I was at a very prestigious one, in the vice-chancellor’s office. I did a recce in preparation and spotted a meeting room. If I was at that university, or knew someone in a society at that university—such as, let us say, the anarchist society—I would get invited there and, if I wanted to be disruptive, have a rolling meeting. The meeting would simply continue and continue. Some activists and campaigners would do that. They may not glue themselves to the door, because that would be criminal damage and they would be removed, but it would be possible to keep a rolling meeting going. I can recall one that was kept going for six weeks, not in the vice-chancellor’s office but in the registrar’s office. That is possible. I suggest that that would be an unintended consequence of this.
There are also groups that could get themselves invited in with the sole aim of maximising disruption, in order that they get their meeting broken up—in essence, they get thrown out—and then they can sue. This would be, by definition, extremist groups on the fringes. That would be, and has been in the past, a tactic employed. There was a whole period of time when various extremist activists were trying to do this. With this Bill, they would have a perfect opportunity. So this small tweak, giving that flexibility to a university, would have a profound impact.
There is one other good reason. If one wanted to be politically aggressive, when booking a room one could insist that an anti-Israel meeting, to use one example, was located in a room next to a synagogue or the Jewish chaplaincy. That would seem egregious to me. It could be—this happens a lot in the United States at the moment—directly in and among the Jewish student accommodation, the Hillel accommodation, which would be more than egregious. To give universities the flexibility for that bit of common sense, which they apply routinely in these isolated examples, would be a way of stopping those unintended consequences and would help the Government in their objective and their free speech proposals.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I support Amendments 5 to 7 in particular. I shall follow on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, because I had similar concerns about unintended consequences. I wonder whether your Lordships would mind me sharing some rambling thoughts that have come through my mind. I was not going to, but the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to nothing before 1680—I think it was 1680—strengthened me.
In many countries in Europe, today is Reformation Day. I happened to be in Dresden yesterday, where you cannot help but see the statue of Martin Luther, which I was admiring. That is not irrelevant to these discussions. The history of academic freedom in Europe—freedom of expression and of religion—will have different views about the Reformation, but I cannot help celebrating the fact that, 500 years later, the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation said that they agreed over the doctrine of justification by faith, which was the great thing that divided the Churches at that time. As this fascinating debate has continued, I could not help thinking that, if there had not been a suppression of academic freedom at the time, there may not have been that great bust-up, which caused a lot of tearing to society and Church. I simply share that to reinforce that which we are all committed to—academic freedom and freedom of speech—and to recognise that institutions did not always get it right. Certainly, the Church has not.
I have quite a lot of sympathy for what the Bill is trying to achieve and welcome these amendments. The flexibility that they suggest would be very helpful. They work with the grain of the Bill in trying to encourage and enable robust and vigorous discussion and debate, and there are some sensible proposals.
My concern, perhaps slightly similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, was that an unintended consequence could be that spaces designated for pastoral, religious and spiritual needs might find themselves appropriated by bodies that would be offensive to those. I do not imagine that that was necessarily a concern of the noble Lords, Lord Willetts or Lord Stevens. I am really grateful to the Minister and his team for the discussions that I have had with him, particularly those assurances that I have been given that taking such steps as are “reasonably practicable” requires a careful consideration of how other legislation applies here, such as the public sector equality duty or the Prevent legislation. I would be very grateful for any further assurances that the Minister felt able to give.
I welcome that the amendments would provide the flexibility to help providers know that they were not cancelling a particular body because of its beliefs, even though they might be offensive to a particular body, but rather providing another space. I would also be very interested to hear any further assurances the Minister might be able to give on how guidance to the Office for Students on navigating some of these matters might be best given, and what other wisdom or what other bodies might help to advise on that.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, on the point we have just been discussing, is this not a very good example of the kind of matter that could be very conveniently addressed in a code of practice? If the position is that some obviously controversial matter or speaker, whatever it may be, is in the first instance being located in an inappropriate place, this is a very good example of how that could be dealt with in a code of practice. We do not actually need primary legislation for this purpose.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to yet another amendment from my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I was reminded by the comments of the right reverend Prelate that I speak as a Catholic, so I am very glad that academic freedom has actually extended to Catholics: we were eventually emancipated and are now able fully to participate.
Amendment 24, from my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is slightly different from the other amendments in the group. It would omit lines 30 to lines 34 on page 2. Again, it is a probing amendment to do with the costs that might fall on the provider. At present, the Bill says that
“the governing body of a registered higher education provider must secure that, apart from in exceptional circumstances, use of its premises by any individual or body is not on terms that require the individual or body to bear some or all of the costs of security relating to their use of the premises.”
How far are universities or, indeed, student unions expected to cover the cost of security? Do the Government think there is a limit to those costs? How do they view “exceptional circumstances”? Some clarification is needed on the expectations here, because although moving venues might be relatively straightforward and incur but a small cost for the education providers, providing security could prove prohibitive, certainly for student bodies. That then raises the question: if we are trying to enhance academic freedom but are then imposing costs on the providers, is there not a tension there? Have the Government thought this through?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, very briefly, and to speak to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to which, as the noble Baroness noted, I attached my name. I guess this comes from personal experience, because as leader of the Green Party I only once had security guards shadowing my every move. That was at the 2015 general election on a visit to Exeter University. Our very new, very young Young Greens were suddenly told that they had to arrange security and had to find the money to do so. I think the reason may have had something more to do with the fact that, the previous week, Nigel Farage had visited the university under the same circumstances and the university felt that it had to apply the same rules to both. That is how the situation arose, but I am none the less acutely aware that that was a considerable impediment.
If the cost of security is laid on student bodies particularly, that may stop an event going forward. However, I admit some sympathy also with the earlier intervention in this group asking whether this is really the sort of level of detail the House of Lords should be debating, which goes back to the whole question about the Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome these amendments, because they probe the practical implications of these clauses. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, raised the point about the code of practice, and I was going to ask the Minister exactly how the code of practice in new Section A2 would cover the circumstances in relation to these amendments.
At the end of the day, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says, organising meetings has all kinds of implications for universities and colleges. Health and safety is a critical issue for the organisation of meetings, and the timing of meetings has employment issues, relating to staff and things like that. There is a whole range of practical issues that could result in having to say to the organisers of a meeting that they cannot have their meeting on that day or in that place.
The Minister may say that the code of practice referred to in new Section A2 talks about the procedures to be followed in connection with the organisation of meetings to be held on the provider’s premises. I want to know about the status of the code of practice and how the office of free speech will look at it. Are we going to end up with universities producing a code which fits all their requirements—health and safety requirements, employment law conditions, staffing issues, security issues and so on—then being tied up with people challenging it through the complaints process, saying, “They said that thing about health and safety as an excuse to ban us having a meeting on the premises.” I have heard it before. I have heard people say, “What has health and safety got to do with it?” or “Why should a maintenance staff member tell us to get out at 8 o’clock when I want to continue this speech and have this meeting?” There are practical implications.
How does a university know that the code of practice it adopts according to new Section A2 will meet the requirements? Will draft codes be circulated? What sort of advice and guidance will universities get—or are the Government simply going to say that this is all about what is reasonably practicable? I have heard those words many times in different contexts, particularly in terms of employment law and conditions. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on these probing amendments. Universities are independent bodies and should be able to manage their own organisation without the interference of outside bodies. I think this is a step too far.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the group of amendments to Clauses 1 and 3 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Willetts and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, seek to give higher education providers and student unions the flexibility to move events to alternative premises but not cancel them. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has also tabled Amendment 6 to the provisions concerning premises.
Under the Bill as drafted, providers, colleges and student unions will already be free to move events to alternative rooms, should that be appropriate. The main duty of taking reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech is linked to the provisions that are the subject of these amendments—those in proposed new Section A1(3). This means that the duty is to take reasonably practicable steps to secure that the use of premises, and the terms on which such use is offered, are not based on the ideas, beliefs or views of individuals or groups. The duty to take reasonably practicable steps therefore means that there is already flexibility.
In any event, a provider, college or students’ union is not required under the Bill to allow the use of their premises at all times and in an unlimited way. It is open to them to offer particular rooms for use by event organisers at specified times. As regards Amendment 6, Section A1(3)(a) refers to “any premises” but could refer to “premises” without changing the effect. It should also be noted that the relevant body can place conditions on the use of rooms.
In this context, it might be helpful to touch specifically on the point raised at Second Reading by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry regarding concerns about the use of faith spaces. I was very happy to meet him some days ago to discuss this. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, of having an anti-Israel talk right next to Jewish premises, touches on a similar point. Sections A1(3) and (4) on the use of premises essentially replicate the wording of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, referring to beliefs among other things in that context. As I said earlier, the provisions link back to the main reasonably practicable duty in subsection (1), so it is not an absolute requirement. I think that was an initial cause for concern on this point, so I am happy to clarify that. In fact, the “reasonably practicable” steps wording enables providers to continue to designate spaces for use by faith groups without any obligation for the provider to open those spaces up to other groups, whether or not they have conflicting ideologies.
Under the reasonably practicable steps duty, it would be legitimate for a provider not to offer a particular faith space to any group that wants to hold an event, but to offer another suitable space, thereby upholding the freedom of speech duties and preserving the integrity of the space set aside for the faith group. The legislation enables providers to respect the religious views of those with designated rooms, taking into account the duties under the Equality Act, while still complying with the freedom of speech duties. To pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, we anticipate that the Office for Students will publish guidance for providers on how to comply with the duties. We can certainly discuss this with the Office for Students to ensure that it covers this issue, which I hope will provide noble Lords with further reassurance.
I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that providers are already required under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to have a code of practice regarding freedom of speech. The Bill strengthens that requirement. Providers will now need to include a statement of values in their codes of practice that clearly sets out the importance of freedom of speech. Providers should be setting the tone and expectations campus-wide so that everyone is confident to express their lawful views and challenge received wisdom, even if their views are unpopular. Codes of practice will also need to set out the criteria that providers will use to make decisions about the use of their premises for events involving potentially controversial views, as well add the criteria for when exceptional circumstances may apply regarding the payment of security costs. The Bill strengthens the duty on providers already set out in the Education Act 1994 so that all students, not just those who are members of student unions, are made aware of the duties and the code. Once again, the Office for Students will give guidance on this.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
I want to go back to the noble Earl’s point on security costs. I would like to understand a little more what that might involve. My own experience, probably not wholly appropriate, comes from football. Inside many football stadia, including quite small ones, the clubs provide stewards. Sometimes, certainly outside, the police provide security, and sometimes, if it is called for, they also provide it inside. There is a huge argument about who should bear the cost of the police providing security, since it has an often quite considerable impact. In the event that internally provided security, whoever pays for it, is not adequate to the circumstances and the police are called in, who becomes responsible for the costs?
Earl Howe (Con)
Amendments 24 and 43, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, exactly address that set of issues, and I was about to comment on them. They concern the duty to generally bear the security costs for events. Understandably, the amendments probe how the costs of the provision of security for controversial meetings should be distributed among appropriate bodies. The duty on higher education providers, colleges and student unions is that they must not pass on some or all of the security costs to event organisers unless there are exceptional circumstances. The criteria for what are exceptional circumstances will depend on the nature of the particular body, and therefore must be set out in its code of practice, for the sake of transparency.
This element of the Bill is exceptionally important. We know that certain minority groups face serious security concerns when speaking on university campuses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out. My right honourable friend the Minister spoke in the other place about the University of Bristol students’ union imposing a £500 security bill on a student society in order to allow the Israeli ambassador to give a talk. This is simply not right. The cost of securing events should not stand in the way of people having a voice. The Bill as currently drafted protects these groups while also giving autonomy to providers, colleges and student unions to make their own decisions about what constitute exceptional circumstances. This drafting reflects that their resources are not finite and that there may be other relevant factors specific to that institution that will need to be taken into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about exceptional circumstances and when costs can be passed on. We believe it is important that providers, colleges and student unions have the right to determine what constitutes an exceptional circumstance when considering who should pay for security costs of an event, taking into account, in particular, what is reasonable given their resources and other relevant factors. It is also important that the criteria they use are transparent, so that student societies are aware of them when they are planning an event. If costs are passed on to a student society and it considers that the criteria have been wrongly applied, it will be able to complain to the OfS under the new complaints scheme. Once again, we anticipate that the OfS will publish guidance on the content of codes of practice, including on security costs.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
When the police decide to intervene, it is often not because a host organisation decides that they should or invites them to. They make a judgment, as constables, as to what would constitute a way of securing a peaceful circumstance for the event or for the premises. Nobody knows that it is going to happen unless they decide to do it, and nobody decides who is going to pay for it in advance, but happen it does, and arguments about who should then pay for it occur. How would a code of practice deal with that?
Earl Howe (Con)
I am not sure I accept the noble Lord’s argument. If an event is properly planned—which it should be, particularly if it is sensitive or controversial—its security implications should surely be considered in advance. If it involves a police presence, that consideration should surely encompass the cost of that police presence. It would be a very remiss institution that did not look at the effects and requirements of the event in the round before it happened.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
If I may respectfully say so, that is a terribly important point. It is obviously critical that people give careful consideration in advance as to whether they are going to invite a particular speaker, or whoever it may be, to come along and speak. I made a note of what I regard as a rather important observation the Minister made a little earlier this evening; he said that there is no right to a platform. That is a very important point. If I may say so, it would be helpful to record that point in the code of practice in due course, because if at the outset the relevant university organisation can anticipate a problem, one way of resolving that problem, including the cost question, is simply to say, “There is no right to a platform and we are not going to invite this person to speak”. That also involves necessarily the proposition that each of the university institutions has a very good processing place for room booking and matters of that kind. That is a very important point. I respectfully suggest that the code of practice should emphasise the importance of that discretionary power, which would not give rise to any liability or obligation on the institution under the Bill, if and when it becomes legislation, and that institutions are free to say no from the outset.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord; I will certainly take that point away and make sure that it is noted.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, could the Minister clarify how the Government envisage the duties in the legislation we are debating today and the Prevent duties? There is already a whole set of pieces of paper and so on that organisers of events in higher education institutions are required to fill in. Are we expecting additional work and additional documents, or would the same set of paperwork work for this legislation as well as for Prevent?
Earl Howe (Con)
We are coming later on to a group of amendments that could well encompass the noble Baroness’s question about the Prevent duty, but my answer to her now is that the planning of an event involves a number of considerations: the security costs; whether it impacts in any way on the Prevent duty; whether it impacts in any way on the public sector equality duty; and so on and so forth. This is a set of issues relating to an event that might be considered controversial that will need to be looked at altogether in the round. I cannot say whether there will be a separate set of papers, but if I receive advice on that point, I will certainly write to the noble Baroness.
To conclude, we want these provisions to offer a safeguard to groups that might come under serious security pressures, while also giving providers, colleges and student unions the independence that they need. I hope I have reassured noble Lords on these issues and sufficiently addressed the concerns raised.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
In not moving the amendment, I just say to the Government that sometimes, in government and politics, simplicity is best. If the word “any” stays in the Bill, people will read that and it will create additional conflict in advance for universities. I hope the Ministers will take that away and consider it.
Lord Sandhurst
“(5) A provider must—(a) take the steps set out at subsection (1) to secure the academic freedom of—(i) academic staff, and(ii) visiting speakers who are academic staff of any other higher education institution; and(b) not subject any member of academic staff to any detriment (including dismissal) through any act, or deliberate failure to act, done on any ground that the member of academic staff has exercised his or her academic freedom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend academic freedom protection to academic visiting speakers, and to forbid outright any punishment of academics for lawful exercise of academic freedom.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the importance of this amendment is to put the duties towards academic freedom on a rather different basis from those currently in the Bill. New Section A1(5) says:
“The objective in subsection (2), so far as relating to academic staff, includes securing their academic freedom.”
We want to secure their academic freedom, but that is—via new subsection (2) and then back to new subsection (1)—on a “reasonably practicable” basis, so it is not an absolute duty.
The effect of the amendment is, first, that:
“A provider must … take the steps set out at subsection (1)”—
which is a “reasonably practicable” duty—
“to secure the academic freedom of … academic staff, and … visiting speakers”.
That will remain on a “reasonably practicable” basis. But secondly, under proposed new paragraph (b), the amendment would
“not subject any member of academic staff to any detriment (including dismissal)”
and so on, and is subject to the “must” clause because it does not link back to new subsection (1).
The important essence of this amendment is to impose an absolute, rather than a “reasonably practicable”, duty not to dismiss or punish an academic for exercising his or her academic freedom. Without this amendment and this change to the structure, a provider could argue that continuing to employ an academic who has stirred things up and who is unpopular with activists would be impracticable. That would be particularly relevant, for example, where an academic is conducting or has conducted a line of research that is socially or politically sensitive so far as the end product is concerned, and where that research perhaps upsets existing social norms as well as academic norms. In the field of science, for example, one can think of genetics, sex, race or psychology. It can also be in political contexts.
Let us assume it is completely bona fide scientific research but of a novel line that has discovered things that upset people dramatically. There is then an uproar, and the university just says, “This is all too difficult—I’m afraid Dr X has to go”—and, actually, Dr X has been doing proper research subject to all the norms of academic freedom.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
Looking at proposed new subsection 5(a)(ii), I do not really understand why the noble Lord wishes to confine this to
“academic staff of any other higher education institution”.
A visiting speaker may not fall within that definition, but is nevertheless a person who in principle should be protected and allowed to speak, and have freedom of expression. I do not really understand why it is restricted in that way.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
What we are concerned with in particular is people losing their employment, but I am happy to go further.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to introduce Amendment 14. It touches on the kinds of concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has just raised and it is, in my estimation, a kind of partner clause that I want to explore with your Lordships to the one introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, at the very beginning.
One of the arguments I have tried to advocate to the Grand Committee is that, if this is to work at all, it must be felt to be under the ownership of the university and higher education world. For people to address a cultural problem, they need to get to grips with it. It is not about just processes and techniques—it is to do with very fundamental feelings. However many times references to academic freedom are made, if they are not made in a way which aligns with how the academic world and the academic community understand the meaning of those words, it is unlikely to take root and will not have that cultural impact.
That is why I have raised the question, which was also raised earlier by my noble friend Lord Collins, of the UNESCO normative instrument. This was a worldwide UNESCO conference, which adopted a worldwide definition of academic freedom which had been promoted by the academic world, the very people we are trying to address, as a definition to which they could all assent and which they would all defend. I make that point because, if we are to achieve success in this, we certainly want them to adhere to it and defend it.
The work was invited by UNESCO of a body that at that time I had the great honour to chair, which was the Association of Commonwealth Universities, an association of universities literally throughout the Commonwealth. It was drafted—some bits have been cited by my noble friend Lord Collins already—in the United Kingdom and Canada, and went through a very long process to try to make sure that this was the definition of academic freedom which the world of academics would feel was theirs.
If we had gone to UNESCO slightly earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, would have been the Minister. If it had been slightly later, it would have been the noble Lord, Lord Henley. As it happens, it was just after the general election of 1997 and, as a consequence, it was a Labour Minister who spoke to it. I make that point because there was never a cigarette paper—I know nothing about cigarettes, but the Committee will bear with me—of ideological difference between us about this. There were some differences around the world about it, and one or two nations—only one or two—declined to sign it, much to the annoyance of the rest of us. Saudi Arabia declined on the grounds that it covered women academics as well, and it did not accept that anything should be a right or privilege for women academics—no rights to academic freedom whatever. If we had included a clause restricting it to male academics, Saudi Arabia would probably have signed it as well. I just make the point that this was as close to universal as you could get in academic life where, believe me, getting universal agreement is very close to impossible.
The merit of that is that it provides us with a definition of academic freedom. It may be said that there are other definitions, but this provides us with one that the academic world itself formulated, adopted, approved and, with the exception of people who did not want women to be covered by it, was accepted by everybody. I should probably add that Qatar did not like it either for the same reason, but none the less, all the rest of us did. I commend it to the Government because, if the Bill is to become law—we have expressed our anxieties about whether it is the best way forward, but it may very well do; it is government-backed legislation, after all—I appeal to them to try to ensure it brings along everyone, because short of that, its prospects in practice are very poor.
That is why I provided a small history. As it turns out, it was engendered in the Commonwealth, in institutions with which we are probably all very familiar, against the background of a set of values with which we are all familiar and opposed only by people who, if I may say so without being unnecessarily unkind, do not share some of those values at all. Aside from having the assent of the academic world and being still referred to and related to by it, it establishes in a way we would all want that if people want to get up within the law to make controversial, difficult, unpopular or any other kinds of propositions and speeches in the academic world, it is a global right to do so, signed off by the first signatory to it, the United Kingdom.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I shall speak to Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, to which I have put my name. The amendment strenuously argues that the Bill needs to make it explicit that expressing opinions about any registered HE provider, including opinions on its “curriculum, governance, affiliations”, “teaching” and so on, will be protected by the Bill. Specifically, I want to look at a new challenge to academic freedom in relation to institutional values.
I do not know whether noble Lords saw a remarkable interview over the weekend with a couple of women, Carole Sherwood and Amy Gallagher from the Tavistock clinic. For once, this is not in relation to the gender issue and the Tavistock. One of the women had refused to accept as fact a critical race theory definition of racism as white privilege. Remarkably, the people who were teaching her in front of classes said that she would be denied her psychotherapy qualification because her views were not in line with the Tavistock’s values.
This is becoming a clearer problem that we face, because universities, or their HR and management, are signing up to third-party bodies, which then sign the universities up to values and priorities that might well be at odds with the views of academic staff. Obviously, the infamous example is Stonewall’s diversity champions scheme, but more recently it has come to light that Advance HE’s race equality charter is having the same impact. That charges universities a fee to provide advice and training to audit the university’s anti-racism strategies, themselves formulated around Advance HE’s guidance—you can get bronze and silver certificates and so on along the way. Advance HE encourages universities to highlight their race equality scores in their marketing. Arif Ahmed, lecturer at Cambridge, who has been quoted a lot today, thinks that the charter encourages what he says is virtue signalling competition between universities. I give credit to Dr Jim Butcher from Canterbury Christ Church University in Kent and the campaign group Don’t Divide Us for bringing this to light.
Obviously, we can assume that 99.9% of students and lecturers consider themselves to be anti-racist. The problem is that regardless, this is a very particular version of what constitutes anti-racism. Advance HE’s training argues that the curriculum has been corrupted by western ways of knowing; that our attitudes are shaped by whiteness. It is a version of critical race theory that says that inequality persists even in the context of formal equal rights. That is fair enough, but when it asks that question it gives some at least contentious answers, such as that unequal treatment is a product of white supremacy.
Of course academics and students should be free to hold any of those views—I am not one of those who think that critical race theory should be banned from the university, especially in the context of being a champion of academic freedom—but the problem is that when universities give CRT explicit institutional backing, that means that any academic who doubts the salience of white privilege theories or disagrees with the demand, for example, to decolonise the curriculum not only is arguing against a body of thought but ends up arguing against their employer, which puts them in a very difficult position. We have to be very clear that one should be able to argue against one’s employer or these theories, and we should not be in a situation where somebody is denied a qualification on the basis of the values of the university, which is imposed from the top down and which one is not allowed to query.
I also want to mention some qualms I have about Amendments 15 and 16, which have not been argued for. They attempt to hem in a definition of academic freedom into areas of expertise and professional responsibilities. In particular, Amendment 16 wants to remove
“and controversial or unpopular opinions”
because, as it says in the notes, they have no roots “based on evidence”. I query that, because it is very important that we have a sense of academic freedom here that is much broader than the narrow confines of one’s academic expertise. Actually, the Government did listen on this: I think they had “professional expertise” in and they have taken it out. I do not want to see it being brought back in.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, because I think Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, gives us a very interesting, powerful and effective way forward. Like the noble Lord, I retain concerns about whether the Bill should be going forward at all, but if it is going to, to use a long-accepted international definition seems to take us somewhat in the right direction.
The stress in that UNESCO document on freedom from institutional censorship brings up some very powerful examples. I thought of some of our universities which have, I am afraid, accepted large sums of money from very dubious state bodies from around the world, where some academics have perhaps found themselves under pressure not to produce research or make comments critical of those authoritarian regimes. I also very much thought of a whole series of papers I have just looked at, all published in 2018, in the International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, the American Journal of Industrial Medicine and the Journal of Public Health Policy, all of which address Monsanto’s influence on academic research and publication around the pesticide glyphosate, and all of which were published by different authors—none of the authors’ names are shared. For example, one paper revealed that Monsanto sponsored the ghost-writing of articles in toxicology journals and interference in the peer review process.
I retain all those concerns, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, may have found us a very useful potential way forward here.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Wallace’s amendments here speak directly to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. My noble friend’s Amendment 13 states:
“Page 2, line 12, after ‘wisdom’ insert ‘within all fields covered by their professional responsibilities’”.
That could be taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as a way of narrowing the legislation again. It is really intended, if not quite as probing, to try to understand the Government’s understanding, in this legislation, between academic freedom and freedom of speech for academics. Is it to be only within the confines of their own discipline, or is it to be anything within the academic sphere? The parallels are in other professions, where people might have their own standards, so Amendment 13 is to try to understand—
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
Sorry, Amendment 15. This just demonstrates that the profession I need to go to is my optician, which kindly cancelled my appointment.
Amendment 15 is very much to think about to what extent this is about particular academic standards. I suggest that it is in effect probing, although my noble friend does not say that.
The next amendment, which I think we all take as being Amendment 16, is to omit
“and controversial or unpopular opinions”.
This is not necessarily to say that these things should not be there, but in the debate on an earlier group of amendments the Minister pointed out that beliefs and views are not the same and that beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. But then there is the question of where we put unpopular opinions. They are not beliefs. Are they views? Should they be in there? My noble friend’s question here is about whether we should expect academics to put forward views based on evidence. Here the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has a point, because while we would expect to look for evidence, at some point in the intellectual journey you might be looking for evidence and not yet have found it—but presumably we would want the views that academics espouse to be at least based on something that goes beyond the whole QAnon idea of fake news and invented facts. Do the Government have a view on that?
In Amendment 20, my noble friend is again concerned about practicality. To what extent should the Government expect to be involved, or expect the law to be involved, in the way higher education institutions are engaging in promotion and looking at the way people are appointed within higher education institutions? We are not necessarily suggesting in any way that people’s jobs should be put at stake, or indeed that they should not be promoted, but this is a probing amendment to understand how far this legislation is intended to go.
Finally, I suspect the last word from me today is on Amendment 23, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Again, to what extent can the Government and the law be involved? What is the Government’s intention here? How far do they intend to interfere further in higher education institutions?
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, around Amendment 15. I was quite pleased when the Government removed this language at an earlier stage of the Bill’s proceedings. I have concerns about it on a number of levels, but I shall focus on just two of them.
First, I think it would be potentially a big brake on the development of greater interdisciplinarity in academia. The ability of people to work across disciplines is vital to our ability to make progress on some of our biggest challenges as a society, climate change among them but far from the only one. Requiring academics in effect to stay in their lane would be a big brake on that and stop a lot of creative thinking. Research suggests that at the moment the most impactful science is happening at the margins of disciplines, when people take the courage to work with their peers in other disciplines and to think about the shared learnings and transferable skills they take from one academic discipline into another. If the Bill inadvertently sent out a message that this was epistemic trespass, it would be very bad for the quality of our science.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
Sorry, it is me again, but this is me as myself. Can the noble Lord explain why it is different for academics working at the margins of their fields but not experts in other fields, whose rights will not be protected by the Bill but who might also be contributing meaningfully to further research and pushing the boundaries of knowledge?
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
I think there is a marketplace in ideas—maybe I am not answering the noble Baroness’s question as she might like. Good ideas stand the test of time, they get picked up by other academics, they get cited, and that whole process of establishing which ideas are good and which are not is pretty effective and works well. The charlatans, the snake oil peddlers and the bullshit artists find that their ideas will not get repeated endlessly and established in the canon of good academic practice.
My second reason for questioning whether it will be sensible to reintroduce this language into the Bill is that I simply do not think it is practicable in any meaningful way. Who is to police the boundaries of someone’s academic expertise? Who is to stand in judgment and say, “You’re qualified to have an opinion”—unpopular or controversial—on a particular subject? I simply do not see that as viable, so I am very hopeful that the Government will not relent and let it back in.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I apologise to the Committee because I was unable to be here for Second Reading, so I come a little late to it. Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, because I share his views on Amendments 15 and 16, but I will also speak in opposition to Amendment 17. He is quite right to say that they would diminish academic freedom. I refer particularly to the humanities and social sciences, although I think he was referring to “the sciences”. It is frequently the case that over a 45 or 50-year academic career someone will follow a particular discipline for, let us say, a decade or two, and then find themselves, as science and research continue, to have something to say about something else and to shift.
For example, somebody mentioned an international relations scholar—I am married to one—moving into historical research. It would dampen and diminish academic freedom, rather than enhancing it, so I certainly oppose Amendment 15 on those grounds. There is one other ground. I think that this year we are coming out of the 50th anniversary of Thomas Kuhn’s work on paradigm shifts, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. That provides all the evidence we need that discovery does not move in a linear fashion. It does not have an end goal that you can arrive at. Ideas change, shift and adapt, and that is how new paradigms come about. I do not want the Minister to give way on those grounds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also wanted to know from the Government about beliefs and opinions and where the boundary lies. I suggest that the boundary lies in a tribunal in interpreting whether beliefs or opinions can be deemed to be protected characteristics. Because I have touched on protected characteristics, perhaps I need to declare that I chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission—to get that on the record—although I am speaking to the amendments in a personal capacity.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I completely understand the noble Baroness’s point about terms and conditions. That is perfectly reasonable in terms of employment law, but what we are talking about here is the danger of the phrase “bringing an institution into disrepute”, which has been used by universities when people are accused of being, for example, transphobic. First, “disrepute”, in one of the amendments, is a very slippery word, as somebody said. Secondly, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that a lot of the new ways that universities are operating were never part of the terms and conditions that somebody signed up for, and academic freedom is something that you might expect of a university.
There has been a lot of talk about Oxford and Cambridge. Would a Cambridge academic not be able to criticise Cambridge University for its failure to, for example, maintain academic freedom? Is the noble Baroness suggesting that that would breach their terms and conditions, that it is egregious and that they should not be allowed to do that? It seems to me that that kind of freedom to criticise is very important.
Many years ago, I fought a strike and won, where they tried to impose on a further education college that we would never criticise what was happening in the college. It was seen then as an attack on our freedom to talk openly about education. Suggesting that if you are an academic you are going to go out and slander the college is completely different from what we are really talking about here, which is the open ability to be able to criticise when you are being clamped down on, often in free speech terms.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I shall just deal with that. I am aware of very vigorous debate at Cambridge University, but I am not aware of the university having fired an academic for standing to defend free speech. In fact, most of the arguments at Cambridge currently are about academics who are standing up and saying to the former vice-chancellor that the current vice-chancellor is going to go and spend more time with his family and that they have had enough of him, more or less.
To my mind, the Bill could have been written in three pages. It almost goes into micromanagement of higher education institutions—autonomous institutions, we have to remember. To my mind, it makes a bit of a meal of a problem that I completely accept exists but could have been addressed in a slightly more constrained fashion. All the debates I have heard, and I read the Second Reading debate, had more and more people wanting to hang baubles on to the Bill to essentially make higher education institutions non-autonomous and to put them into a straitjacket whereby there will be a deeper constraint on free speech.
We will come to Clause 4 next time, on Wednesday or whenever, and we can talk about that then. It is a relatively good and carefully drafted Bill. We run the danger of adding so much to it—and it comes, as I said, on the back of several previous higher education Acts—that we will end up with the opposite of what we wish to see.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Falkner of Margravine, and my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone in opposing Amendment 15. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, referred to the 50th anniversary of a seminal book. I think it would be odd if we got through a debate on universities without referring to the fact that it is roughly 170 years since Cardinal Newman published his lectures, known as The Idea of a University, probably the first attempt in the 19th century to define what a university looked like and what it was for. I have a familiarity with every single line of that book because, when I was a schoolboy, I proofread the standard current Oxford authoritative edition for its editor, Father Ian Ker. Indeed, a very minute examination of the acknowledgements would reveal that to be the case.
We are discussing this in a very modern way, but there are two things we can take away from Newman that really are very important and relevant to this amendment. The first is that the word “university” implies universal; that is, there are no bounds on the fields of inquiry to which a university can go. The second is that, for Newman, this is a collective endeavour. We are discussing this as if the advancement of knowledge was to be followed only by individuals with specific expertise in certain areas, and as if the sharing and communication of knowledge among them—be it through papers, through social engagement or simply through having dinner together and discussing things—was not a crucial part of that endeavour. I simply urge those two points at this stage. It seems to me that Amendment 15 is wholly misconceived as to how knowledge is advanced and what a university actually is and should be.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 15 and 16 were probing amendments, so I do not think my noble friend Lord Wallace will be totally mortified to discover that the entire Committee is not in favour of them.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
First, I apologise for not attending Second Reading; I could not be here. I shall speak very briefly against Amendment 16 because I think it is very dangerous to leave out “controversial or unpopular opinions”. Newton had a particularly controversial opinion, Einstein too, and Galileo’s opinion on Copernican heliocentrism, which for you and I is the earth rotating daily and revolving around the sun, was met with opposition by the Catholic Church; he was tried under the Roman Inquisition in 1615 and spent the rest of his life in house arrest. To suggest that we remove the words “controversial or unpopular opinions” is, I think, very dangerous.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendments 17, 18, 19 and 21. We have already debated Amendment 17 at some length. I hope that Amendments 18, 19 and 21 are uncontroversial; I merely hope to tighten up and future-proof for anything that comes in the future. I believe that they address some concerns raised in an earlier group by the noble Lords, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Triesman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and I hope they prove agreeable.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I briefly say that I think the noble Earl has three things he needs to address in this group of amendments. The first is academic freedom, which has been referred to before. My noble friend Lord Triesman has brought to the Committee an amendment that deserves consideration, because I think it helps us. The second issue has created quite a discussion—what is the interface between the terms and conditions, the values and employment of an academic and their speech? I am not going to comment on that, frankly; the noble Earl is going to have to tell us what the Government think about that. The third issue, of course, is whether the other issues raised in this group affect the practicality and appropriateness of universities’ appointment procedures. I am not sure at all that that is the case. Those are the three issues I think the noble Earl will have to address, probably the next time the Committee meets.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Soames of Fletching
Introduction: Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
Estonia: UK Troop Levels
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s troop levels in Estonia.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has worked in close partnership with Estonia to ensure that our force posture is correctly calibrated for the current security climate. We will continue to collaborate with Estonia on an enduring basis to implement the commitments offered by the UK at the NATO Madrid summit, and to ensure that our troop levels are commensurate with Estonia’s NATO security needs. The implementation of our summit commitments will increase the overall capability of our forces in Estonia.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the number of UK troops in Estonia is being halved? Estonia is a key NATO ally, on the front line of NATO and its border with Russia. Therefore, is it any wonder that the Estonian Government are extremely disappointed with us, with their Foreign Minister telling our media that this is an issue of existential security for Estonia? As we are a senior member of NATO, and given Estonia’s need for and call for existing UK troop levels to be maintained, is it not time for a rethink, given that Estonia’s security is our security?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that the second battle group currently deployed was always designed to be temporary. It was placed there at the start of the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The noble Lord will also be aware that we are enhancing the lethality of the permanent EFP battle group, so we will maintain divisional level assets in country, we will augment these with episodic deployments of battle-winning capabilities, we are enhancing our EFP HQ, which will be led by a brigadier, and we are committed to the development of Estonian national divisional C2. So the overall commitment by the UK is being enhanced and strengthened.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, it was reported last week that Russia had carried out simulated nuclear drills. Do our troops in Estonia have NBC protective clothing and equipment available to them? In the event of the use of a Russian nuclear weapon, has NATO spelled out specific retaliatory actions and do any of them involve the use of British military personnel?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that the attitude of NATO, and of the United Kingdom and our allies, is to invite Russia to de-escalate this rhetoric. Frankly, it will be destabilising and unhelpful if it continues to be intensified. The noble Lord will also be aware that, in connection with our overall commitments to NATO and the contribution we make not just to the enhanced forward presence but to equipment and personnel support, we will ensure that our troops are equipped appropriately for whatever task might confront them.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has a long-standing relationship in defence in that region, particularly with Norway. Will we co-operate with our Nordic and Baltic partners to make it quite clear to Russia that any incursion in any of the Baltic states is unacceptable, and that part of that must be to keep a substantial military presence in the Baltic states, which of course include Estonia, where we have a particular interest?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that we work closely with our friends in the Baltics, not least in Norway and Sweden and with our other presence in that area. He will be aware that, with our NATO commitments, we are very much committed to having a mobile and enhanced lethality in the area. As I said to the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches, that is designed to ensure that, whatever threat confronts us, we are able to play our part in seeing it off.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, we have every reason to support Estonia, having helped it regain its independence in 1922. However, is not Estonia’s immediate, real problem that it is being bombarded every hour of every day by Russian cyberattacks and fake attacks which aim to undermine and demoralise the whole country? Can the Minister assure us that this kind of defence—which, in the modern world, is probably the most important of all—is being thoroughly reinforced by us to enable Estonia to withstand Russian undermining?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
That is a indeed a very important component of the threat that we face. My noble friend will be aware that assisting countries to deal with cyberattacks is, again, part of our contribution to our UK and NATO commitments.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Britain has won a lot of credit in northern Europe by the commitment that we have made to Estonia? This is a very important part of our NATO commitment and in the modern Baltic states, in Poland and in the Nordic countries, this has been noted. Does she agree that it is not good optics for the UK to so drastically cut the level of its force commitment to Estonia? It is very positive that Sweden and Finland are joining NATO, but does she not agree that there is a risk that they may, in time, take over the lead in this area of commitment to defence?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The intention of Sweden and Finland to join NATO is very welcome. Anything that cements the co-ordination and collaboration of countries with like-minded principles and values in the Baltic area is to be welcomed. Our future force posture in Estonia currently comprises 994 UK personnel, but it will rise to 1,020 when the battle group rotates in March. That is in addition to the enhanced details of capability that I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, is there not at least a case to maintain the current numbers until the NATO divisional headquarters is fully operational next year?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will understand that, were we to retain that second battle group in Estonia, it would require significant extra investment and additional temporary winterisation of infrastructure and storage—and, of course, it would have a detrimental operational impact on the overall flexible deployment of the Army. We have a very good relationship with Estonia, as I said earlier. We have a robust and enhanced capability that we are making available to Estonia. I think that is a matter for commendation.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, why does the UK now have the smallest Armed Forces it has had at any point since the Napoleonic wars? Is it really realistic for the UK to play a full role in confronting the threat from Putin’s Russia with Armed Forces of that size?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord will understand, looking back to the integrated review, what became very clear was that the review identified that it is not just numbers we have to talk about but capability, technical advancement and what we equip our Armed Forces with. That now includes sophisticated technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotic activity. There is a whole manner of ways in which we are taking forward our troop presence and the capability of the Army that goes beyond thinking simply in terms of numbers.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has made it clear that the doubling of the battle group in Estonia was a result of the invasion of Ukraine. Now that it has been halved, does this mean that the risk to Estonia has been reduced?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that in the MoD we constantly assess and respond to threat as the character of that threat emerges. What we did at the inception of the illegal invasion of Ukraine was to offer support where there might have been a vulnerability. It is important now, in conjunction with NATO and our other allies in the Baltic area, to work sensibly to collaborate—but nothing in any way diminishes our commitment to support that area.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her well-deserved reappointment as Minister of State in the defence department—even though she is very good at putting me in my place when I am trying to cause trouble. Today I have a very serious question in relation to Lithuania. She will understand the problems with Kaliningrad and Belarus effectively surrounding Lithuania, and the line in between potentially creating problems. Can she tell the House what discussions the UK Government have had with other Governments about what we can do to make sure that Lithuania as well as Estonia is protected?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. I sometimes feel that when he offers polite and complimentary remarks to me I should count my fingers afterwards—but I absolutely take his remarks in the spirit in which they are given, for which I thank him. It is a serious situation, and how we address the threats confronting Lithuania is all part of the overall NATO and UK approach to the Baltic area. We do not in any way seek to underestimate or diminish the threat confronting Lithuania, but I think that with the NATO summit plan that was announced back in the summer of this year, with the commitments being made by the individual NATO partners, not least the United Kingdom, we are offering up a very strong reassurance to the Baltic countries that help is to hand if they need it.
European Political Community
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to use their involvement in the new European Political Community to the advantage of the United Kingdom and for the improvement of relations with its European neighbours.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the UK attended the summit of the European Political Community as an independent sovereign nation, pursuing our national interest and working with our European neighbours on issues that matter to the British people, such as our support for Ukraine, energy and migration. The summit was an opportunity for the UK to lead the European debate through productive exchanges with European leaders, and we will build on this enhanced co-operation with our European neighbours.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for those encouraging remarks and particularly for the attendance of the then Prime Minister at an event that dealt mostly with security and energy matters. Can he elucidate on future programmes for that entity? Do we know precisely what it will be discussing in future? Can he give me an assurance that our current Prime Minister will also attend? Does my noble friend also agree that we should use every opportunity to re-establish and improve our relations both with Europe and with the EU?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is expected—more than expected; it has been agreed—that the next host will be Moldova, followed by Spain, and the former Prime Minister Liz Truss agreed to host the third summit in the UK. Needless to say, we will engage with the hosts as well as with other partners to shape not just the event that we are hosting but those in Moldova and Spain.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it was certainly a significant meeting. I want to ask the Minister two things: first, when will the Government set out to Parliament their aims and principles underlying engagement in this new forum? Secondly, will the Government commit to making a Statement to both Houses following each plenary session?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for the second half of his question, which I will convey to the Government; it is not a commitment that I can make but I imagine that it is something that the Government will want to do. The UK has been clear from the start about the importance of any new European political gathering not duplicating the established work of, for example, NATO, the Council of Europe, the OSCE or the UN. However, the summit was an opportunity for the UK to lead that European debate and deliver on issues that matter for the UK. It is worth pointing out that around a third of the participants at the summit are not members of the European Union. No new structures, institutions or anything of the sort were created; this is a forum for addressing pan-European issues of common interest.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The attendance of the former Prime Minister at the EPC meeting was a welcome surprise. Given that one of the themes was security, as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, can the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to advance co-operation in the foreign and security sphere; for instance, by providing support to EU civil and military missions under the EU’s common security and defence policy?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, there were no formal conclusions from the summit itself but progress was undoubtedly made in a bunch of areas and key priorities for the UK. For example, the former Prime Minister and President Macron issued a joint statement confirming plans to finalise arrangements to proceed with the Sizewell C nuclear power station by the end of the month—to be built, as noble Lords will know, by EDF. There was also agreement to enhance broader civil nuclear co-operation, to conclude a bilateral agreement on illegal migration, and to hold the first bilateral summit since 2018 in France next year.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, on the list that my noble friend just read out, he did not mention the use of interconnectors between the UK and the EU and what would happen in the event of an energy emergency. My understanding is that there is no agreement between the UK and the EU to cover such an eventuality. Was this discussed at the summit and what progress is being made to implement such an agreement?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it will be for BEIS to provide specific details on next steps in relation to this issue but I can confirm that it was discussed. The former Prime Minister pushed for the development of new North Sea hybrid interconnectors to accelerate renewables capacity, among other things, but I am afraid that I will have to leave the outcome to colleagues in BEIS.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I know it feels like some time ago but, at the Conservative Party conference, the Foreign Secretary said:
“We want to find ways of working well with our neighbours and partners … in Europe”.
I am rather disappointed with the Minister’s response; the security situation is incredibly grave and we do need more formal structures to address security. Instead of trading insults and threats to break international law, will the Government consider an EU-UK security pact to complement NATO in light of the security threats that we now face?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK will always do what is in our interests, and our interests are closely aligned with those of our European neighbours. The fact that progress was made at the forum without that forum being owned exclusively by the EU, with the summit being open to other non-EU member countries on the continent—as I said, one-third of the attendees were not members of the European Union—and the fact that no new structures or institutions needed to be created mean that this is exactly the kind of forum that we need, to be able to talk honestly with our friends and to align our response to things such as Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine with one another in our mutual interest.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, both the UK and the EU have said that they want musicians to be able to tour freely. The present situation is particularly damaging to young up-and-coming artists seeking to perform in the EU. Might the UK Government seek to give a lead in improving relationships through unilateral actions, such as setting up a music export office to help to promote UK musicians globally or providing extra funding through a transitional support package, similar to that for fishing, particularly to help younger artists?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Music has been one of the great exports of this country for many decades now. I know that the noble Lord’s comments will be heard loud and clear by colleagues in the appropriate departments.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, what provisions have been made for this new community, which we warmly welcome, to meet in an emergency? Is there to be a small—I stress “small”—secretariat so that these nations, which include so many outside the European Union, can keep closely in touch?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, as I understand it, there are no plans for a formal secretariat. That is not to say that some kind of structure would not be set up on informal basis, but there are no plans for a formal secretariat. I point out to the noble Lord that there are numerous forums—not least NATO and the UN—where countries can meet in the event of emergencies.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the strength of a bilateral relationship is when the participants in that relationship come equally to the table? There is a real benefit from having parliamentarians engaging first-hand with colleagues around the EU, as indeed with the Commission, just to help out the overall form of camaraderie and get things moving.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Viscount makes an important point. That is true across all issues in all sectors. One of the most valuable organisations that I have been involved in is called GLOBE. It is about bringing legislators together from around the world to compare, and sometimes helpfully compete with one another in relation to, environmental legislation. That worked beautifully, and no doubt it works in every important sector.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, is not the overwhelming evidence of anyone involved in public life that if something starts out with a small secretariat, it nearly always ends up being a big secretariat?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the participants, including the host country, are very clear that no new structures or institutions are to be created. That is absolutely not the purpose. There is a healthy scepticism towards the creation of such structures, precisely on the basis that they could end up duplicating the work of other such structures or even undermining it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given the suspected sabotage of the underground cables and communication pipes outside the island of Bornholm, affecting the supply of energy to Denmark and Sweden, what precautions are the Government taking to protect not just our interconnectors but all our underground cables, which are vital to our communications system in this country?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I mentioned in response to a question from another noble Lord that discussions around the interconnectors took place, but I am afraid I am not in a position to provide an authoritative update. I will make sure that such an update is made available if that is possible.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will recall the reply that he gave to the debate in your Lordships’ House in July about the blockading of the terminals in Ukraine, preventing grain flowing to the Horn of Africa and other poorer countries. He will have seen over the weekend that more than 200 vessels have been held in those ports, as Putin has now said that the blockade will recommence. Given that Turkey participated in the important summit in Prague, what discussions are we having with that country to ensure that the flow of grain will continue?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, those discussions with Turkey are ongoing, and they are key. As the noble Lord will know, Turkey, as an important NATO ally, played an important role in negotiating the Black Sea grain initiative that has enabled the export of over 8 million tonnes of grain and other foodstuffs through Ukraine’s Black Sea ports since 1 August. Those discussions continue with urgency, and they matter.
Incomes and Prices
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Hendy
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps, if any, they are taking to ensure that incomes keep up with prices.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, in March 2022, the Government set out their annual remit to the independent Low Pay Commission, asking it to make recommendations on the next uprating of the national living wage and minimum wage rates by the end of October. The Government will respond in due course, and the new rates will come into effect from April 2023. In addition, the Government announced the energy price guarantee and £37 billion-worth of support for the cost of living in this financial year.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his reply. The reality is that wages face a catastrophic situation this year. The annual rate of increase in wages, on average, is 7% or 8% less than the average rate of increase in prices. The consequence will be that many will face poverty, hunger and cold, and employers will lose demand for their goods and services. The OECD Employment Outlook 2022, published earlier this year, recommends the enlargement of collective bargaining as the answer to falling wages. Will the noble Viscount and his Government consider this option and join New Zealand and the state of California in adopting the enlargement of collective bargaining?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
First, we are very aware that people across the UK remain very worried about the cost of living—I think the House is very aware of that. The noble Lord raises an interesting idea. Certainly, collective bargaining plays an important part in the representation of workforces in the UK. The noble Lord will know, however, that the Government have accepted the pay recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, which cover the NHS, teachers, police and the Armed Forces, for 2022-23.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the TUC today reported that 1.8 million public sector workers are seriously considering quitting because of the very low, nominal pay rises that they have received, which were well below real inflation and low compared to the private sector. Do the Government accept that if even a small portion of those workers go through and quit, our public services are essentially up the creek without a paddle? What are the Government are doing to stem departures?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We are certainly very aware of these pressures. The uplifts to which I alluded in my earlier answer are the highest in nearly 20 years, reflecting the vital contributions that public sector workers make to our country and the cost of living pressures facing households. More than 2 million workers will benefit across the country. I should also say to the noble Baroness that most overall pay awards in the public sector are similar to those in the private sector.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, it is not an easy task to keep incomes up with prices. We have heard what the Government are doing, but I think this needs more of a helping hand from the Government.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. I have taken note of what he has said.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that pay rises in the public sector are very much in line with those in the private sector. That is not readily accepted by Members on this side of the House. Will he produce his evidence for that and place it in the Library, so that we can see the basis on which the Government are working?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I most certainly will do that. It is certainly a fact, but there is a lot more that we are doing, of course, to help people pay their bills. There are many who are really struggling at the moment, so this is not the only answer. We have to create that balance between recognising the vital importance of public sector workers, while delivering value for the taxpayer and being careful not to drive prices even higher in the future by contributing to the wage-price spiral.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Has my noble friend noticed that global wholesale gas prices are now falling and that global oil prices, despite the efforts of OPEC in the other direction, are also falling? This implies that the main source of our inflation problem, energy prices, will ease considerably—with luck—before the first half of next year. Would it not be wise to delay as long as possible, if we can do so without breaking any established laws and customs, the fixing of the estimates for full inflation for next year while ensuring that those demanding that wages are not cut too much in real terms also wait to see what actually happens?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I certainly take note of what my noble friend has said although I cannot particularly comment on it, because this matter falls very much within the remit of the Bank of England. As an observer, I too have noticed that there has been some slipping of energy prices; I have also noticed that mortgage rates are slightly down. But there is a long way to go, as they are very high and people are struggling very much, so I must make that point again.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that an independent pay review body is not the same as collective bargaining? Does he also recognise that the poorest 10% of households pay 47.6% of their gross income in direct and indirect taxes, compared with 33.5% paid by the richest 10%? In what sense could that possibly be consistent with the Government’s alleged levelling-up agenda?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness of course has much experience, particularly in the teaching sector, but the pay review bodies, of which there are eight, are very representative. They consider the needs of all public sector bodies and are made up of a number of representative parties, including trade unions and academics, to make the necessary decisions, so I believe that they are independent. One can have a discussion as to whether they are the same as collective bargaining, but that is where we are.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I understand that the latest figures show that the average public sector pay increase is running at 3%, while in the private sector it is running at 7%. Can the Minister explain the difference between those figures and the figures that he has?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Well, the figures vary, but if we look at the lowest-paid staff, particularly in the NHS, they are seeing a pay rise of 9.3%. It does vary enormously.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the energy price guarantee will reduce some inflationary pressures over the winter period. However, does the Minister acknowledge that the scaling back of support from April 2023 could have a detrimental impact on inflation from that point? The Bank does not expect to meet the 2% target for some two years. Where does that leave working people, whose incomes will have to continue to be stretched further and further?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point because, as the House knows, we announced significant support worth over £37 billion for households this year, targeted at those who need it the most. However, we continue to keep the situation under review. The Chancellor has made it clear that, looking into next year, the Government will prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable and support those in need, while ensuring that we act in a fiscally responsible way.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, there seems to be consensus in the Government at last that the economy benefits when people have more money to spend or in their pockets. Government statistics show that the best way to improve pay is to join a trade union, such as my union, Unite, which has put £200 million into workers’ wallets through pay increases in the last year alone. It has won four in five out of more than 450 disputes. That is why, as my noble friend Lord Hendy said, the reintroduction of sectoral collective bargaining would make such a massive difference by growing wages, productivity, and the economy. Does the Minister agree?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have said already that the unions play an important part through their role in representing workforces, and I stick by that, but it is not just that. There is the amount of support that we are giving over and above it. The noble Lord mentioned the energy price guarantee, but millions of the most vulnerable households will receive £1,200 of support this year through the £400 energy bills support scheme, the £150 council tax rebate and the one-off £650 cost of living payment. It is to do with how much they earn, but also how much we can stretch their pockets.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Earlier, the Minister referred to the inflationary pressures from wage rises. Why is he silent on the inflationary pressures caused by corporate profiteering, especially from energy companies, escalating executive pay and the billions being spent on share buybacks and dividends? Could he explain why he is being inconsistent?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that there is already a levy on energy companies. In terms of those earning at the higher level, I said in response to a question last week that I thought that raising the cap on bankers’ bonuses, for example, was a very good thing. It is very important that we attract the very best people from around the world as our investment bankers, who might bring in about £30 million just on one deal. It is better that it comes into the UK than to Frankfurt, Paris or New York.
Police and Crime Commissioners and Panels
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the two-part police and crime commissioner review considered the role of police and crime panels and concluded that they have the appropriate powers to scrutinise police and crime commissioners. However, the consistency and quality of this scrutiny can vary. Recommendations arising from the review have therefore focused on improving panels’ understanding of their role, the application of their existing powers and strengthening the professionalism and quality of the support provided to panels.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. Does he agree that, to do their core job of holding police and crime commissioners to account—nobody else does it, least of all the Home Office, I am afraid—it is necessary for a panel to be robust, challenging and fair? Much depends on the approach, attitude and style of the chair of the panel. Given the need for the public to have confidence in the system, would the Government consider amending the rules so that a chair of a police and crime panel cannot be from the same political party as the police and crime commissioner?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government believe that panels have the appropriate powers, agreed by Parliament, to effectively scrutinise the actions and decisions of PCCs and enable the public to therefore hold them to account. As I have also just said, we concluded a two-part review. In part 1 we took steps to improve and strengthen the scrutiny of PCCs by issuing new guidance and a training package for panels. Through part 2 we are undertaking a fundamental assessment of the panel support model to further improve the professionalism, quality and consistency of support provided to panels. I am very happy to take the noble Lord’s suggestion on chairmen back as part of that ongoing assessment.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, should not the police and crime panel in Leicestershire be urged to pass a vote of censure on the irresponsible PCC Mr Rupert Matthews for paying some £100,000 per year for advice from Mr Mike Veale, a discredited policeman who is facing a gross misconduct hearing? Could not that money have been spent better on front-line policing?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is not for me to comment on individual cases. However, police and crime panels must refer serious complaints and conduct matters to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Panels are responsible for resolving non-serious complaints made about a PCC’s conduct when in office. Ultimate responsibility for handling any complaints they have received remains with the panel.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the likelihood of members of police and crime panels asking difficult questions of police and crime commissioners if they belong to the same political party, bearing in mind that they will want a police and crime commissioner from their own political party to be re-elected? Is it not time to take party politics out of policing?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I would argue that it is about public accountability, not party politics. We heard through part 1 of the PCC review that the public cannot always easily access information on how well their force is doing, which is obviously vital if they wish to hold PCCs to account. The review therefore recommended that the specified information order of 2011 was amended to require PCCs to publish additional information. That came into force in May 2021. There is transparency and accountability in the system, and rather more than under the old one.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I remember when the original police and crime commissioners Bill went through the other place. Like other parties in the Midlands, where I come from, I wonder whether the role now pursued by police and crime commissioners is what was originally conceived. Given that worry, is it not time perhaps to have an overall look at the role of our police and crime commissioners?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
It is fair to say that the role has evolved to some extent. Whether it is appropriate to have an overall review is already under discussion.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, before the Government introduced police and crime commissioners, we had police and crime panels, just as we now have to oversee the police and crime commissioners. If that system was so bad that we needed to introduce police and crime commissioners, who cost a huge amount of money and whose ability is variable, why do we now have police and crime panels to oversee them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I made it clear that there is a transparency and accountability issue. I am grateful to my friend Katy Bourne, the Sussex police and crime commissioner. She tells me that PCCs are more visible and approachable than the police authorities that they replaced. Many hold monthly accountability meetings with their chief constable, often online, which the public can attend and contribute to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, surely the ultimate test of the PCC system and the panels is whether policing has improved as a result of the legislation that the Government brought in. Surely the general concern about the overall performance of police forces is an indication that the system is not working.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am obviously aware of the noble Lord’s long engagement with this subject, but I do not agree; there are lots of reasons why things have happened.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I will be perhaps a little unhelpful to my noble friend and say that I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Trust in the police has measurably declined in recent years. My noble friend’s predecessors have stood at that Dispatch Box and talked about the former chief constable of Wiltshire and commissioners of police in the London Met, and we have had endless examples of where the system is going wrong. Whatever system we have set up for this, is it not ultimately the Government’s responsibility to sort this out and restore trust in the police? Without that, we cannot trust in justice.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his helpful question. It is of course up to the Government, and we talked about last week’s Casey review at some length in the Chamber. The Government are doing a lot to restore confidence in the police, and of course the police also have a responsibility to do so, as Sir Mark Rowley has said.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said, is there not example after example, across the country, of police and crime panels failing to hold chief constables and commissioners to account? Instead of the Government having review after review, is it not about time that police and crime panels were given the teeth to hold commissioners to account and, in that way, restore confidence to policing? If the Minister is so confident of the work of the police and crime panels, will he place in the Library a list of examples of where they have worked?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Government are confident that the panels have the appropriate powers—agreed by Parliament, as I said—to effectively scrutinise the actions and decisions of PCCs and enable the public to hold them to account. Through the review process, we agreed that this scrutiny was inconsistent in some cases, and significant measures have been taken to do something about that. These include extensive engagement with members of the panels, which has proved popular; indeed, there are requests for more of that engagement.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of asking another unhelpful question, I say that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, are on to something about the imperfections of the panels. But why not replace them with a really powerful body that could fire the police and crime commissioners just like that? We could call it the electorate. Is that not the strongest accountability of all?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Actually, that is a helpful question, because the electorate do of course have ultimate responsibility for the election of the PCCs. I am pleased to say that the electorate seem to be becoming more enthusiastic about the elections: turnout has increased every year. Obviously that is not determined by a single factor, but it is going up.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s definition of “enthusiasm” is certainly different from some that I could suggest. One of the main purposes of the whole system of police and crime commissioners was to get closer engagement between the public and policing. With three rounds of police and crime commissioners elections having taken place, the turnout has varied between poor and abysmal. Clearly, they are not fulfilling one of the key reasons for their having been established, so what is the point of them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have answered the question about the point. I have the turnout figures: in 2012, it was 15.1%; in 2016, it was 27.4%; and in 2021, it was 33.9%. We cheerfully accept that those are not the greatest numbers—certainly not relative to national elections—but, in a local context, they are not bad.
Lord Cormack (Con)
In most democratic contexts, they are pretty awful numbers. Did my noble friend see the report in the Times this morning quoting the chief constable of the West Midlands, in which he expressed great concern that crime figures were being inflated by including so-called intimidatory gestures, which resulted in no charges but created a fair amount of bureaucracy? Could this be something that the police and crime commissioners are asked to look into as a matter of urgency?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I absolutely think that it is, but police and crime commissioners are of course answerable to their electorate, so it depends on the electorate’s priorities. I imagine that the electorate of the West Midlands would share my noble friend’s concerns.
Environmental Targets
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish their environmental targets to comply with the legal requirements under the Environment Act 2021.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, in asking a Question of which I have given private notice, I draw attention to my conservation interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement I laid on 28 October, we will continue to work at pace to lay draft statutory instruments as soon as practicable. Our next steps include agreeing the final targets across government and scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. His Majesty’s Government remain committed to our future targets to halt the decline in species by 2030 and to bring forward the wider suite of targets specified under the Environment Act as soon as practicable.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I congratulate him on not only his reinstatement in the department but his elevation to Minister of State; it reassures me that this Government are reaffirming their commitment to their manifesto promises on the environment.
It is of course disappointing that we have not met these targets by the due date. However, can we use this delay to increase, for example, our target for the protection of terrestrial sites, which would be very helpful in encouraging into domestic law our 30by30 commitment, and our species abundance target? I urge the Government not only to do this as fast as possible but to ensure that, by the time we attend COP 15 in Montreal, these targets are in place—and remember, they are just targets; what we really want is action.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind words. I share his and other noble Lords’ disappointment that we have not been able to fulfil the perhaps over-ambitious target date set out in the Act. However, I am confident that we will be able to show that we have meaningful evidence-based targets that will deliver on our overriding commitment to see a reversal in the decline of species by 2030. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of sites, and the protection of rare and special habitats within them, as part of our 30by30 commitment. We are absolutely determined to achieve this not just for our own domestic benefit but, importantly, so we can say to other countries in the CBD, “We are doing it; so should you”.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that the Office for Environmental Protection has also taken this failure seriously. In its latest letter to the Secretary of State, it has pointed out that this is not the only failure to comply with statutory legislation—it has also kindly included an annexe of other failures to comply. It is a non-exhaustive list and, as it says, a pattern is beginning to develop. Can the Minister assure us that Defra is addressing these issues? These are not just policies; they are statutory requirements that have been missed time and again. Can the Minister tell us what the department is doing to get back on track on these issues?
Lord Benyon (Con)
One reason why we will be publishing these targets later than we would have liked, and later than the Act required, is that we had over 180,000 responses to our consultation. It is important that we listen to those, because these targets affect people whose interests are not directly affected by Defra; they could be right across the whole gamut of what government does and how it regulates. It is important that we get this right.
I would hate for any noble Lord to believe that this is the one area of the Environment Act that really matters. It covers a whole range of other issues: storm overflows, our environmental principles, biodiversity net gain, waste, illegal deforestation, the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection, and local nature recovery strategies. Work on all those are under way, and they were written into the Environment Act, which is what makes it such a world-beating piece of legislation that we want to see implemented.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be getting used to answering questions on the targets, which should, legally, have flowed from the Environment Act by now. Yet here we are, on 31 October, and no targets are forthcoming. With COP 27 approaching, is there any point at all in the Government sending any representatives when they have so woefully fallen short in setting targets, never mind meeting any?
Lord Benyon (Con)
That would be an absolutely extraordinary thing to do. The United Kingdom is a global leader on the environment. We are one of the leaders of the High Ambition Coalition, which is seeking to get countries right across the world to fulfil really demanding targets to protect nature, which has suffered depletion of such staggering quantity in recent decades. It is absolutely right that we continue to do this. I can tell the noble Baroness that the United Kingdom is revered abroad for the leadership we took at Glasgow and the leadership we are taking in the CBD. To diminish what we are trying to do internationally is quite extraordinary.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, will the Government commit to not repeating the missing of dates when it comes to the 557 pieces of environmental legislation that are about to disappear next year under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I think there is a collective clunk of realisation of what it would actually take to replace that. That legislation was created for an environment that goes from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. I am sure she understands, being the expert that she is, that it is a bit clunky when it comes to dealing with the bespoke environment of these islands. It can be improved, but in a way that is at least no worse for nature, and which preferably improves it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, that “collective clunk” took hours of time of the Minister’s department and both Houses of Parliament. Is he saying that, at the stroke of a pen, the Government are going to write off all the environmental protections that we spent hours in this place writing into retained EU law?
Lord Benyon (Con)
No, that is not what we are saying at all. Most of the protections we have are written into law in the Climate Change Act, the Environment Act and many other provisions that no Administration in recent months—of any form—have talked about trying to tamper with. The habitats directive and other measures are very important; we will not be able to hit our 2030 target for no net loss of biodiversity if we were somehow to sweep those away.
So, if we are going to get rid of them, we have got to replace them with something that is meaningful and bespoke for these islands, and that cannot be done overnight. The Government want to hit our target for 2030, our 30by30 target and many other measures that are written into the Environment Act. The directives we have transposed into UK law have got to be dealt with carefully and in a way that results in no net loss of benefit for the environment, preferably improving it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House that the Environment Bill was introduced in July 2018. However, lengthy delays caused not just by consultation responses but by Conservative Party divisions meant that it became law only last November. During its passage, concerns were raised about the lack of targets, and the then Minister assured your Lordships’ House that they would appear by today’s deadline. My noble friend Lady Jones referred to the repeated missed deadlines, and the Government have again failed to deliver. The future of our environment is one of the most pressing issues we face, so why have the Government again broken their promise?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We will be publishing these targets and they will be very much linked to the areas we consulted on: halting the decline of species by 2030; reducing exposure to PM2.5, benefiting health, as the noble Baroness knows it will; helping restore water bodies to their natural state; increasing woodland cover; protecting marine habitats; and setting a clear direction of travel in reducing the amount of waste per person. These are the measures we want to see implemented, and they will be rigorous targets we can meet, not just for this Government but for future Governments. In line with the Act, they will mean that this country is respected for its protection of the environment above all others.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talks of ambitious targets. Is it too ambitious to use his position in the department to persuade the Prime Minister to attend COP 27?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I would say to the noble Viscount the words “over pay and grade”, but I do appreciate the point he makes.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned storm overflows. I wonder if he shares my and many others’ frustration that the water companies continue to discharge dreadful quantities of sewage into our rivers and the sea, using as an excuse the fact that they are storm overflows. What are the Government going to do about that?
Lord Benyon (Con)
As the noble Duke knows, the Environment Act places several duties on government and water companies to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows. The Government have now launched the most ambitious plan to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows in water company history. Our new strict targets will see the toughest crackdown on sewage spills and will require water companies to secure the largest infrastructure programme in water company history: £56 billion of capital investment over the next 25 years. Our plan will protect biodiversity, the ecology of our rivers and seas, and the public health of our water users for generations to come.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in answering the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, the Minister appeared rather powerfully to make the case for the Prime Minister’s going to COP 27, so we can only hope that he was listening. I want to go back to an earlier answer from the Minister. He said that the delay occurred because it was important to listen to public concern. Did the response to this consultation really come as a surprise to the department? As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and many others in this House highlighted, there was enormous public concern about these issues. Why did the department not put enough resources into handling these responses in a timely manner—or does the department not have enough resources to do its job?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Every department could do with more resources. As I said at the beginning, the Government regret not being able to hit this target. Perhaps we were overambitious in thinking it could be done to the timescale we had. There is no point in holding a consultation if you do not listen to the consultees’ replies, and more than 180,000 is at the maximum end of the response to most consultations. That requires that this House and the other place make sure that we are putting in place statutory instruments that really do the job. It is a complex process, and I regret that we have not done it by now, but we will do it as soon as we can.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, what note have the Government taken of Sir Partha Dasgupta’s report The Economics of Biodiversity, released by Cambridge University, and are they acting on its recommendations? Secondly, why are they not encouraging His Majesty King Charles to attend COP 27? He was ahead of the game by decades.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Dasgupta review was extraordinary in so many ways: first, because it was the first piece of work on the economics of biodiversity commissioned by a finance department in any country. The Treasury having commissioned it makes it a very powerful tool. It shows that we are talking about not just species that the noble Lord and I have grown up appreciating but the economic future of this country. It is fundamental to what we are talking about; that is why we want evidence-based targets. On the other matter, I refer the noble Lord to the answer I gave to the noble Viscount opposite.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government seem worried that too many people have responded to this consultation. This deadline was put in at the insistence of Parliament so that Ministers would be held to account. There is another deadline today in the Department for Transport—nothing to do with the Minister—so that is two deadlines missed. All that Ministers can say is, “We’ll ask them to extend the deadline.” That is not good enough. Surely, we have to get a grip on these things; if a Government commit to a deadline, they should keep to it.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely accept that point. I would be treating your Lordships with disrespect if I did not mention the elephant in the room: a bit of mid-air turbulence in recent weeks, which may have somewhat contributed to some of the wheels of government not being correctly oiled. However, I assure the noble Lord that we are determined to deliver proper, meaningful targets as soon as we can.
Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 and 19 July be approved.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 October.
Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]
Monday 31st October 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 View all Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 54-I Marshalled list for Report - (14 Oct 2022)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Bill be now read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I will take a moment to do one last piece of housekeeping on the state of the Bill. My department has been working closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that they are kept abreast of the Bill’s progress and implications. Two legislative consent memorandums have been lodged with the Senedd Cymru indicating that consent should be given for this Bill. My officials will continue to engage with their colleagues in the Welsh Government and I hope that, by the time the Bill leaves the other place, legislative consent will have been given by the Senedd Cymru.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords on all Benches—noble friends behind me and noble Lords across the House—for their co-operation on this Bill. I view the Bill as essential to bringing much-needed and long-overdue change to the social housing sector—long overdue because it has been more than five years since the Grenfell Tower fire. I thank in particular all members of the Grenfell community, who have pushed so hard and contributed so much in shaping the Bill. I hope it will stand as part of the legacy of Grenfell and play its part in ensuring that such a tragedy never happens again.
It is my sincere hope and belief that the Bill will create a strong and proactive consumer regulation regime that will drive up standards in social housing and help tenants and the Regulator of Social Housing hold landlords to account.
However, it is important that the Government remain open to new ideas from Peers from across the House, and those within the industry. We listen to the points raised by Peers in this Chamber and during valuable meetings between debates. Consequently, we tabled two important amendments. The first gives the regulator powers to set standards for competence and conduct for staff working in social housing. This will ensure that staff have the knowledge, skills and experience to deliver a high-quality service for tenants. I am grateful for the contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Wilcox of Newport. The second amendment imposes a duty on the regulator to publish and take reasonable steps to implement a plan for regular inspections. The regulator had previously committed to this but I am glad that we have enshrined it in legislation. This will give tenants confidence that landlords will be required to deliver on the standards imposed on them and be held accountable if they do not. Again, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his determination to see this included in the Bill.
Turning now to the amendment on energy efficiency in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I recommit to the House that we will consult on energy efficiency in the sector within six months of the Bill becoming an Act. We continue to support the sector in becoming more energy efficient but remain firm in our belief that this amendment is not the right way to achieve this. However, I must respect the will of this House on this issue and I thank the noble Baroness for bringing what is clearly an important issue to the fore. I thank all Members from the Front Benches opposite and my noble friends here for their wisdom and commitment. Lastly, I thank my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist for her support beside me since Committee, which has been invaluable.
I am sure noble Lords will also join me in thanking the Bill team for their engagement, in particular Patrick, Ed, Dan and Elena. I also thank Marcus from my private office and Ruhena, Josh, Matthew, Shayne, Ellen, Richard, Mette, Richenda, Will, Nici and Jim—I hope I have not missed anybody—who have all provided invaluable support to a very rookie Minister with her first Bill. I also extend my thanks to all the policy officials as well as the legal team, ably led by Clare, and to the parliamentary counsel, who worked tirelessly to get this Bill to where it is.
It is important to remember that we are only half way there with the Bill. I wish it a swift journey through the other place, and hope that Members there will debate and consider it in a thoughtful, passionate, detailed and courteous manner, as we have done here. I reassure noble Lords that I remain open to further meetings with them to discuss this important legislation and look forward to picking this up again in what I hope will be a very brief discussion following its passage through the other place. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this is a really important Bill and I will briefly say some thank yous. I thank all noble Lords who took part to improve the Bill as it made its passage through this House. I thank, as the Minister did, Grenfell United, Shelter and the residents who suffered most from Grenfell and have worked so hard to bring this new legislation forward, alongside the Government. I thank my noble friend Lady Wilcox for her great support. I also support the Minister; this may have been her first Bill, but we have worked very constructively together and I thank her for her approach to the Bill, her approach to the House and for her time and that of her officials.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I had better remind the House of my relevant local government interests, as set out in the register. Throughout the Bill, we have supported its purpose. We have simply worked hard to try to make what we believed were essential improvements. Of course, in the area of energy efficiency, the amendment from my group was accepted by the Government and the Minister. I know that housing campaigns across the country were very pleased that it was accepted as a key priority for the regulator.
I thank the Minister for coming in at the deep end, taking on the Bill, and being so helpful in enabling pre-reading discussions on it and amendments that we wished to table. It always eases the path of a Bill if we can do that. I therefore look forward to the next time, when we might also be able to work together constructively for the benefit of people out there.
I record my thanks to the Grenfell Tower campaigners. Despite the terrible tragedy that they experienced, they have never faltered over the last five years in their determination to see action on improving social housing. Here we have a Bill that should make social housing safer and fairer for tenants. I look forward to it coming back unamended from the other end.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Monday 31st October 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 View all Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (31 Oct 2022)
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, before we proceed with this Committee, can we be assured that there is not a plan to alter radically or even withdraw the Bill? Your Lordships will remember that with the Energy Security Bill we all put in weeks of work, as did the Government and everybody else, only for the whole Bill to be scrapped. It would be nice now to know whether we are going ahead with a Bill that will be pursued and not altered or scrapped as well.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I believe it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to put the Question to the House and perhaps allow the matters which have been raised by the noble Lord and potentially by others to be discussed when there is a question before the House. The Question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I understand my noble friend’s desire for clarity and certainty, but the Government would be performing an enormous public service if they withdrew the Bill today.
Baroness Suttie
“(A1) This section is subject to section (Limitation of general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol: approval of Northern Ireland Assembly).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to Baroness Suttie’s new Clause after Clause 2 (Limitation of general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol: approval of Northern Ireland Assembly).
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 5, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, as well as to Amendments 68 and 69.
These amendments aim to require the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly before the measures contained in the Bill can be used to limit the general implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. Clearly, we are debating these amendments against the backdrop of the 28 October deadline having been missed and the continued absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the continued stalemate, with the DUP refusing to allow the Assembly to function since the elections in May of this year.
It is very hard not to feel deeply frustrated and indeed angry on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. The lack of an Assembly and functioning Northern Ireland Executive has meant for ordinary people across Northern Ireland a deteriorating healthcare system, a lack of strategic economic planning, and little or no progress on legacy matters or on issues such as developing an integrated education system. The stop-start nature of devolution over the last 25 years in Northern Ireland has meant that we have seen only fleeting periods of stable government there, and the Government’s attempts to overcome their own internal divisions since 2016 have been at the expense of the people of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to add my name to this suite of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie.
These amendments clearly have a specific purpose. First, I believe that full recognition needs to be given by your Lordships’ House and the UK Government that the Good Friday agreement is the bedrock upon which all institutions are based and out of which they emerged. It includes three strands: the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive; north/south; and east/west.
Devolved structures and the power of the MLAs must be recognised, acknowledged and reflected, and their mandate must be so acknowledged. They must be allowed to have an accountability role. If this Bill becomes law and results in the limitation of the protocol, your Lordships should remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, that a majority of MLAs elected in early May wrote to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, indicating their opposition to the provisions in the Bill.
It is important, as I said, that the UK Government recognise that the majority of Assembly Members support the protocol, with refinements. They believe, as I do, that mitigations are required and, most importantly, they want the restoration of political institutions, particularly after Friday’s very odd press conference, given by the Secretary of State in the middle of Chichester Street in Belfast with onlookers walking past. An election will serve no purpose whatever. We would probably end up with a more polarised outcome in Northern Ireland and it will not have served its purpose.
The view of Assembly Members was also reflected in a recent poll by Queen’s University Belfast, which stated that 51% think that the protocol is having a positive impact on the Northern Ireland economy. Immediately we see the evidence of our divided society in Northern Ireland—63% think that it offers opportunities that could benefit Northern Ireland and 60% think the same about its impact on British-Irish relations. There is a fear that the UK Government are not operating or proposing a consensual approach through this Bill and are recognising only the views of unionists. Arrangements work in Northern Ireland only when they have the buy-in of unionists, nationalists and the non-aligned, and that is not possible under the provisions of the Bill.
We have no political structures operating at the moment, with no impetus from the Government to have them up and running. I hope that this week’s discussions between the Secretary of State, the political parties and the Irish Government will produce better outcomes and a better trajectory of travel. People do not want direct rule; they want their own Government.
Elections will not provide the answer, as the default legal position allows. Designation of Joint First Ministers should have been allowed. That would have obviated many of the problems currently being experienced. I hope that if there are negotiations and there is a review of the institutions, this issue comes back into; the Minister will recall this item being discussed in debates on the Elections Bill. It is worth noting that, very sadly, institutions have operated only at a very low percentage in the last 24 years. There is a need to end the inherent sectarianism that was ushered in by the St Andrews agreement in 2006-07.
It is also important to remember that the poll from Queen’s University told us that 65% of the Northern Ireland Assembly agree that the Northern Ireland Executive should be fully functioning regardless of what happens with the protocol, while 32% disagree. Broadly, these figures represent the political support and opposition in the Assembly in relation to the protocol.
The protocol should not have prevented the restoration of all the institutions. Noble Lords will become very angry when they realise that there are important issues for many people, such as the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and health waiting lists and getting on to these. It is worth noting that, at the evidence session during the protocol sub-committee’s visit to Belfast two weeks ago, young people who were there as community representatives viewed health waiting lists and the cost of living as much more important than the protocol.
The bottom line is therefore that the GFA standard, in all its strands, must be adhered to and protected. The pathway to that includes the need for all-party talks to resolve the outstanding issues. Rather than having a potential election, there must be renewed vigour in the UK-EU negotiations on the protocol, not only on the technical aspects but with the political negotiations that are urgently required. My fear is that any election process could stop the political negotiations. There has been a renewed focus on the technical, and it is important that renewed focus is given to the political.
I support the amendments in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I urge the support of your Lordships’ Committee. The accountability mechanisms in the Northern Ireland Assembly must be recognised and adhered to if this Bill is passed. They must be given their say, because the vast majority of Assembly Members elected do not agree with this Bill. They would prefer that it were not on the table and that the Government removed it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, Harold Macmillan, that great Tory Prime Minister, had a quotation on his desk or wall—I forget which—by WS Gilbert:
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
If there were ever a need for this, it is now, on the issue of the Northern Ireland protocol: a treaty negotiated by a British Prime Minister and one of his colleagues, who is present this afternoon; commended to both Houses of Parliament; and given support—with a degree of reluctance, because many of us realised that it was far from perfect.
I understand why my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford made the brief point he made before he left the Chamber. I believe that we are wasting our time in a prodigal fashion. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, many years ago, the Bill is not fit for purpose. It never will be, however many amendments we pass on the Floor of your Lordships’ House.
We have all agreed that there will be no call for Divisions in Committee. Colleagues on both sides of the Committee know that I would have liked to have a vote to pause proceedings at Second Reading. However, it was conveyed to me that the Labour Opposition were not prepared to support that, and it would not have been right for me to go ahead when I clearly did not have strong support in all parts of the House.
We are now in an Alice in Wonderland situation where a series of amendments—the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, moved her amendment eloquently and persuasively—are not going to change the fundamental nature of the Bill; they are not going to make it acceptable. So this charade is going to continue through today and two more days, and then the Bill will go to its Report stage. I beg my noble friends on the Front Bench: for goodness’ sake, pause it there at least, so that negotiations can take place without any implicit threats over our European friends and neighbours. I deliberately and repeatedly call for that. Let us have those negotiations, and let us hope that they are entered into in good faith on the both sides.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Suttie and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and I thank both of them for the way they have introduced them. This is a Foreign Office Bill, but its implications are vital for the people of Northern Ireland and for the people of the United Kingdom, because it is a political Bill which is dangerous in terms of what the Government are playing with.
At the heart of the protocol is the debate about unfettered access to both the UK market and the EU single market. Of course, unfettered access to both those markets is what we had before we left the European Union, and leaving that Union inevitably led to a situation where an open border between the UK, GB, Northern Ireland and the EU is not compatible with the agreement post leaving the EU. That is clearly the source of the problem—but everybody knew that at the time when the agreement was struck and signed, including the UK Government and Northern Ireland politicians. However, on the face of it, from all the implications that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, quoted, there is a clear majority for moving on—not for setting aside the protocol or, by implication, the trade and co-operation agreement or, frankly, the Bill to repeal EU law, when we have sweated for the past several years to transfer that EU law into UK law.
Do the Government really want to provoke a trade war when our economy is in such a fragile condition? The Prime Minister says, and I agree, that we are facing a profound economic crisis. Is tearing up the protocol more or less likely to alleviate this or help recovery in Northern Ireland? The issue, therefore, is surely not how to achieve the minimal friction. We all agree that we want minimal friction; we want as free access as we can get. The issue is not how to achieve it but how we can get it to the lowest compatible level for business to carry on with minimal cost and delay.
The case for consulting the Northern Ireland Assembly is overwhelming. Not least, it is not just a matter of the numbers. The whole point of legislatures is that they are where compromises can be negotiated and struck; where the balance can be found. And there is the rub. The DUP insists that the Irish Sea border must go. As I have said, it would of course be ideal to have no borders, but that would be inconsistent with being outside the single market and the customs union. So a low-friction agreement on implementation of the protocol appears to be the answer, appears to have wide support and could surely be negotiated with good will on all sides.
Unfortunately, as I understand it—and I would be happy to be contradicted when the DUP enters the debate—the DUP is insisting on what it knows to be an impossible solution: no borders. The party has said that, unless it gets that solution, it will never re-enter the Assembly or the Executive. The Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—is a power-sharing arrangement between the largest nationalist and largest unionist grouping. It is not a majoritarian arrangement, as the DUP rightly insists on telling us—but nor is it a never-ending veto. To share power is to seek and find compromise. Refusal to do so is to deny the spirit and probably the letter of the agreement. It is to deny democracy. Most important of all, it is to deny the people of Northern Ireland the delivery of essential services that they require and that they voted for—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, they desperately want solutions to be addressed.
So we are facing the prospect of a fresh election. I do not think anybody wants an election, and nor does anybody believe that it is likely to make a huge difference; it will not change much. I hope that it might further strengthen the Alliance but, on the whole, it is not likely to make a huge difference. If the DUP, before or after the election, blocks any compromise—I repeat, any compromise—is it not time to reconsider the arrangement? I have already said that power sharing requires compromise. Should refusing to compromise question the right to share power? Is it not time for some hard consideration of the rights of the people of Northern Ireland—their rights to have a functioning Government, to move forward and to have a solution that is based on reality, not fantasy?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I support the amendment, so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for a simple reason. It relates to what is frequently called the “democratic deficit”—a phrase that often finds itself in the mouths of those who support this Bill, among whom I am not numbered. They talk about the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland mainly in respect of the fact that the people of Northern Ireland do not have a say over the legislation for the single market, which will be passed in Brussels. They erroneously say that that is the only place in Europe where that happens. That is untrue; it is the same for Norway, which has no say over legislation passed in Brussels but accepts it when it is sent through on a fax. So the use of the words “democratic deficit” by the supporters of the Bill is in any case a bit erroneous. It is even more erroneous when you consider that the people of the Northern Ireland actually voted to remain in the European Union; that surely is something of a democratic deficit.
These amendments, which I imagine the Minister will explain the Government cannot support, are also an attempt to address the democratic deficit, to say that the people of Northern Ireland collectively should have some say in the operation of this deeply flawed legislation. So why will the Government oppose it? We know why: because a majority of Members of the Assembly who were elected in May have said they do not want any of it, and that would not be helpful to the Government’s objectives. When you bandy around phrases such as “democratic deficit”, you should follow them through to their logical conclusion, and that logical conclusion is in the amendments that the House is now debating.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, the amendments would subject aspects of the Bill to the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, my contention is that they will work only if preceded by a prior vote on the protocol itself in accordance with the standards of cross-community consent put in place for the controversial matters set out by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
The Good Friday agreement is now very vulnerable because of the approach of the European Union in relation to two key principles at the heart of it. First, the Good Friday agreement is predicated on a commitment to affording the interests of both communities parity of esteem. The interests of unionism have not been afforded parity of esteem vis-à-vis those of nationalism with respect to the protocol. While the protocol represents an existential threat to all that unionists hold dear and is rejected by all the unionist parties, it authenticates that which nationalists and republicans desire: the breaking of the UK economy. Secondly, the Good Friday agreement is predicated on a commitment to non-majoritarian politics, which means that controversial decisions have to be made on the basis of cross-community consent. Again, that has been cast aside.
In the first instance, the EU sought to pressure the UK Government into the protocol without affording Northern Ireland any say in the matter, notwithstanding the fact that the effect of the protocol is to slash the value of the Northern Ireland vote, as 300 areas of lawmaking to which we are subject are taken from us and made by a legislature of a foreign power. When the EU finally agreed that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be given some say in the matter, it insisted for some bizarre reason that it should happen four years afterwards. It made provision for it to continue for at least another four years without cross-community support, resulting in eight years of government outside the confines of the Belfast agreement, which could of course continue indefinitely with regular four-year extensions.
That is the height of irony because anyone who studies democracy will know that leading academics in the field, such as Professor Arend Lijphart, are very clear that the EU is one of the most consensual, non-majoritarian polities in the world today. That the EU decided to betray its own commitment to non-majoritarianism by going out of its way to impose majoritarianism on a polity that it knew was based on non-majoritarianism is quite extraordinary.
This is a major problem not just for the Good Friday agreement but for the protocol. The protocol subjects itself to the Belfast agreement in all its dimensions through Articles 1 and 2. That is a problem for those who wish to argue that international law constrains those seeking to address the clear injustices of the Northern Ireland protocol, because Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear that:
“When a treaty specifies that it is subject to … an earlier or later treaty, the provisions of that other treaty prevail.”
Given that the convention also sets out mechanisms, such as Article 56(1)(b), whereby a state party can lawfully and unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, the refusal of the EU to amend the protocol so that it is properly brought into line with the prior treaty clearly gives grounds for our withdrawal.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Suttie in her amendments. Notwithstanding the appeal from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, these Benches do not need to be persuaded of his arguments. We are nevertheless tasked with scrutinising and testing this legislation, and I support my noble friend’s amendments.
I want to ask the Minister just two simple questions relating to the Sewel convention, which is now recognised as a constitutional principle. Michael Ellis, speaking on behalf of the Government in Committee in the Commons, was asked about legislative consent of this Bill. He said:
“As the hon. Member for North Down will be aware, the Sewel convention applies to this Bill, as it does to all Bills of this Parliament that intersect with devolved competence. I confirm that in the absence of functioning institutions, senior officials in the Foreign Office have already made contact with the head of the Northern Ireland civil service regarding legislative consent … The Government will consult stakeholders in Northern Ireland, including Members of the Assembly, on the operation of the Bill during its passage and thereafter”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; cols. 385-86.]
What did the officials ask of the civil servants with regard to legislative consent in the absence of there being an Assembly? This is not a practice that has ever been seen anywhere else for the operation of the Sewel Motion. Which Members of the Assembly have been consulted during the passage of this Bill, and on what? Have they been asked, with regard to the dual regulatory regime that the Bill proposes, and what have their responses been so far?
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to put a technical point. I am not sure of the answer—it is a genuine question—but it bears on the amendment. Trade is a reserved matter in Northern Ireland. When there was first sight of Theresa May’s protocol, there was great rage in Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland were told, “Sorry, this is a reserved matter.” Subsequently—it was the second iteration—it was very much the view of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that that was not itself a satisfactory answer, and there is provision in the protocol negotiated by the Johnson Government. The one significant change is to make, in very specific circumstances, a role for the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is probably the major difference between the two protocols. However, if it is a reserved matter—if that was the answer that I remember being given throughout 2017 and 2018 in this House—I cannot quite see the purchase of these amendments.
If it is a reserved matter, it is a reserved matter. It is for this Parliament to deal with these trade matters. The burden of the Bill is in dealing with Articles 5 and 10 of the protocol—not those on human rights and so on—in a way which, I accept, many Members of this House do not like. None the less, it does not seem appropriate to be raising these issues now about that role for the Northern Ireland Assembly, because trade is a reserved matter held by this House.
The history of this is perfectly clear: the Government of Ireland Act 1920 has language on trade, as do the prior Acts of Union 1800. Then there were modifications to the Government of Ireland Act—benign modernisations, I would say—under the Good Friday agreement and the legislation that went through this House, which left us with trade as a reserved matter. It seems to me that this should be taken into account. There may be some possible answer to it, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has negotiated a possible way that one might work around it, but trade is a reserved matter at this point. We are not concerned with the human rights provisions of the protocol and so on; they are not the issue in the Bill. It is directed mainly against Articles 5 and 10, rightly or wrongly—wrongly, I am sure many colleagues on my own Benches think—but trade being a reserved matter is a problem for amendments of this sort.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I agree that external trade is a reserved matter, but here we are talking about trade inside the United Kingdom—as well as trade inside the single market of the European Union, of course. I do not think it follows at all that one can say there is no role for the Assembly because external trade is a reserved matter.
I would love to support the amendment in the names of the two noble Baronesses. I agree with the spirit of it. It is extraordinary how, throughout this saga, things have been done to Northern Ireland without Northern Ireland being fully consulted or even informed. It is extraordinary, when you think about it, that the protocol was concluded without the involvement—I want to embarrass him now—of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who knows far more about these issues than most of us do and has a judgment that we would all respect. That should have been brought to bear.
I hesitate to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is busy with his emails, but, if he would like to listen, I will criticise him. It would have been good if he had found the ability to spend more time in Northern Ireland while he was negotiating. It would have been great if his master, the then Prime Minister, had been able to spend some time trying to understand the issues and seeing people on the ground, but it is an astonishing fact that Michel Barnier had more direct personal experience of Northern Ireland than the noble Lord, Lord Frost, had. That was because Barnier had spent time there doing jobs for previous presidents of the Commission.
I feel that the syndrome of imposing things on Northern Ireland, perhaps under cover of talk about reserved matters, which I disagree with, has been damaging to the United Kingdom and, of course, to Northern Ireland. I would love to support these amendments, and of course I would do so. But it would not make an illegal act less illegal if the Northern Ireland Assembly voted for it, so what are we talking about here?
I caused the Minister to look askance when I said that we are talking about a pig of a Bill. The Minister thought that was an indelicate reference. However, what we are doing here is trying to put lipstick on the pig. It will still be a pig even if this amendment is approved. If it were put to a vote, of course I would vote for it, but my general feeling is that we know what we have to do with this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has correctly pointed out that what we are engaged in now is a waste of time because I am confident that at the end of the day, we will do what we have to do to this Bill. I hope the end of the day comes soon.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, for a number of years I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have not been involved in recent political discussions in the Province. In a sense, I have come back to the subject afresh today. It certainly keeps all its fascination. We have just heard two immensely important contributions to the debate by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Bew. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, dealt clearly, decisively and definitively with whether or not trade is a reserved matter. We must be grateful for that analysis, which I hope will guide us in dealing with this Bill.
The Bill is an extraordinarily unpopular document, is it not? It is quite difficult to find anybody really prepared to defend it. The DUP is obviously very much opposed to it. We have heard this afternoon from people who are close to the DUP’s leadership. The European Commission has launched infringement procedures in relation to the British Government’s activity over this Bill. The British Government do not seem to be very convinced of the virtues of the Bill. Certainly no one this afternoon has made a strong defence of the Bill.
Against that background, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It is quite unlikely that the DUP will do a U-turn; it would be a humiliating thing to do. Therefore, one must assume that the Bill in its present form does not have very far to go. That is not surprising because—and the reason I really oppose this Bill—it seems contrary to the essence of parliamentary democracy. The principle which underlines our whole system in this country is that the law must be made by the legislature—the legally elected representatives of the public. It is their responsibility to make laws; it is not the responsibility of the Government to make laws, nor is it desirable that they should try to do so.
Many of the provisions in this controversial protocol Bill reveal that there is an ambition for the Government to rewrite the law themselves. I look at the overview of the Bill in the very helpful summary produced by the Library. It says that one of the purposes is
“giving ministers delegated powers to make new provision in domestic law ‘in connection with’ ‘excluded provision’”;
in other words, the Bill declares itself as being in the business of making law and imposing it on the public, which is quite contrary to all democratic principles, and we should be quite upset about it.
This is something which has disfigured European history in the last 100 years. A number of people, from Mussolini to Hitler to Marshal Pétain, have adopted this course of deciding to get through an assembly, which would be reasonably compliant, a Bill entitling the Government to write the law themselves in the future. That is what happens to democracies if they are under that kind of attack. We should not in any way be party to that.
The House of Lords Library’s summary of the situation makes it clear that, in this case, the executive branch is deciding to write law and change international treaties more or less at the drop of a hat. That is obviously not something that anyone in this House could tolerate, and we should therefore think about this extremely carefully before it proceeds. We should make it absolutely clear that the Government cannot get away with asking for power in an enabling Act to simply write the future statute—not making this clear would be contrary to what we should do in this place.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, on their amendment. I associate myself with the remarks about the democratic deficit problems that have arisen in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit. Many of us in this House have always believed that a hard Brexit was incompatible with the Good Friday agreement. However, the Government assured the people of Northern Ireland and this Parliament that the Northern Ireland protocol was the answer to ensuring that Brexit would work with the Good Friday agreement. It clearly imposed a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the impact assessment explained. The problems that have arisen do not seem due to the intransigence of the EU; they are inherent in the protocol.
Brexit is yet another example of how, for so long—decades and decades—Britain has imposed things on the people of Northern Ireland and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, done things to Northern Ireland, rather than working with the people there. But that is not a reason for our Government, shortly after signing the protocol, to say, “We don’t like it. We don’t like ECJ oversight or the EU deciding what it considers a risk to its single market. We must do that”, and then expecting the EU simply to accept that, in contravention of our signature on an agreement and of what was promised to the people of Northern Ireland.
Clearly, there is an issue. I hope my noble friend can explain how removing ECJ oversight and allowing the UK Government to assess risks to the single market will make hard Brexit work for all of the parties in Northern Ireland, not just the DUP.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made a powerful—emotional, to some extent—speech last week and it certainly resonated with me. To a large extent, that has been reflected in the contributions so far, acknowledging that things have been done to Northern Ireland. Of course, when we consider what was done to Northern Ireland in relation to this protocol, it is right to remember that the then Prime Minister went to the DUP party conference and assured it that it was “oven ready”. In an aside, he also said, “Don’t worry about the paperwork”. Perhaps the DUP was overconfident in relying upon the word of the former Prime Minister: what has happened since has exploded the idea that what was in the protocol would somehow cover all circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, referred to the most helpful Library briefing, which says on page 50 that Article 16 is a “safeguard” mechanism. Are we looking for safeguards? Yes, of course we are. It allows either party to take temporary
“measures if the application of the Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist”.
On the attitude being taken by the DUP, what better definition can we have than this expression that embraces its concerns—almost exactly and in detail? It goes on to say that the “diversion of trade” is an issue that would justify reference to Article 16.
It seems that Article 16 has been rejected by the Government. I have never really heard a proper argument for why that should be the case. I will put it this way: if Article 16 does not cover what we are about today, when will it ever be of any relevance? This question would give an answer, though perhaps not one that would suit the DUP in every respect. Should Article 16 be invoked, an answer to this question would go a long way to helping those—including me—concerned about anything that might have the effect of undermining the Belfast agreement.
I think we will have a discussion later this week in this House about trade arrangements, so I will repeat a point I made in the last debate: the trade arrangements that were held in front of all our noses were those to be made with the United States. They were going to remedy any difficulties or subtractions that we might experience if we left the European Union. However, nothing much has happened with that. As I said then—I say it again now—we forget the extent to which the politics of the United States, as they affect us domestically in both Houses and across both sides of the aisle, are influenced by their attitudes towards Ireland. It seems that, so long as we have this unresolved issue, the prospects for a trade agreement are pretty remote. For this reason, I ask the DUP why Article 16 is not enough for it, and I ask the Government to give us a coherent explanation of why they are not willing to invoke it. At the very least, by invoking it, we would be able to test it.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is indeed a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, with whom I had the honour of serving alongside for many years in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I understand that he continues to serve there with great distinction, so it is a pleasure to hear what he has to say.
On the issue of Article 16, I say with the greatest of respect: I well remember that, when this was being discussed and advocated by us and others, there was agreement that some of the articles in the Northern Ireland protocol should be suspended. Article 16 was absolutely opposed tooth and nail by the vast bulk of everybody, not just in Northern Ireland on the nationalist side but both here in this House and in the other place. In the last debate, I quoted statements from leading members of what was then Her Majesty’s Opposition, including the Liberal Democrat Benches—as well as others on the Conservative Benches—who were vociferous and vehement in their opposition to any notion of the implementation of Article 16. The Irish Government went so far as to say that it would completely upend the Belfast agreement, which seems to be the chosen form of words when something is proposed that is not liked. I hear with interest what noble Lords are saying now about Article 16, but that certainly was not what was being said a few months ago. Noble Lords should look back in Hansard to what the situation actually was. The reality is that Article 16—whether or not it was invoked—was not going to solve all the problems.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Other Members have had their say so I am going to proceed in terms of my speech.
The amendment before us from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, has the intent of saying that the Bill’s operative clauses should not proceed unless there is approval from the Northern Ireland Assembly. I note, however, that this is not by cross-community vote. What is fascinating about people who defend and say they are defending the Belfast agreement—as amended by St Andrews, of course—is that they say, “Let’s give a vote to the Northern Ireland Assembly”. Regardless of whether or not it is reserved, the fact is that you are giving a power to the Assembly, and the Assembly in Northern Ireland operates by cross-community vote: there must be a majority of unionists, a majority of nationalists and an overall majority for all major pieces of legislation to pass. If it is subject to a majority vote, it can be turned into a cross-community vote by a petition of concern. Yet, uniquely, the proponents of the Belfast agreement only ever want to give a vote on the protocol issues to the Northern Ireland Assembly without a cross-community vote. So, if we are going to be consistent about defending the Belfast agreement and the institutions thereof, this amendment should include provision for a cross-community vote.
The other big flaw of course is that there is no such requirement for the absolute implementation of the protocol itself. I pointed out that Article 50 of the joint declaration in December 2017, signed by the EU and the United Kingdom Government, said that there could be no regulatory difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom unless it was by a cross-community vote of the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland. So that is what should be the priority. As my noble friend Lord Browne said, there needs to be a prior step before we go down this route, which is to ask whether the protocol has the assent of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the basis of the Assembly’s decision-making powers, which are by cross-community vote.
It has also been said that the democratic deficit argument is not valid because there are other countries that have no say in laws that govern them. Norway was cited. Of course, Norway is a member of the European Economic Area but is not a member of the customs union, so it does not have EU customs laws applied to it in the way that Northern Ireland has. That is a significant difference. But the other major difference is this: the whole of Norway is a member of the single market. Northern Ireland is separated out from the rest of the United Kingdom, so one part of the United Kingdom is subject to EU laws while the rest goes its own way, making its own laws and being free to make its own decisions. Given that Northern Ireland does more trade with the rest of the United Kingdom than with the rest of the world, Europe and the Republic of Ireland put together, that makes no sense whatever. So it is entirely wrong to suggest, “Oh, well, there’s no difference between Northern Ireland and places like Norway”—there is a world of difference. I am surprised that that has not been noted.
Then we have the argument that it is the Government who have set out the position as to what needs to be done in relation to the protocol and putting it right. They issued a Command Paper in July 2021 and have now published this Bill. A lot of it is good in terms of restoring democratic control over laws that apply to Northern Ireland; it goes some way to rectifying that, although it does not do everything that we would like. Then we are told that if the DUP do not get on board with this—the Government’s proposals—then somehow the rules for power sharing in Northern Ireland should be cast aside. Again, I ask defenders of the Belfast agreement: where are you when people say, “Let’s just do away with the cross-community mechanisms and go for majority voting”? We have not had majority rule in Northern Ireland for over 50 years.
But when people talk about the Assembly not functioning for a large bulk of the period since the Belfast agreement, remember that between 2003 and 2007 it was down because of the actions of Sinn Féin and its military wing, the IRA, in robbing the Northern Bank. The Government rightly insisted that it would have to give up its weaponry before it could be considered fit to have a place in the Government of Northern Ireland. For four years—and between 2017 and 2020, again Sinn Féin kept the Assembly down and boycotted the Executive—would not agree to re-form it—on the issue of language and culture. But, as soon as there is any suggestion that the DUP insists on the democratic rights of people in Northern Ireland to be treated in the same way as other citizens of the United Kingdom, to have their say and vote on laws that affect them, we have the defenders, it appears, of the Belfast agreement saying, “No, let’s jettison all that, let’s change the rules”. Well, I am afraid that really is a recipe for disaster.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am not going to comment on the politics of Northern Ireland—I am a mere lawyer—but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, raised a particular point on Article 16, and the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, as I understood him, was that there were discussions about that, and statements were made at various times by various politicians. But the fact of the matter is that Article 16 is part of the protocol; it cannot be ignored.
What it says is that it provides a procedure for dealing with
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade”.
It is a very broad concept; it provides a means by which such disputes can be resolved and, as I have said before in debates on this Bill, I simply do not understand how the test of “necessity” in international law can be satisfied when the Government have available, and are not using, a provision that is expressly provided in the protocol. You simply cannot resile from an international agreement because of problems when the protocol itself, the international agreement, provides a means of addressing them; it is as simple as that.
There is one other legal point. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, deserves an answer. He rightly emphasised that Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol preserve the Belfast agreement in various respects, upholding and emphasising it. As I understood it, his argument is that the Bill is consistent with international law because the protocol, in his view, undermines the Belfast agreement. However, if I may respectfully say so, there is an insuperable difficulty with that argument: this country signed the protocol on the basis of the view that the protocol was consistent with the Belfast agreement in the context of the difficult problems posed by Brexit.
Having signed the agreement, with respect, it is trite as a matter of international law that the United Kingdom cannot unilaterally resile from the protocol because, under political pressure, it now wishes to take a different view. Therefore, this Bill, as I have suggested before, is quite simply inconsistent with international law.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate that I am a relative newcomer to this House, but I had understood that in Committee discussion is supposed to focus on the amendments before us. What I have heard today is very much a rerun of the discussion we heard in this place last week, with repeated invocations of issues of principle around this Bill and the protocol, which are extremely important but might not be resolved in this debate simply by repeating the points over and over.
I have been trying to follow the detail of this on my electronic device, with my documents in front of me—I know the technique may not be familiar to everybody in this House, but I am trying my best. I was not intending to speak but, as some points of principle have been raised, I feel it is right to put certain circumstances on record.
I will make three brief points. First, I feel we are having a highly abstract discussion about a very concrete and real situation. Noble Lords all know what is happening in Northern Ireland at the moment and what has happened over the last year and in recent months: the constant, gradual deterioration of the real political situation in Northern Ireland, the undermining of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement, and the degradation of some of the habits of co-operation and working together that we have seen over the years. This is a real situation, which must be dealt with. This Bill is a way of dealing with it and the Government—rightly, in my view—believe it is the best way of doing so.
We have to engage with that. We have to take real-life action to deal with the problems that exist on the ground in Northern Ireland. Important though discussions of international law and a reinvocation of why we signed this agreement may be, they do not deal with the real situation on the ground now. The Government are the Government of this country, and they are right to put forward proposals that deal with this situation. The best way to deal with it would be to expedite this Bill, not to delay, defer or withdraw it. The best contributor to stability in Northern Ireland would be to get this on the statute book and enable people to know what they are dealing with.
Secondly—
Lord Frost (Con)
No other noble Lords have taken interventions, so I will complete my points if I may.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who made the points I was about to make about Article 16. When I was on the Front Bench here, I repeatedly stated that the conditions for meeting Article 16 had been met but we would prefer to proceed by negotiation. I was looked at as some sort of barbarian by many people in this House, and elsewhere, for daring to contemplate such a possibility. Yet it now seems that it is what many people would wish to do to resolve this situation—the natural way of doing so. I am very glad that is the view, but I am afraid that my view is that the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland has gone beyond that and Article 16 will not be the best way to resolve that.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. The view that I think many around the Committee hold is that the triggering of Article 16 was something that we did feel would be premature and we had all expected that there would be negotiations with the EU. However, the opposition to triggering that stage never envisaged that something like this Bill could be introduced which would rip up the whole protocol before negotiations had even been completed.
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her comments; she is correct to say that the situation last year was different from this year. We did not invoke Article 16 in the end and many people were disappointed about that. Since then, the situation has moved on; it has deteriorated. I think this Bill is really the only way of resolving it.
Thirdly and finally, many noble Lords seem to believe that a negotiated way through this would be made easier by withdrawing the Bill. I profoundly disagree. It is very much the best way through to find a negotiated solution and that is what I wanted to do last year. The observed behaviour of the European Union, through last year and this year, is that it does not wish to negotiate about the fundamental core of the problem. The proposals it has put on the table are at the margin; they are not to do with the core of the difficulties in so many areas—not just trade but state aid, VAT and other issues that go into the depths of the protocol. I do not believe it will unless it is forced to engage with the fact that the UK Government have an alternative, which is to use the powers in this Bill. If we take the Bill off the table, we are removing such limited leverage as the UK Government have to deliver for their people, the people of Northern Ireland, a better outcome.
I will wind up there. It is very important that we do not show infirmity of purpose on this and that the Bill continues. I urge the Minister in winding up to make it clear that we intend to move forward with it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
I did not plan on speaking in this debate, but I think it is only right that somebody should thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for explaining to us how bad things have become in Northern Ireland as a result of the treaty he negotiated. I am very happy to do that. I will, however, keep my speech brief and not make a Second Reading speech.
Of course, I support these two amendments but hope very much that we will not get to vote on them. To echo the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, we have been asked to put lipstick on a pig again. We have been asked to do that many times in the last couple of years, but to my knowledge, this is first time that the pig is not only ugly but illegal. On that basis, we should not get to vote on it. What we should do now, as others have said, is invoke Article 16. If negotiations are not working, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there is a route open to us but passing an illegal Bill is certainly not it.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I had been planning to speak on the detail of the amendments. It seems to me to be quite unreasonable, as the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Bew, have already said, that the whole essence of the Belfast agreement, which was that important decisions would be made on a cross-community basis—a difficult principle for unionists to accept at the time—is now being abandoned the moment it becomes inconvenient. I say that as someone who was rather opposed, at the time, to the Belfast agreement—not on orange or green grounds but because I thought it was unhealthy to have all the parties in power all the time. I thought it would be healthier for democracy to have a more genuine competition. I lost that argument and we went down this road. It seems a little inconsistent that we should move to majoritarianism only when it suits people pushing one agenda.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This has been a much more wide-ranging debate than I had anticipated. I guess we will see a lot of that in Committee, because, as many noble Lords observed, of the fundamental nature of our objection to what the Government are trying to do. However, this group of amendments is timely and makes an important point. Whether or not we agree that we should be supporting these to the letter is not, I think, what the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, were trying to ask in tabling them. They were trying to make an important point. The issues which the noble Lord, Lord Frost, quite rightly reminds us are real on the ground in Northern Ireland absolutely are. However, this situation is now unique to Northern Ireland, and in every instance where there are a set of problems that relate to one specific geographical area—perhaps especially Northern Ireland, but it could be Wales or the north of England—the idea that you would try to resolve them unilaterally, without proper engagement with communities who live there, is unrealistic. Whatever happens with our deliberations on the Bill, with the negotiations or even if there are to be elections, and as a consequence of all that, we will not be able to move forward unless all the parties in Northern Ireland get together and agree a way to proceed. Any other way of going about this will not provide us with a durable solution, and that durability of an agreement is what we all want.
The Government were warned about the protocol at the time. It has been said, “But we were in a bit of a hurry because we weren’t allowed to leave without a deal; we just had to do something and this was better than nothing.” We have heard all that, and whatever we think about a Government making that kind of argument when they had an 80-seat majority and could pretty much at that point do whatever they wanted, we are where we are. However, these problems were completely foreseeable, and I regret that we have got to where we are.
Some people say that we need to expedite the Bill—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said this—and move on. That is fine, but to do what? What is it that the Government want to do instead? We do not know. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said he was concerned that he did not know. We have not seen draft regulations. We are being asked to agree to something without knowing what it is we will be left with at the end of the process; that is not reasonable for this Committee.
At the risk of making a wide-ranging and ponderous speech that deviates all over the place and does not address these amendments, let me say that saying, “Oh well, some people on your side said it was a bad idea at the time; therefore we must never do it”, is not a serious response to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about this being the legal mechanism to which the UK Government agreed. We have not heard an adequate response from the Government on why they now view Article 16 as an inadequate provision that would not address the issues with the protocol that they say, and we agree, need to be resolved.
Also, on the idea that having this issue on the table will somehow make the EU more forthcoming in giving us what we want—although we lack clarity on that—I think we could be forgiven for not placing too much faith in the brilliance of the UK’s negotiating ability, given that it has brought us to precisely where we are today. The point that the noble Baronesses were making in tabling these amendments is a very important one, and one that we want to take seriously—especially in what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said about the cross-community nature of that involvement. We absolutely take that on board but it remains a point of principle, and one we should not lose, that we cannot do things to or act unilaterally in a way that has a huge impact on Northern Ireland without proper, full engagement with the communities there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I trust that the Committee will forgive me if I, somewhat unfashionably, pay lip service to the Standing Orders of the House and actually speak to the amendments. In so doing, I want to try to live up to the comments from my noble friend Lord Cormack. As an admirer of Harold Macmillan and the Baldwinite tradition in the Conservative Party, I will try to deliver my comments in that quiet, calm, deliberative way of which Mr Macmillan was so fond.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for his kind words. I fear that, from now on, I will only disappoint him. Without going over the history, I say that he is well aware of what my views were three years ago but, as I have said many times, I am less interested in how we got here and more interested in how we can move on and get out of here into a more satisfactory state of affairs.
Before I turn directly to the amendments, as this is my first opportunity to speak from the Front Bench since the passing of May Blood, I want to reiterate a number of the comments made about her last week. She was an absolutely fearless and tireless champion of the rights of everybody in Northern Ireland. Her record in bringing people together, particularly through her work on integrated education, was absolutely inspirational.
I have just been sent a text. Some people will have come across a chap called Bob Mauro, who was the director of Irish Studies at Boston College; I see the noble Lord, Lord Hain, nodding. Sadly, I have just been informed that he has passed away. He was a man with whom those of us who have been involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland over a number of years had a great many dealings, so our sympathies go to his family and colleagues as well.
I emphasise a couple of points on which I strongly agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and which underline the frustrations that we all share in this House over the lack of devolved government since February. A number of us have sadly been through this experience on too many occasions in recent years, and Members opposite went through it from 2002 to 2007. It is not a satisfactory state of affairs. We are firmly committed to the Belfast agreement, to its institutions and to getting devolved government back up and running as soon as possible. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have this at the top of his agenda when he meets the political parties in Northern Ireland over the coming days.
Amendments 4 and 5, in the names of the noble Baronesses, would essentially, by requiring the prior approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly, undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. In application, these amendments, if passed, would be wrecking amendments. We are very committed to restoring a fully functioning Executive and Assembly, but I remind the Committee that it is because of the operation of the protocol in its current form that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not sat since February. Sadly, we cannot be sure how long that state of affairs will persist. Therefore, these amendments risk setting a test which, in the current circumstances, could not be met due to the lack of an Assembly. The disapplication of elements of the protocol is also an excepted matter of foreign affairs reserved for the UK Government. Although we of course engage with parties in Northern Ireland, it would be improper, effectively, to transfer a new competence to a devolved Assembly in this way.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that we are committed to the Sewel convention and that we are pursuing options for obtaining legislative consent to the Bill from devolved Administrations. The Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office wrote to the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service regarding legislative consent and it remains our hope that we can reach a positive resolution on this point as soon as the institutions are restored. Regarding conversations with MLAs and political parties in Northern Ireland, I assure the noble Lord that these continue all the time, involving the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and me. We are in Northern Ireland, talking to political parties, all the time. It will not surprise the noble Lord that these issues surface from time to time. Without going into details of individual conversations, we continue to engage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the letter sent earlier this year to the then Prime Minister, setting out opposition to the protocol Bill. This was raised by a number of noble Lords. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, I am somewhat surprised, as one who spent many years as an adviser in the Northern Ireland Office and was told that particular arrangements for Northern Ireland were completely unsuitable because they did not have the support of a minority, now to be told that somehow majority rule, after a 50-year absence, ought to make a return. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, cross-community consent is at the heart of the Belfast agreement. Following the May election, the largest single designation in the Assembly remains unionist. Under the 1998 rules, we would still be looking at a unionist First Minister. That remains the largest single designation and it is worth pointing out again that not a single unionist Member of that largest designation in the Assembly supports the protocol in its current form. In those circumstances, it is fair to point out that we have a problem.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could he perhaps give an instance in which Norway has not immediately adopted a piece of European legislation since the EEA agreement came into effect?
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble Lord is a former diplomat. He is a far greater expert on these matters than I will ever be. However, my noble friend Lord Hannan has just whispered in my ear “the post office directive”. I will come back to the noble Lord with further details.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I know that we will come on to the application of EU law in later groups, but since the Minister has helpfully referred to that, it would be good for him to be clear that, even under this Bill—the dual regulatory regime that the Government are proposing—there will be direct application of EU laws.
Lord Caine (Con)
As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, we will deal with this subject in the fourth group of amendments. I shall be responding for the Government, so if he can contain himself, we will deal with it at the appropriate point—if we get there this evening.
In summary, we do not think that it would be right to make implementation of measures in this Bill contingent on the restoration of the institutions, given the urgency of the situation in Northern Ireland to which the Government must respond.
I turn briefly to Amendments 68 and 69, also in the name of the noble Baroness. Taken together, these would make the commencement of all operational aspects of the Bill dependent on the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly. At the risk of repeating myself, it is because of the operation of the protocol that the Assembly has not sat since February. We do not know how long this state of affairs will persist. The situation in Northern Ireland is urgent, and we cannot allow addressing the problems with the protocol to be delayed indefinitely.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew—I should really call him my noble friend—rightly referred to the fact that trade has been a reserved matter ever since the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The amendments would essentially prevent the Government making secondary legislation in a reserved area. That is another reason why we cannot accept them.
Given the urgency of the situation—the need to fix the protocol—it would not be right to make the implementation of the vital measures in this Bill contingent on the restoration of the Assembly and Executive. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I begin by echoing the Minister’s comments on May Blood. On behalf of these Benches, I pass on our condolences to her family. I heard about her when I first went to Belfast, and she was held up as a role model for so many in Northern Ireland.
At the outset, I said that this would be a probing amendment. It would be fair to say that it has provoked and probed quite extensively. We have covered a variety of topics, with some very interesting and thought-provoking speeches. In particular, I single out the very measured speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and that of my noble friend Lord Bruce, who perhaps displayed his irritations and frustrations with the situation a little bit more clearly than I did.
As ever, I found myself agreeing entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They are both absolutely right in their analysis that things are being done to Northern Ireland rather than for it. That is, in essence, the purpose of these amendments: they are probing amendments about the principle of consulting, and not just with one part of one community.
I totally agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It was a wonderful piece of common sense. Would that we could all now finish what could perhaps be described as a waste of our collective time. There was an interesting series of contributions none the less.
I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who rightly said that the amendments are about the principle of consultation—consulting the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, in their absence, making sure that they are properly involved in the process. I fear that the Minister did not really expand on how that will happen in the weeks and months ahead.
It is, perhaps, one of the peculiarities of this Bill that no one department ever seems to want to take ownership of it. However, it was very welcome to have the Minister from the Northern Ireland Office today because, with all his experience, he was at least able to speak first hand about the consultation and the details of this legislation.
To repeat, the Northern Ireland protocol is a problem of this Government’s own making. Finding practical solutions needs to be their responsibility. However, it is important to listen to all voices in Northern Ireland and, as I said earlier, not just those of one part of one community. It is hard to see how creating further ill will through this legislation will achieve that aim. However, I will not press these amendments this afternoon but reserve the option of re-tabling them on Report, depending on what happens in the weeks ahead in Northern Ireland around the possible elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I rise to move Amendment 7 and to perhaps add some mascara to this porcine proposal for the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I tried to give a preview of the excitement of later groups to retain the attention of the Committee. Alas, we might be on to more of a core group with Clause 4. In many respects, it is the core of the Bill. We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Frost—who is no longer in his place—that it contains the proposals which will resolve the issues. However, in many respects, the Bill should be called the Northern Ireland delegated powers Bill, because 19 of the 26 clauses are delegated powers clauses and not proposals that we are able to scrutinise properly.
On why imminent peril and the invocation of necessity is so important, it is because it is at the heart of the reasoning why Clause 4 exists. I shall not recap the discussion on the previous group or the first day in Committee, but there is still a lack of clarity about the Government saying that the protocol is the issue but then that it is not the issue, it is its implementation. They have said in their legal paper that the situation of necessity needs to be addressed urgently but also that they have not yet made up their mind on solutions and addressing them will take time. They have said that there is imminent peril, but the Advocate-General told me on the first day in Committee that imminent is as long as the Government might consider it to be, so it is important to try to pin down when the imminent peril started.
I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is not able to stay for other groups in Committee because I wanted to respond to what he said. If this Bill is a negotiating tactic, he has completely undermined the Government’s argument for invoking the doctrine of necessity for this Bill, because it cannot be both. It cannot be a way of addressing grave and imminent peril and also be a negotiating tactic with the EU. I heard said from a sedentary position, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, “Why not?” If the whole reason of grave and imminent peril for the invocation of international law is to set aside treaty commitments but there are negotiations under way to resolve them, you cannot invoke the doctrine of necessity because the doctrine of necessity under Article 25 of the International Law Commission can be invoked only if there are no other means of resolving the issues, so it simply cannot be both.
I am trying to pin down when this peril actually started and how we are to consider what the baselines are. The noble Lord, Lord True, told the Chamber in January 2021 that concerns about the implementation of the protocol must not be overstated. He said:
“I acknowledge that there have been issues—that was never denied—but, overall, goods are continuing to flow effectively. Supermarkets are able to move their lorries into Northern Ireland. There are some specific issues, as we have seen with individual suppliers, but it is holding up well overall.”—[Official Report, 14/1/21; col. 884.]
A week later, his then Secretary of State Brandon Lewis told BBC “Question Time” viewers—I quote from the transcript of the programme: “The protocol means that as part of the United Kingdom Northern Ireland is going to have this unique competitive advantage in the world, in the sense that Northern Ireland has the ability to trade in and as part of the United Kingdom as well as through the single market with the EU. That is going to mean if you are a business that deals with the UK and a business that deals with the EU, the place to invest and grow your business is in Northern Ireland. You have got that ability to trade both ways and I think that gives Northern Ireland a competitive advantage and a huge opportunity.”
Therefore, the Government rest their case on grave and imminent peril somewhere between January 2021 and the publication of the White Paper. During that period, I asked repeatedly for information on UK-EU trade, and we were also asking questions about east-west trade between GB and Northern Ireland. Ministers stated to me in response that it was impossible to disaggregate factors such as Covid and then the global supply chain. They have found ways to do for this for GB-NI trade, but it is hard to discern from official government statistics produced by the Northern Ireland statistics body, and the Department for Transport’s data for UK major ports have not shown major shifts. So I would be grateful if the Government would publish this information directly. They have indicated that trade diversion exists, but they have not published statistics showing their case. I am very willing to look at them if they have published them, but they have not yet done so. Therefore, we need to have more information as they are seeking powers to put forward a dual regulatory system of both UK and EU procedures.
I appreciate the comments that were made on the first day in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others that the protocol has not been implemented in full yet, and I understand that, but neither has the TCA for any UK port of exit and entry for goods into the UK. We are on our third delay for Dover and all other ports, and they are not fully operational. For trade between the UK and the EU, there is not a single fully operational port under the measures of the TCA in any of the four nations.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I was hoping that others would take on the strain. I spoke at Second Reading, and I have tried to come to this really representing the settled views of the committees of this House that have been considering these areas. I think we have heard quite a bit already in debates about the wisdom, or lack of it, of passing something that has the appearance of being an illegality. It does not matter whether or not it is; it is the appearance that is hugely damaging in terms of the rule of law point.
I will add briefly to those general views by saying only that there is a further view, and that is that we have to do an awful lot of deals with the EU over the coming years on a whole lot of things, and it is fairly unwise at this very early stage in the new relationship to have such a big black put up about us not being a reliable partner. I am deeply concerned about that, and it is a concern that has flowed through to the various reports that we have written over many years in this area. I am looking at a solid former member of the European Union Committee in my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who made a very good speech in the previous group, and at my noble friend Lord Pannick, who made an equally good speech and who has been strong in this area. In this group, I do not want to follow up on that, but in view of the fact that everyone seems to be going very wide here in Committee I thought I would just make that point now rather than very late tonight.
The particular point I want to raise came out of the June 2019 report of the European Union Committee, Scrutiny of International Agreements: Lessons Learned. The important thing to note here, I think, is what the man in the street had in terms of scrutiny at an elected or a parliamentary representative level in the moment before Brexit. The cherry had three bites out of it—or, really, two bites and a nibble. The first bite was that his representative in the European Parliament was going through the thing very carefully indeed, as most trade deals and many international agreements were on European matters. The second bite was that, through the action of the scrutiny reserve resolutions, the European Union Committee structure in this House and the European Scrutiny Committee structure in the House of Commons were going through things in exhaustive detail, and the interaction of those two committees and the European Parliament began at the start of any process and followed it all the way through to the end.
The third little nibble came with CRaG, a simple thing which looks at the eventual results; it is a quick yes or no procedure, where the House of Lords does not have any power at all and the House of Commons has precious little. We said in our report of June 2019 that
“the CRAG Act is poorly designed to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny.”
That is pretty clear, and it seems to me on rereading the report over the weekend that it is a pretty good report. I am coming at this in a slightly different way, but what worries me now is that these are core changes to an international agreement that could be made without any form of parliamentary scrutiny—that is true of this group but other groups as well—not even the CRaG form of scrutiny, just a Minister making an agreement. For core changes to core treaties with core partners, there must be a very good parliamentary scrutiny process.
I have not arrived with the answers to exactly what the process should be but I am saying that it must be a very serious process. I think the net effect of amendments like these would be to remove the ability of a Minister to make a decision like that but leave a mechanism whereby a Minister could come back to Parliament and—after suitable scrutiny with a suitable process—have a parliamentary agreement to back up whatever the change being discussed. I have been sitting over this for six and a half years, and I find it very difficult to discuss such changes in the abstract. I would like to discuss specific changes specifically, which is why I feel very supportive of this line of amendments and thankful that they have been tabled.
Lord Cormack (Con)
In effect, we have heard this evening a reiteration of Dunning’s Motion in the reign of George III:
“The influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.”
We are seeing in the Bill not only an abrogation of international law and our obligations, which is what primarily concerns me, but in the process, by the design of the Bill, an accretion of power to Ministers and the Executive—an unbalancing of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
The Executive are answerable to Parliament in our constitution. Here, great chunks are being given to the power of the Executive. We owe an enormous debt to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his committee, and other committees in this House, which have pointed this out calmly—to use a word I used earlier—but very forcefully. We are embarking on a road towards executive superiority such as is incompatible with our constitution, which is moving away in the 21st century from what our forefathers fought for in the past. We cannot emphasise that too greatly.
The person who could make this speech far better than I and whose name is on the amendments spoken to eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Time and again, in a variety of Bills and contexts, he has pointed out to your Lordships’ House how the accumulation of Henry VIII powers in the hands of Ministers, without proper accountability to the House, is the road towards executive domination such as is incompatible with our constitution, as I said a few moments ago.
In wholeheartedly supporting these amendments, I urge my noble friend, when he comes to reply from the Front Bench, to address this issue and address it directly. I have great admiration for my noble friend Lord Caine. I certainly have great admiration for his knowledge of, and concern for, Northern Ireland, to which he has dedicated a large part of his life; but is he really happy to be put in a position, or see any of his ministerial colleagues put in a position, where they can override Parliament effectively by diktat?
Lord Pannick (CB)
I completely agree with the noble Lord, particularly in relation to his tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. In his absence—as his junior as it were—I draw this Committee’s attention to the quite extraordinary report of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory and Reform Committee to which reference has been made before, particularly at Second Reading, but it bears repetition. Its seventh report of this Session says at paragraph 4 that this is
“a skeleton bill that confers on Ministers a licence to legislate in the widest possible terms.”
It continues:
“The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament”.
That is quite an extraordinary criticism of this legislation. It is made not by novices but by highly experienced and respected Members of your Lordships’ House across party lines. I find it deeply regrettable that the Government should think it appropriate to continue with a Bill that has attracted such cross-party criticism.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I came into Parliament nearly 40 years ago and was told first of all that you should never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer. Now that I have been here so long, I feel that I can take the risk of asking some questions to which I do not know the answer, about a very important aspect of the Bill that has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
There are two criticisms of the Bill, the first being that it is allegedly against international law. I do not believe that and have not really heard any answers to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. What happens when you have two conflicting international obligations? The second criticism is that it relies, very largely and to an almost unprecedented degree, on Henry VIII clauses. Historically, I am very reluctant to rely extensively on Henry VIII clauses, and I was rather shocked by the committee report to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just referred.
The questions that I want to ask, and to which I do not know the answer, are: first, what is the alternative in the context in which we are to have open-ended Henry VIII clauses; and secondly, why did the Government not adopt that alternative? I assume that the alternative to the Henry VIII clauses is to spell out in detail, in primary legislation, what you intend to do, but the context in which we are doing it is that we are simultaneously legislating and negotiating.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that we cannot do that. It seems to me perfectly compatible with the doctrine of necessity to do that. We have to do something, we need the power to do something, we have taken the legal power to do something, but we would like that something to be negotiated if possible. So we are simultaneously negotiating and legislating. If we spell out in primary legislation, in detail, the outcome that we want to get, in the context of a negotiation that involves give and take, we either have to spell out the maximum we want—what we want to take without any give—or the minimum we are prepared to accept: what we are prepared to give without any prospect of taking.
In this unusual situation of having to have the legal powers to act while we are negotiating and hoping for a negotiated solution, I am not sure what alternative there is to what the Government have done. I would be grateful to hear what noble Lords would do who share my reluctance to rely on Henry VIII clauses. Effectively, we are saying we are recreating the royal prerogative in the negotiation, giving the Government a free hand, while giving them the power to take legislative action if those negotiations do not achieve a satisfactory result.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in an earlier debate the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, pointed out precedents whereby the Government relied on regulations to give meat to a Bill and they had been published by this stage, so that we had some sight of what we were signing up to.
I am interested that on this occasion, on this group of amendments, my noble friends on the Democratic Unionist Benches have been strangely silent. Given what we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in moving the amendments and from others who supported him, to me, this amounts to a democratic deficit. All the conditions that would normally be put in place, involving a review of the regulations before they came up, appear not to be in play at this time. I hope my noble friends will find common ground with me, recognising that this could be a democratic deficit the likes of which they would not like to see.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, set out this group of amendments, he rightly said that Clause 4 is at the heart of the Bill, and the debate has really encapsulated that point.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. We will have several debates about the scope of the delegated powers proposed, but as this is the first group dealing with the reports by the DPRRC, it is worth recalling just how unprecedented these were. The DPRRC has chosen on a number of occasions to publish a report while a Bill is still in the Commons—there is nothing unusual in that—but rarely has it been so scathing, labelling the Bill
“unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s own international obligations”,
as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said.
The committee was unable to propose tweaks to various powers in the Bill, including those in Clause 4. Instead, it recommended gutting several key clauses. As mentioned in the debate, the Government opted not to respond to the DPRRC before we moved into Committee, even though they had from July to do so. It is hard to see how the two sides can meet in the middle, so, if we proceed to Report, it is quite possible that this House will have to strip out several clauses.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made interesting points when he talked about the previous level of scrutiny of EU law, in which this House played a very prominent part. I am sure many Members of this House served on those committees. The EU Committee scrutinised legislation, as did this House and a whole series of committees, and the House of Commons, of course. That was a far higher level of scrutiny than anything being proposed at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked an interesting question—and he was fair in saying it was a genuine question—about the alternatives to this multitude of Henry VIII powers. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. It seems to me that the alternative is to go through things in detail, as the old EU committee structure in this House used to do routinely. I will be interested to hear the answer to the noble Lord’s question.
We are sympathetic to this group of amendments. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is going to do but we are happy to support him.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I am well aware of the sensitivity in this House regarding Henry VIII powers, and I respect that; it is a serious argument. However, Northern Ireland looks at these things from an angle that is not entirely the way the House of Lords looks at them. For one thing, there are what you might call Louis XIV powers all over the place in terms of European law and regulations, but there is silence about that.
The second issue, which has already been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is that again and again, we have had the most dramatic demonstrations of Henry VIII powers in areas where I and other Members, a majority in your Lordships’ House, are in agreement—abortion laws and so on. We do it all the time. When we as a local assembly like it, when it is our kind of opinion, we have no problems. When we do not like what is proposed, we discover that this application of Henry VIII powers is intrinsically terrible. To be blunt, the House needs to avoid looking totally hypocritical on this point.
I feel that I have been living for a very long time with Article 16 and the potential illegality or otherwise of the Government’s legislation. When I first encountered it, in fact, it was Article 15 in Theresa May’s Bill; it was that long ago. I read and reread it until I was blue in the face. Let me say what the problem is in attempting to challenge the Government’s position. The best argument against the current position in the legislation is that Article 16 could be and should have been applied. At the moment, it is ridiculous. We are in the middle of a serious negotiation with the EU and it would break that up, so it is fatuous and politically absurd. Apart from the principle of reality, I can see why people want to argue that, but it is not going to happen now because the Government want this legislation with the EU to succeed. In the Financial Times as recently as September, the EU was defining the application of Article 16 as an outrage and so on. The situation would simply be aggravated.
The other weak point of this argument is that saying, “We want Article 16 but nothing else” is the sound of one hand clapping. None of those who have argued for it in this House since Second Reading has shown any grasp of the central difficulty of the relationship between the two treaties and their interaction. If you are going to argue, as distinguished international lawyers have done before both our Select Committees, that the Government have a case of sorts but Article 16 should be applied first, that is based on the idea that there is an interaction between the two treaties and this is the best way of acting to defend the Good Friday agreement. That is a perfectly respectable intellectual legal argument, but it just does not fit with the political moment we find ourselves in, with ongoing negotiations.
The sensitivity that people in this Chamber have about the attitudes and feelings of the EU is quite remarkable when they do not seem to feel it themselves; they feel that they are quite adult enough to get on with this negotiation anyway, regardless of the Bill. As I pointed out, the Irish Foreign Secretary said openly that they do not like the Bill but that is not a reason for not having the negotiations. Still, it is wonderful to see people stick up for other people’s rights and interests when they themselves do not seem quite so keen or worked up about the subject.
The main point is that just saying “Article 16” is simply one hand clapping. The only possible viable argument is to say—as indeed both the House of Commons and our own Select Committee have been told—that that is indeed the way you could use it to get a result. The best criticism of the Government is that you cannot really prove necessity unless you have gone down this route. It so happens that the Government are stuck in a moment of real politics, the real negotiation that is going on, so they cannot do it, but the majority of speakers in this House say, “I would like Article 16”. That is an amazing recent conversion to Article 16. A few months ago, most of us hated it and regarded even talking about it as a piece of British brutishness. Now we really love it because we prefer it to the Bill. Unless you add to that that you accept that there is a real problem with the interaction between this agreement and the Good Friday agreement, as the former Lord Chancellor said in the House of Commons, then, in the Chinese phrase, it is just one hand clapping.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, raises a fascinating conundrum, but what he said about Article 16 was based on a misunderstanding of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said earlier. I do not think I have met anybody in this House who believes that the right course of action, in abstract, is to use Article 16. The right course of action is to apply the treaty that we signed: that is what a lot of us believe. Clearly, there are others who take a different view. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was making—which is clearly correct, and has been made several times by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—was that there is Article 16. It exists. It is the designated route—the agreed route, the treaty route—to deal with a dispute about the implementation of the protocol. I am not saying that we should be using Article 16. I am saying that we should not be using another means and pretending that it is legal so to do while Article 16 exists. That seems to be the rub of it.
I will try to deal in an amateur way with the interesting questions from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I do not know the answer either, but one answer would be the Irish answer: “I wouldn’t be starting from here.” I am sure that the noble Lord agrees with me that if you read Clause 18(1) or Clause 22(1) and (2) of the Bill, the only question in your mind is: is this Lewis Carroll or is it Stalin? These are astonishing powers taken for the Minister, by regulation, to do whatever he likes, providing it is broadly to do with Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the reports that we have seen from three committees—but particularly the Delegated Powers Committee—are devastating. I cannot remember seeing in this House such strong language used in a unanimously agreed cross-party report.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, would agree with me that we do not want to be in this situation. There must be another solution. As a former negotiator, I would say that it is crucial to avoid putting the ball in your own net. Frankly, attempting this legislation while also attempting—or claiming to be attempting—to conduct negotiations, is absurd. Here I part company with my friend the noble Lord, Lord Frost, whose third argument today was exploded by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. He said that it is necessary for negotiating reasons to advance this protocol; this is what will make the other side sit up and pay attention. You cannot argue both necessity and that. In my view, you would be mad to argue that, because on the other side of the table it is not a playground spat. On the other side of the table is a grown-up group of 27 countries that believe in the rule of law and are concerned that bad precedents should not be set. They cannot possibly concede that, because there is a blunderbuss on the table, they must give you what you are asking for in negotiations. They are not going to do that. Therefore, my answer to the conundrum of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is that it is a great mistake to legislate in these terms while you are negotiating. If Ministers are telling the truth about their wish to negotiate a solution to this, the last thing they should be doing is putting forward this Bill.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I really agree with every word that has just been said. I have another suggestion for the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. The truth is that most liberal democracies in the world exist in an environment where major changes to international agreements or the making of international agreements are scrutinised by Parliament on a fairly open basis. We all know, for instance, that Mr Šefčovič has a mandate. In fact, we know an awful lot about that mandate. Mr Šefčovič regularly briefs committees in the European Parliament and has a pretty good ability to bring the European Parliament along with him, which is important—and, indeed, to bring the 27 nations along with him as well.
I am not suggesting that we should copy and paste that, but I note that the PACAC, a committee of the other place, was in Norway last week. I had a detailed discussion with a member of that committee on Friday about how Norway deals with this. In fact, Norway also brings along its Parliament in a very open way and this does not appear to interfere with the negotiating process in the way the noble Lord was worried about. These are major changes to an international agreement. The international agreements process that we have, which we need to rebuild in this Parliament, should take account of that and should apply. That is a fairly open process to the committees and Members of both Houses; I feel that strongly. I do not see any other liberal democracies doing this. We are unique in having cut Parliament out of the process. I see no other democracies having problems of the nature that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is worried about. I could see that he was genuinely worried, but I have to say that I am not.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I will not rehearse what I said previously about Article 16, but I will see if I can answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. If you are faced with two instruments that appear to be in conflict—which I think is what we are arguing—the first thing you do is have a detailed analysis of these instruments to see whether there is a provision in them that will enable you to reconcile the difference. The advantage of Article 16 has just been set out by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. You are adhering to the treaty by using a term within the treaty that helps you avoid being in conflict with the other treaty. That is a possible way of doing it.
Lord Bew (CB)
If I may intervene briefly, I have tried to explain that I had an intense relationship with Article 16 when it was deeply unfashionable in this House. Many times in the last year, I have wanted to argue privately with the Government that it should be applied. The arguments made for it are impeccable and have been for years; that is simply the case. The problem is that this is not conceivably a rational moment. There are complaints about the Bill. Does it matter what the Irish Foreign Minister says? It is said that it does not matter; we are choosing to disregard it. This is a moment when we are negotiating seriously with the EU. Suddenly to come in and say, “By the way”—and the logic is, in general terms, superb—“we are applying Article 16 now”, is bound to be destructive of the negotiations that are proceeding. We must respect the reality of the moment.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
But if the consequence of doing so is to embrace a Bill which drives a horse and cart through the procedures and principles by which this Parliament operates, surely that is an inhibition and we should avoid it at all costs.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
To prevent the noble Lord, Lord Bew, having to get up and sit down again, I ask him again to appreciate and acknowledge that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, nobody in the debates we have had, whether at Second Reading, on the first day in Committee or today, is arguing to invoke Article 16. No one is advocating its use, let alone now. All that is being said is that the legal argument of necessity invoked by the Government is undermined by the fact that they have never resorted to the use of Article 16; hence necessity is on very shallow foundations.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, is there not a very short answer to all of this: not to proceed with the Bill?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, if I may make a short point before the Minister gets up to speak, it is clear that we are going to have a debate on international law and so on about every set of clauses. All I want at this stage is to draw attention to the actual situation and practical reality for people moving goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as a result of the application of EU customs law for those goods coming to Northern Ireland. Briefly, and cutting through the arguments about international law, let us have a look at the reality.
The Government will have spent £340 million through the Trader Support Service helping traders process 2.3 million customs declarations for trade between two parts of the United Kingdom. For those 2.3 million declarations, by the end of the year the taxpayer will have forked out almost £350 million, and that comes on top of the movement and assistance schemes and other schemes designed to help people with the paperwork. According to some estimates, it could amount to £500 million. That support is not guaranteed to continue into the future. It has been extended for another year but at some point those costs will have to be borne by hauliers—the companies which move those goods—and consumers. There will certainly be a massive increase in the cost of living. Already, as a result of the paperwork that people have to go through, even with that support we have seen example after example of firms in Great Britain simply refusing to have any further dealings with Northern Ireland. It is simply not worth their time, effort or money, even with those vast millions going into the Trader Support Service.
I urge noble Lords to look at what people in companies such as McBurney Transport and McCulla—the people who transport goods to the Irish Republic as well, not just Northern Ireland—are saying about the paperwork and the reality of these customs burdens on trade between one part of the United Kingdom and another, and then tell people that this is a sensible way of approaching it. We need change. I understand the arguments about international law and all of that but we need to have this rectified. We cannot continue to fork out this kind of money and still have companies refusing to do business with one part of the United Kingdom; namely, Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge that, as with the previous group, we have perhaps gone wider than the specific amendments. In the interests of time, and since we need to make progress on the Bill, I am not going to go into the more general arguments. My noble friends on the Front Bench and I have articulated several times the Government’s position on the need to proceed with the Bill, and those circumstances remain. I am reminded that when the debate started this afternoon, my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Howell, I think, among others, returned to the Front Bench the point about the necessity—to use a legal term, but not in its application to the Bill—to proceed with it. I assure the House as one of the three Ministers responsible for the passage of the Bill that, while in the middle of a reshuffle, our weekends—I speak for all three of us—have been focused on the detail of the Bill and proceeding with it. The fact that the three of us are still present reflects the Government’s current intent, because we feel that this is necessary.
I have heard the arguments again today, many of which were articulated at Second Reading and in our debates so far in Committee, and I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I listened carefully on the issue of Article 16, and he is of course right. I know that the noble Lord has a different perspective, but that is why I say that we have never said that Article 16 is off the table. It remains an instrument available to the Government within the treaty that we have signed, as noble Lords have said. However, there is a reality, which was articulated very well just now by my noble friend Lord Dodds. The reality is what businesses are now facing. The protocol is not working and if is not working in the interests of any part of the United Kingdom, as its Government we are obligated to ensure that we provide a practical solution which works in the interests, first and foremost, of the citizens of our united United Kingdom. That remains the primary intent of the United Kingdom Government.
I will pick up on some of the specifics. In introducing his amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about published statistics. What I can share with the noble Lord is that HMRC has published summary data on the numbers of declarations, their associated value and the number of businesses importing goods into Northern Ireland from Great Britain in 2021. I will give a couple of summary statistics, if I may: in 2021, over 1 million full declarations were declared to HMRC. The number of businesses associated with those full declarations was 10,400, while 100 GB businesses have stopped supplying the Northern Ireland market already. The requirement to follow EU rules is one of the factors behind this situation, as was alluded to in the detail of the contribution of my noble friend Lord Dodds.
I turn to the amendments in front of us, including Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord. As many noble Lords noted, a number of the amendments are on the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which the Government will respond, as I said earlier, as they will to the report of the Constitution Committee. I have checked with officials and we will certainly seek to respond in advance of Report.
I acknowledge the reservations raised today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is someone who I respect greatly and have great admiration for. I assure noble Lords that in our engagement on the Bill, it did not surprise me at all that the majority of our discussions began, as he said, “Well, Tariq, you know what I’m going to raise with you.” Yes, the Bill has many clauses where the Government seek to take certain powers because we believe that they are necessary. The Government remain of the view that these delegated powers are required, and will enable secondary legislation to set out precisely the UK or non-EU movements that will be excluded by Clause 4(2).
The operation of the protocol, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and my noble friends Lord Dodds and Lord Lilley, has shown that the manner and nature of the issues faced by businesses in moving goods have not been static over time. There needs to be flexibility to respond to the changing circumstances in order to maintain the effective flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As noted in the 2025 UK Border Strategy, we are seeing long-term shifts in how goods move; for example, through increasing e-commerce and advances in technologies for Governments to manage flow. It is therefore appropriate that means are available to adapt arrangements to be fit for purpose at all times. In the Government’s view, this power is drafted with the appropriate breadth for them to confidently address issues which may arise from time to time that disrupt businesses.
I listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on the importance and appropriateness of making secondary legislative provision and what the alternatives would be. The EU legal acts in the first 10 points in Annex 2 alone are over 1,500 pages in length. Before one even comes to the remaining 37 points contained therein covering other pieces of EU law, that is already longer than some of the longest pieces of legislation currently on the statute book. To draw a totally different example, the Companies Act 2006 is 1,260 pages long. It would therefore not be appropriate, in the Government’s view, to have this amount detailed in primary legislation.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
The Minister is referring to the dual regulatory regime. I would like the Government to understand that this will work for some businesses but for other types of industry, such as the dairy and beef industries, it will not. It may be useful for the Government to take further evidence from those industries in Northern Ireland which have practical, on-the-ground experience of, for example, where there is a need for a department of agriculture certificate to certify that milk is milk and is of perfectly good quality. That needs to be addressed adequately.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it would be a choice for that particular business or sector, as my noble friend Lord Caine, has just reminded me, but I take on board the noble Baroness’s point. That is what I have already suggested. When I was preparing for the sitting today, I asked officials if there were different approaches to different sectors. She has highlighted them. It would be helpful on the specifics, and I will certainly take that back to the department, but I have already offered that we could provide more insight and explanations.
On consultation, which the noble Baroness alluded to, we are doing exactly that. Our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are speaking with businesses and the practical issues are, where necessary, being highlighted so we can address them. As we proceed with the Bill and have further discussions, the ultimate objective is to ease the burden on the ability of businesses from Great Britain to operate effectively and in a fluid nature within the context of the wider United Kingdom, inclusive of Northern Ireland.
Clause 4(4) sets out a non-exhaustive list of criteria which may be considered when prescribing those movements. It is these “qualifying movements” which will be ultimately entitled to enter our proposed green lane. Clause 4(5) provides a power under which a Minister can make regulations about the meaning of those goods which are heading for the UK, or which are non-EU destined, including by providing the basis under which a trader registered under a prescribed scheme, such as trusted trader scheme, can state whether goods being moved are UK or non-EU destined.
Finally, Clause 4(6) defines the meaning of “qualifying movement” for the purposes of the clause. Qualifying movements are those from any place other than the EU to Northern Ireland and the reverse, including movements within the UK and movements of goods by sea into ports in Northern Ireland. Clause 4 is right at the heart of our intentions in rationalising the processes alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, which are required when goods move into Northern Ireland. We have been clear that we do not believe it is appropriate to continue to require full customs and SPS processes when goods are not destined for the EU, and it is this clause that will allow us to put in place a more sensible regime. That is why I recommend that noble Lords allow this to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. We will get to SPS issues later, as well as some of the customs elements that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, highlighted.
I thank the Minister for his information from HMRC, which I of course read before this debate—it is static information for one calendar year. One of the frequently asked questions under that data is:
“Does HMRC hold data on NI movements from GB before January 2021?”
The answer is:
“No, the collection of data for goods moving into NI from GB has only been required since 1st January 2021”.
The Minister then added anecdotal evidence, which the noble Lord, Lord True, told us that we should not use. Both things cannot equate: a static set of data for one calendar year does not necessarily demonstrate the implementation of the protocol, especially since the trader scheme would have operated under many of these declarations anyway—but we will no doubt pursue some of these matters later on.
I accept that the Minister is open with the offer of a briefing, but it is the draft regulations that we need to see; it is not briefing on what the theoretical operation of a dual regulatory system might be. We need to see the regulations that would operate that. In the previous group and on the first day in Committee, we heard that the Government have practical solutions, and the Minister has referred to them. But, as the junior to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, indicated, an unprecedented breadth of regulating powers will be provided to Ministers. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, was absolutely right: part of the unprecedented nature that is so egregious is that these will effectively be treaty amendments, and we have the well-established CRaG process for scrutinising and effectively approving treaty amendments.
Finally, the reason why all this is important—it addresses one element of the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—is that the Government accept that they are breaching their commitments and that these are wrongful acts. The Minister shakes his head, but they have.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am not clear on the noble Lord’s point. What have the Government accepted?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Government have admitted that these are breaches of the obligations under the protocol because they have invoked the defence of necessity for wrongful acts. You cannot invoke a defence for a wrongful act if you do not believe that you have committed a wrongful act.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
But if the original instrument is not working in the first place, which it is not—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
It is all very well to be critical. I accept the points that have been made about Article 16, but let us not open up that debate again. What specifically is the noble Lord’s proposal?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Let us have an extra set of processes if we are now scrutinising alternative proposals. We are holding the Government to account here and trying to scrutinise the information. When we see the draft regulations, I will of course be able to give some thoughts about them—but how on earth can I respond to something that I have not seen? That is what the Government are asking for and why the DPRRC believes that these powers are not appropriate for primary legislation, and I agree.
On the defence of necessity for a wrongful act, the FCDO’s delegated powers memorandum admits that it is breaching its commitments, so this is not me making an assertion. I am sure that the Advocate-General will intervene on me if that is incorrect. I am just referencing the delegated powers memorandum. Even if this is a defence of committing a wrongful act, invoking the International Law Commission’s Article 25 on wrongful acts—and if the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is correct that there are now competing treaty obligations—Article 13 of the protocol allows any other treaty mechanism under the TCA or the withdrawal Act to supersede the protocol. So, if the treaty is competing with other obligations, and if the Government accept the case of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—which they have not—we have put mechanisms into statute to trigger the superseding of the protocol if we wanted to open up new negotiations under the existing treaty. The Government have not signalled that they are willing to do that, so the noble Lord’s case is not particularly strong, even if the Government do not accept it.
In the later groups, we will no doubt return to some of these aspects and points of principle in detail but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Newlove) (Con)
My Lords, if Amendment 9 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 10, by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 9
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Clauses 5 and 6 standing part. There is consistency in some of the arguments to some extent, so this will not necessarily need to be as long.
As the DPRRC indicated, the Government have not yet formed their policy on the precise elements that they are seeking powers for. The DPRRC indicated and highlighted—I agree with it—that we should not legislate when government has not yet formulated its policy. Let us be clear that the Government’s memorandum states that the powers that they seek under these clauses could make criminal offences by negative instrument. Can the Minister confirm that in his response? We should not make new criminal offences by negative instrument.
The Government also state that they need these powers but should not present them through primary legislation. This includes certain areas of new powers for HMRC and other agencies. In primary legislation—in the Trade Act and elsewhere—proper procedures for dating sharing on customs arrangements within the UK have been brought forward. The Government felt that primary legislation was necessary for that, but, under this Bill, they say that they do not believe that primary legislation is the correct approach for it. This is simply not consistent.
I am interested to know what the Government consider to be the interactions with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The regulation-making powers under this legislation, providing more powers for HMRC legislative competence, were not provided for Northern Ireland under that Act. I am not sure what has changed. The interactions between Sections 30A, 30B and 30C of that Act are not clear.
Secondly, we can perhaps explore what the Government seek to do on the use of delegated powers to make new law in an area where we have made an international agreement—as we heard, they have not provided illustration for it. The Government’s response to the European Union’s proposals in October 2021 has not been entirely clear either. I am not sure whether they supported its proposals for having just one certificate per consignment of food products, rather than per product—presumably, that would have a major impact on the HMRC statistics and declarations that the Minister referred to. The European Union indicated that that would remove 80% of checks on products of animal origin, or new procedures for prepared meats, such as sausages, import of which into the EU is generally prohibited. So I am not sure what impact assessment was carried out for the EU proposals, had they been fully adopted.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, the Ministers took credit for the Trader Support Service, but they now seem to suggest that it has failed. Why? What has been the impact of the Trader Support Service? As I understand, it raises all the documentation and it states that it has been successful. It is on a lucrative contract from Fujitsu Services Ltd, which is at the centre of the Post Office scandal, so what is the Minister’s view about how Fujitsu has carried out its contract? Fundamentally, legislating first before introducing proposals should not be done, and trying to say that legislating for areas where agreement can be made will not be sustainable elsewhere.
I close by thinking that there must be a prize somewhere for government irony. As we know, the delegated powers memorandum on Clause 6 states that it is a breach of an “international obligation”. Paragraph 56 says that
“regulatory procedures … can be updated to ensure compliance with, or give effect to, any international obligation or arrangement to which the United Kingdom is a party.”
That is quite welcome. However, it is a shame that these powers are removing those obligations and are providing such unprecedented breadth to the regulation-making powers for Ministers. The case has not been made; therefore I beg to move.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will speak briefly to Amendments 10 and 11, which we have tabled because, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we too wanted to highlight concerns about these issues. As I am sure noble Lords can see, in the current Bill, delegated powers are to be used when Ministers consider it “appropriate”; we would change this to “necessary”. Prior to tabling these amendments, we have signalled our general concerns about delegated powers fairly consistently throughout the process of leaving the EU, since the EU withdrawal Bill in 2018. It is disappointing Ministers’ fondness for this technique seems to have grown; we now see it frequently in things that are quite wide-ranging. I was recently involved with the Schools Bill, which was riddled with these powers because, frankly, the Government did not know what they wanted to do on a wide policy area, so inserted a bunch of Henry VIII powers to give themselves the flexibility to backfill their argument later and decide what they wanted to do once the Bill had passed. Obviously, there was a huge row about that and the Schools Bill is no more, so we can only hope that lessons were learned.
We have been raising concerns again and again about how the Government are just relying on delegated powers, but for some reason the scope of the powers in EU-related Bills seems incredibly wide and we are starting to tease out, with the Minister, some of their intentions. However, an intention stated at the Dispatch Box—or something indicated in other government documents—is not sufficient when we are talking about these sorts of issues. What we really want is clarity and the ability to scrutinise and have those discussions on the Floor of this House, but the way the Government are going about this denies us this opportunity. One of our main concerns is the Government deciding to use skeleton Bills in the way they are.
These are quite general concerns. As we have heard, there are much bigger concerns about the Bill and we have covered some in our debates today and last week. We fully understand the concerns raised about Clauses 5 and 6, which enable the creation of new customs arrangements without primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did a very effective job of going into those in some detail, which I do not feel I need to repeat. This is quite a precedent to set and we feel deeply uncomfortable about delegating these kinds of powers to the Treasury and its agencies. In the past—I mentioned the Schools Bill, but there have been other examples—the Government have backed off, removed some of these powers from legislation and changed tack by putting in place genuine checks on their use. In all honesty, I do not think that particularly helps us with this Bill because, as many have said, a whole face of make-up could be applied to this Bill but it really would not help.
That said, it is important that we, as a House, put down a marker and make our view known to the Government on this issue of delegated powers, because this is quite an extreme example in the Bill. Perhaps when some more stability is available to Ministers, this might be something we start to see less of, because the government agenda would become clearer. I must say—noble Lords can hold me to this—that should my party win power in the coming months or years, I hope that this is not an approach that we would seek to take. I am very well aware that this is on the record and will be quoted back to me. Such is our concern about the overuse of these powers that I am very happy to be held to my words.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. On that final point from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, I am sure it will not only be held up for scrutiny but highlighted in several colours. Of course, we look forward to robust debates, and I am sure I speak for everyone in your Lordships’ House in saying this.
First and foremost, I will not go over what we have already discussed. I have heard noble Lords very clearly. Addressing the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, specifically, I am aware of the details of what the DPRRC report argues, and therefore I assure noble Lords of my good offices in seeking to have the report published on the Government’s response to the issues raised by not just that committee but the Constitution Committee.
In response to the amendments in front of us, the DPRRC report argues that Clause 5(1) contains an inappropriate delegation of power—on the basis that the skeleton construction is not justified by the circumstances and that it relates to matters of international law—and recommends it be removed. While noble Lords will have different perspectives, I have already discussed why the Government feel that there is an urgency in tabling this Bill, as well as the importance of flexibility in our approach in discussions and negotiations elsewhere, particularly with our colleagues and friends in the EU.
In relation to future policy direction, the Bill and the accompanying delegated powers memorandum provide a description of the types of circumstances under which regulations laid under Clause 5(1) may be made. This also includes necessary processes on UK or non-EU destined goods, the application of pre or post-movement requirements for those movements and the ability to undertake any checks or controls necessary to safeguard animal, plant and human health. These processes and their requirements may also be subject to change over time—due to changing risks, technologies and business practices—and it would not be proportionate to table new primary legislation every time this occurred. I have already referred to the details that would be required in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to a couple of issues about criminal offences within the instruments and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act. I have asked for responses to that, so I will write to the noble Lord specifically on those two points and will share it with your Lordships.
I now turn to Amendments 10 and 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington. These amendments would restrict the use of certain powers in the Bill to make provision only on that which “is necessary”, rather than provision which “the Minister considers appropriate”.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that, as someone said to me over the weekend, after 10 years on the Front Bench, this is not an argument that I am dealing with for the first time. I acknowledge that there have been various Bills where this language has come in. I just mention to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I even recall that, in 2017, when I was taking through the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, we had similar discussions on the use of these words.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think I may be a bit premature; I was going to ask the Minister for an example, but I have a feeling that he was about to give one.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The example that I was just detailing is that, in this clause, this would potentially limit the ability to design a green lane that aims to preserve the unity of the UK internal market and minimises risks to the EU’s internal market. It may also prevent the Government responding to issues facing Northern Ireland in a flexible way which, in turn, will have a negative impact on Northern Irish businesses and individuals. The issue was well-trodden ground in important legislation in recent years, particularly the EU withdrawal Act in 2018 and the withdrawal agreement Act, where your Lordships’ House accepted that “appropriate” is in fact appropriate. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendments on that basis.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The example was good, but I am not sure that it meets the question in my amendment. I would have thought that a Minister would be able to make the regulation as he referred to in his example using the wording suggested in my amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I have alluded to, it is a question of where that bar is set. The Government are, in this instance, looking for that extra level of flexibility for the Minister concerned to be able to make that appropriate act. I accept what the noble Baroness is saying regarding her amendment. Certainly, I am sure that there will be some practical examples and insights that we will exchange on what can be met by those particular tests.
Clause 5 ensures that a Minister of the Crown also has the power to make regulations in relation to the movement of goods to which Clause 4 relates—[Interruption.]—my apologies: that is my phone. This is what happens when you have a 10 year-old and an eight year-old at home—they may be providing me with an answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman.
Specifically, the clause provides for the creation of secondary legislation, which will enable Ministers to define how the green and red lanes work in practice. Regulations made under this power may, in particular, provide for the application of any checks and controls before or after a movement of goods on UK or non-EU destined goods moving into Northern Ireland in order to ensure that appropriate processes are in place to manage, for example, biosecurity risks. Such powers may also be used to ensure that goods that are heading to the EU comply with relevant regulatory processes, such as sanitary and phytosanitary controls. Much of this is operationally focused or deals with the processes to be applied by the relevant government departments. We believe that this clause is essential to enable the appropriate Minister to have the flexibility to deliver the UK’s proposals for this new regime for the movement of goods.
I turn briefly to Clause 6. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, alluded to the issue of the Treasury and HMRC having the power to make regulations in relation to the movement of goods for customs matters. Alongside Clause 5, this will enable the delivery of new green-lane arrangements, which remove unnecessary costs and paperwork for businesses trading within the UK. We heard in the previous debate from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on challenges being faced by businesses.
Specifically, the clause provides for the creation of secondary legislation to administer the green lane through appropriate checks, controls and administrative processes for goods that would otherwise be subject to EU customs rules. It is the Government’s view that this clause is absolutely essential to enable a Minister of the Crown to have the flexibility to deliver the UK’s proposals for the green and red lane arrangements. Taking power to provide for the regime is required and the precise detail of the regime will be properly subject to consultation with stakeholders. I therefore recommend that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply—he can tell his kids that we are also doing trick or treat here, although I am not sure what the balance is between the tricks and the treats. I am grateful for his response and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is of course here in spirit if not in person.
I strongly agree with the noble Baroness. On a sensitive issue such as this, the powers that Ministers have should be absolutely necessary in order to deliver what they have said they want to deliver. They should not be any broader than that. But the Government have not formulated their policy yet, which is at the heart of the frustration. We are being asked to legislate to give powers to Ministers, but they have not said what they then want to implement. They have not indicated what the interaction with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act will be or why HMRC will be given statutory powers which that Act does not provide it with. I do not believe that we should be in a position where we give in primary legislation the “level of flexibility”—as the Minister said—to Ministers when they have not explained to us what they want to do.
I do not think that the Minister has persuaded me at this stage. I welcome the noble Baroness’s commitment that, if her party wins power, they will not bring forward proposals such as this; on behalf of these Benches, I can give the same commitment that when we achieve power, we will not bring proposals such as this either. In the meantime, before Report or we achieve power, whichever comes sooner, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the patience of the Committee on this trio of groups. Clauses 7 to 10 are at the real heart of the proposals, which links to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, before about trying to understand how the Government will really manage the situation that they want to put in place with the dual regulatory regime.
The dual regulatory regime may be fairly neutral, but it of course means that Northern Ireland will be perpetually part of the EU single market. Clause 7 suggests that a trader can choose to operate under the EU law system or under a UK system, as the Minister referred to on an earlier group. That EU law system would be under separation agreement law.
My first question is genuinely a probing question: there may be a good reason for it, but what impact will the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill have on the implementation of EU regulations in this regard? I do not know what effect the mechanism for updating, as proposed under that Bill, will have on separation agreement law under this Bill. Do we have to legislate for any changes when it comes to the EU changing its regulatory approach?
Is this going to be a dynamic system where we will automatically update domestic statute if the EU changes its approach? If it does, then we are back to square one from our colleagues from the Democratic Unionist Party, who have been railing against that, but we will in effect be in a worse position because this is automatic updating of domestic legislation for another set of statutes from another power, which none of us will have any say over. I find this hard to believe and would be grateful if the Minister were able to say that this is not going to be the case.
The questions now relate to the green and red channels—the dual regulatory system. I would like to know from the Minister: who will operate them? The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says in paragraph 42 in reference to Clause 9:
“This is the frankest admission by the Government that policy is so embryonic that it has not yet been consulted on. And yet Parliament is being presented with a major Bill on the subject. Legislation has preceded policy development rather than vice versa. Nor is it remotely credible to say that it is not possible for these matters to be put on the face of the Bill. Why should the Bill say so little, with so much left to regulations?”
Perhaps we can get clarity for business on the dual system. The Government say that businesses will be able to choose. I would be grateful to know how. Will they have to fill in a declaration? What default system will be in place if they ship products without a declaration? Will they be prohibited from shipping to Northern Ireland if they have not declared what their route is? How will they know what status their GB or EORI classification gives them? We have been led to believe that if they operate under the Trader Support Service with an EORI classification, this process is already streamlined. Will there be a Trader Support Service for both the separate routes now?
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked a valid question: for how long will this scheme operate? If the Government felt it was necessary that there was a Trader Support Service for a scheme which operated under EU procedures and regulations, and they are proposing that they will still be operating under EU regulations—under the dual regulatory system—so will a Trader Support System operate permanently? At what stage does a business choose? Is it for each consignment, or will the business have to choose at what stage of production it opts for each of the routes? What if it wants to use a UK route but also needs an EU conformity assessment? Will there be a public register of who is operating, and how will it be monitored? Who will have access to the data, and is this going to be a public mechanism for which routes certain enterprises choose to operate? The latter questions are vital, I think, because it has to be known, as it may well be challenged under a legal system, and what will that legal system be?
Clause 10(1)(d) relates to the use and import of goods. Is the choice for the seller or for the purchaser? This is fundamental if it is to do with east-west trade, so can a purchaser from Northern Ireland determine that their supplier uses the UK route, or is it the supplier who says, “I am very sorry but I have opted for the EU route, so this the situation that is going to have to be received, and the good that goes into the market has to have the EU mark on it”? I do not know, so I would be grateful for clarity.
Michael Ellis, the Paymaster-General, told the Committee in the Commons that the choice of using a route is completely voluntary, but Clause 11 means that it could be compulsory. Why? Which is it? Is it voluntary for businesses, or could it be voluntary until a Minister says it is compulsory? I think this is a breeding ground for utter confusion: an entire system being established at the outset, only for there to be a broad regulation-making power, which could be put in place without consultation—there is nothing in the Bill that states there will be consultation—to say, “All of your choices that you have been making for this, we have now said that you have to use this particular route.”
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his clear elucidation of the impact of these amendments. To give a practical example, the dairy industry in Northern Ireland, which I mentioned earlier, is largely all-Ireland in nature, because the greater proportion of the processing of dairy products is in the Republic of Ireland. If grain comes into Northern Ireland through either the red or green lane and could be used by a dairy farmer, the DAERA vet—the department vet—cannot certify whether the milk is produced to EU standards. How can he do so with no certificate? The milk is therefore not going south for processing. That also applies to animal healthcare products. The green and red lanes probably work for retail, but not for food processing. It does not work for primary processers who export.
It is worth noting that in 2021 the Northern Ireland dairy industry represented 31% of UK dairy exports overall. Green and red lanes, or the dual regulatory zones envisaged in this Bill, would cause huge damage to the dairy industry. I know that certain elements of the dairy industry, such as Lakeland Dairies, have had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and, prior to that, former Minister of State Burns. I know it would be deeply appreciated if the noble Lord could have further discussions with them, because they know the practical outworkings of that.
Further to that, it is clear that these issues are fundamental to the negotiations, including the technical negotiations, that should be going on between the UK and the EU. We want to see resolutions to these issues. I recall what my noble friend Lord Hain said: where there are problems with the protocol—such as with its implementation—there are solutions. If there is good will on all sides, exactly those negotiations will try to resolve those wrinkles and difficulties.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, having listened to the debate thus far, I have again noticed that a number of noble Lords seem to be exercised about the DUP’s well-known opposition to the protocol. To be clear, not one unionist or unionist party in Northern Ireland accepts the protocol. Rather than just mentioning the DUP, I ask noble Lords collectively not to obsess over the party and realise that there is a serious problem to be dealt with. Clearly, we have an impasse at present, and until the Northern Ireland protocol is dealt with, we will not move forward into an Assembly. That must be restated.
In this group we are confronted with the proposal that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill. The clause deals with the option of dual regulatory routes, which arises from the Bill creating a regulatory route that does not involve complying with the protocol. Thus, those proposing the removal of Clause 7 once again engage their argument that the doctrine of necessity cannot be applied and thus excuse us from complying with the protocol. In that context, they maintain Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill.
Once again, it seems to me that arguing for necessity and a special dispensation not to obey international law is not the best way of addressing the protocol problem. In making this case, I will pick up on the assertion made by some noble Lords that this Bill is problematic not only because no commitment was made to it in the 2019 Conservative manifesto but because the manifesto suggested that the Conservative Party was committed to the protocol. It seems to me that one can assert on this basis that it would be wrong for the Government to bring forward a Bill such as this only if we pretend that Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol are not part of it.
Not only do Articles 1 and 2 subject the protocol to the Belfast agreement treaty, but Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes it plain that, in the event of any conflict, the Belfast agreement should prevail. This clearly implies that if the operation of the protocol undermines the Belfast agreement, action must be taken. This is more than implied in Article 2, which actively places as a matter of international law an obligation on the UK Government to ensure that the operation of the protocol does not diminish the rights set out in the section of the Belfast agreement
“entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, the operation of the protocol is dramatically diminishing the right in the relevant section of the agreement to
“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
This right can no longer be pursued in relation to 300 areas of law that have now been removed from a legislature that includes legislators elected by Northern Ireland and placed in a legislature where Northern Ireland has no legislators. This means that, rather than international law being the enemy of this Bill, it is its friend, because the Government are subject to an obligation in international law—Article 2 of the protocol—to take action to ensure there is no diminishment of the right to
“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
There is an additional international legal imperative in this regard which should not be overlooked. It arises from Article 3 of the protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law arising from the case of Matthews v United Kingdom. Matthews lived in Gibraltar and was subject to legislation made by the European Union. As in the case of Northern Ireland, this legislation was made by the European Parliament, in which Gibraltar had no representation. Paragraph 64 of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case concluded:
“In the present case, as the Court has found (see paragraph 34 above), the legislation which emanates from the European Community forms part of the legislation in Gibraltar, and the applicant is directly affected by it … In the circumstances of the present case, the very essence of the applicant’s right to vote, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, was denied. It follows that there has been a violation of that provision.”
This case is of seminal importance, because it established that it is not lawful for any jurisdiction to be subject to legislation made by the European Union when the citizens of the said jurisdiction are not given the opportunity to elect their own representatives to the EU institutions to make that law. The Matthews judgment rings out loud and clear across Northern Ireland. The legislation imposed on Northern Ireland, courtesy of parts of the protocol, denies the very essence of the right to vote, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, for giving way. I am following his argument very closely. I do not understand why that argument will not apply to the red route under a dual system. The dual system, by definition, will include the EU route, which will automatically apply EU rules for trade with Northern Ireland, which will still apply to all the areas that he said will have no say.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I want to develop the point on the Matthews case and the human rights.
In the Matthews case, the party at fault was not the EU, which was not a contracting party to the ECHR, but the United Kingdom Government, who were deemed to have failed in their treatment of the people of Gibraltar in allowing them to be subject to the EU without representation. The failure of the UK with respect to the Northern Ireland protocol is even starker, coming, as it does, in the aftermath of the Matthews case law. Some might seek to defend this arrangement on the basis that four years after being subject to EU law without seats in the EU legislature, the protocol affords the Northern Ireland Assembly a vote. Crucially, however, this is not a vote on the legislation made under the protocol but on the protocol itself: the arrangement whereby 300 areas of lawmaking for Northern Ireland are given to the EU, notwithstanding that Northern Ireland has no representation in the EU legislature. Rather than giving MLAs the opportunity to scrutinise, amend and vote on all the laws passed in the previous four years, the vote is effectively to determine whether or not the constituents of the MLAs should surrender their votes in relation to the determination of the law to which they are subject in some 300 different areas, having been denied any vote, even in this regard, during the first four years when their votes were, effectively, taken from them. In this context, we need Clause 7, and indeed this whole Bill, to meet the demands of international law with respect to Article 2(1) of the protocol and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In conclusion, this matter concerning the Northern Ireland protocol may not be the flavour of the month for many in your Lordships’ House, but it must be dealt with to the satisfaction of both communities in Northern Ireland, not one.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I yield to none in my respect for the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and the way he pursues this argument. It was an argument that we had earlier in our debate, and I share his distaste for the protocol, as he knows. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that there is no democratic deficit. I think there is a real democratic deficit and it could be put right. It would be good if the noble Lord would think about the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, earlier in our debate. The argument that the protocol is inconsistent with the Good Friday agreement comes across rather badly from those who opposed the Good Friday agreement. I myself was strongly in favour of the Good Friday agreement and I was sorry to see the DUP against it at the time. It is hard to sustain the argument now, in any case, given that all the parties to the withdrawal agreement—in which the protocol rests—do not agree with it. The United Kingdom Government do not buy the argument that the DUP are making—or they have always, up to now, not bought that argument. Although I understand the concerns the noble Lord puts forward, I do not think it works as a matter of law or that the Gibraltar precedent—although he is quite right about it—is relevant.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Will the noble Lord accept a small intervention to follow up on the point he made about the democratic deficit? I agree with him and he agrees with me on it. Would he confirm that Norway, for example, does not have Ministers in the Council of Ministers or direct representation in the European Parliament because it is not in the European Union, but does have consultative rights? It is consulted on all EU single market matters. Northern Ireland could be consulted in a similar way.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I ask the Minister a more technical question about the interrelationship between the trade and co-operation agreement and the withdrawal agreement. The European Affairs Committee spent a very long time writing a report, which came out last December, about trading goods. We were very careful to make sure that we did not talk about the Northern Irish situation for two reasons. First, we have our own sub-committee for dealing with that. Secondly, it was horribly complicated.
I should like some comfort on a problem that would arise should some kind of good head from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. For the purposes of the Minister’s powers, it is a Northern Ireland good. However, it is, at the same time, latently a TCA good for the purposes of moving across an EU border. An immediate set of complications arises from this. I would, therefore, be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on what the interrelationship is between the TCA and the withdrawal agreement on goods in general. I would also be grateful for some comfort that when Ministers are thinking about exercising all the powers that this selection of clauses would give them, they will have do so in regard to all the relevant various international agreements we have. The TCA is not our only agreement with the EU.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendments 13 and 14, in the name of my noble friend Lady Chapman. These would replace the word “appropriate” with “necessary”. The arguments are the same as we heard in the previous group and express unease about the scope of ministerial powers. On the others, we can see the case for what the Government want to achieve—a differentiation of goods destined for Northern Ireland or for the single market. We believe that the best way to secure such a scheme is to negotiate with the Irish Government and the EU. The two sides’ proposals to this area differ on various points of detail, but there is undoubtedly room to compromise if there is the political will to achieve this.
As we said on the first day in Committee, we are sympathetic to the case for removing various clauses from the Bill. That is particularly the case for Clause 9, of which the DPRRC said:
“This is the frankest admission by the government the policy is so embryonic that it has not yet been consulted on. And yet Parliament is being presented with a major Bill on the subject.”
That quote was also put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. Despite our calls last week, we have not heard anything from the Foreign Secretary regarding the negotiations, beyond a brief confirmation of a phone call with Vice-President Šefčovič. I ask the Minister: when can we have a fuller, formal report on the state of the negotiations?
The only other point I want to make is to pick up the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. My party acknowledges that there is a problem with the protocol Bill. Of course, it is the Government who are negotiating this, not Parliament. We, on our side, do not believe that the Bill is helping that process.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to convince noble Lords of the merits of the dual regulatory regime. In doing so, it is important that we just take a step back for a second and consider the overriding purpose of these clauses and the regime itself. It is to remove barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland for goods that will never leave the United Kingdom. It will enable us to address the so-called Irish Sea border, and support trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as has been government policy since the Acts of Union in 1800, while respecting the integrity of the EU single market.
Northern Irish businesses will be able to meet UK rules when supplying the UK market should they wish, benefiting from future regulatory reform. That in turn will help to create the conditions that in our view can lead to the restoration of a fully functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and therefore the implementation of all three strands of the Belfast agreement. The clauses will enable this to be achieved in the following ways.
Clause 7 makes it clear that businesses will have a choice of which regulatory route to follow when placing goods on the market in Northern Ireland. It introduces, as I have made clear, a dual regulatory regime for regulated classes of goods to which any provision of annexe 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol applies. This will create a new option to meet UK rules compared to the existing protocol arrangements, whereby goods are required to comply with the relevant EU rules. Where the relevant requirements allow, it will also be possible for the same product simultaneously to comply with both sets of requirements.
Currently, as noble Lords will be aware, traders have no choice under the protocol but to meet EU rules when supplying goods in or to Northern Ireland. This deters some companies, especially those trading exclusively within the United Kingdom, from serving Northern Ireland due to costs and administrative burdens required to meet this EU law: for example, retesting, re-marking and relabelling of goods, as well as the appointment of a representative to undertake administrative duties. All this comes at a cost, which I submit is completely unnecessary for goods that are to remain on the UK market.
The dual regulatory regime provides businesses across the UK with choice. If a Northern Ireland-based business trades north-south on the island of Ireland, they can continue, as now, to follow EU rules and sell their products into the EU and across the UK because of the Government’s commitment to unfettered access between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. If their business model is UK-focused, they can choose to follow UK rules and benefit from the opportunities afforded there.
By providing an alternative UK-rules route to market in Northern Ireland, the clause fundamentally protects the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market and addresses concerns over the so-called Irish Sea border for goods that will remain within the United Kingdom. That concern over the Irish Sea border is, as I said in response to an earlier group of amendments, the principal cause of there being no functioning Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland.
On the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, I am very much aware of the concerns raised by Northern Ireland’s agri-food sector, and in particular the dairy sector, as I know from experience and have seen at first hand on a number of visits. Indeed, a short while ago I visited a farm between Newry and Armagh where the same family have been farming the land since the 1740s. The farmers in question are, if I may use the terminology, from a Protestant unionist background. It is a dairy farm, and everything they produce on it is processed in Ireland. Therefore I completely accept that, for businesses like that, the provisions of the protocol that enable EU single market access are not just desirable but absolutely essential. I assure her that we are very much committed to upholding that seamless EU single market access where it is essential for businesses. We are in favour of retaining those elements of the protocol that work while remedying those elements that do not.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for both the Minister’s full response and his offer to write when he has reviewed some of our questions. I still have questions over what “classes of goods” means and some of the issues that he raised.
I am grateful for the illustration of conformity assessment. It is one of those areas that sounds so technical and boring when you debate it. It is technical and boring, but every good will have to have it in every shop for every consumer. This means that, separate to the protocol, a manufactured good for a consumer in Northern Ireland, such as a toy, will have to have a CE mark on it if it has used an EU conformity assessment body, of which there are a number in GB. However, if it has used a UK-based body, of which there are none uniquely in the UK at the moment, it will have to have a UKNI mark and a CE mark on it. There is no option. So, uniquely in the four nations, consumers and importers in Northern Ireland will have to check that their goods have either a CE mark or a CE/UKNI mark on them. They will not have a UKCA mark on them; it will be different.
This goes back to the sincere points made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, about how to have a situation where there is no difference between Scotland, where I live, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. The reality of this Bill and this Government’s choices on the marking of goods and where they will be checked is that things will still be different, with different procedures and processes. When it comes to using an EU conformity assessment accreditation body, we have no say over its rules and regulations and what it says. This Bill is not going to resolve that but I am grateful for the Minister’s response.
I am going to call these the Rumsfeld clauses because what we are being asked to put in place in statute are regulation-making powers for the known unknowns. However, in Clause 9 we also want powers for the unknown unknowns. We do not know whether they are going to work so, under Clause 9, we want the powers to be broad enough for us to have the power to make them work if they do not work. I do not think that Rumsfeld powers are something that our Parliament should operate with; the case has therefore not been made.
I look forward to the Minister’s letter and further clarifications, of course—I therefore reserve judgment—but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Police and Crime Commissioners
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the powers and functions of police and crime commissioners.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I have two objectives. The first is to draw together and reiterate a number of concerns which I have raised in speeches and in Oral Questions and Written Questions over the last four years. My concerns relate to misconduct in three of the areas where police and crime commissioners are elected under current arrangements—Wiltshire, Leicestershire and Cleveland.
My second objective is to take the Government to task for doing nothing to bear down on the cases of misconduct which have given rise to my long-standing concerns. Regarding the Government, I have tried hard to make some progress by seeking a discussion with the Home Secretary. In an Oral Question on 18 July, I asked for a meeting to be arranged which a small group, drawn from across the House, could attend. I got in touch with a few Members in the opposition parties and on the Cross Benches to see whether they could take part. Unsurprisingly, ministerial changes complicated and delayed matters over the summer, but towards the end of last month, I enlisted the help of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom in finally fixing a date for the long-awaited meeting. On 26 September, he told me that he would pursue the matter, adding,
“I will come back to you as soon as I can.”
I have heard nothing further from him.
However, I have heard from his private office, which sent me the following email on 18 October:
“Thought I would provide an update now that we are post recess. I have reached out to the Home Secretary’s office again and due to her increasingly busy schedule she will be unable to commit to a meeting.”
The House will understand that my hopes of securing action by the Government have not been strengthened, rather it seems clearer than ever that the Government will continue to stand idly by in the face of my serious concerns. This debate is their opportunity to prove me wrong.
All this is very dispiriting, so let me make it plain that in using the limited time available to me to express worries and anxieties about specific issues, I cast no aspersions on the many police and crime commissioners, connected or unconnected with a political party, who are serving their communities with devotion and success. Since this year marks the 10th anniversary of the introduction of elected police and crime commissioners, it would be wrong not to pay tribute to what they have achieved, while at the same time expressing a little regret that they have not become better known and brought the system of which they are part widespread popularity. Opinion polls suggest that nearly half the country have never heard of them.
Here is another matter on which the Government could usefully exert themselves. If they took a sustained interest in the work of the commissioners, and made speeches about it, the public’s knowledge would increase. They have rejected other chances to show an interest in police and crime commissioners. If the noble Lord, Lord Bew, had been able to take part in this debate, he would have mentioned a report by his Committee on Standards in Public Life about police and crime commissioners. The report has been completely ignored by the Home Office.
The deep concerns that I mentioned at the outset are all connected with one person, Mike Veale. I have referred to him many times in the House over the years. He is at the centre of an issue of deep injustice. He is not a man lacking in regard for himself. In self-promoting publicity, he states, regarding his year as chief constable of Cleveland, a post from which he was forced to resign in 2019:
“I was responsible for the development and delivery of a compelling strategic vision … I am able to operate within my ethical and moral boundaries without compromising my values and integrity.”
His record tells a rather different story.
I first became aware of Mr Veale when, in 2015, as chief constable of Wiltshire and in charge of Operation Conifer, he sent officers to go through all Sir Edward Heath’s voluminous papers in the Bodleian Library, in the hope of finding evidence to show that the deceased statesman was guilty of the child sex crimes alleged by the notorious fantasist, Carl Beech, who is now serving a long prison sentence.
Veale said he was convinced that Sir Edward was “120 per cent guilty”. One of his senior officers stood outside Sir Edward’s house and appealed for witnesses against him. Veale destroyed his mobile telephone and so concealed its contents. Unable to substantiate any of the allegations against Sir Edward, he left seven of them open, neither proved nor disproved, in an obvious attempt to save face. Not a shred of evidence has been adduced to support any of these allegations against a public servant of immense distinction.
The then PCC for Wiltshire, Mr Angus Macpherson, said that he would establish an independent inquiry into Operation Conifer, but then changed his mind and called on the Government to set it up. The Government accepted that they had the power to intervene, the one exception to their normal Pontius Pilate stance, but then refused to use it. They say today that there is no need for them to do anything because Operation Conifer has now been carefully scrutinised. That was the line they took when writing in July to Lord MacGregor, a former Cabinet Minister who has now retired from the House, in reply to a letter from him sent to the Home Office one year—I repeat, one year—earlier.
That was no answer at all. Conifer has been scrutinised by the police themselves, not by an independent body. The Wiltshire PCC even allowed Veale to set up his own hand-picked scrutiny panel. Thanks to the Wiltshire PCC and a supine Home Office, Veale was left to transgress elsewhere. His brief stint as chief constable for Cleveland was investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. After two years—things rarely move swiftly where police misconduct is concerned—the IOPC found in 2021 that Veale had
“breached standards of professional behaviour”.
On 2 August last year, the PCC for Cleveland announced that Veale would be referred “shortly” to an independent panel, where he would face gross misconduct proceedings. It is a legal requirement that such proceedings begin within 100 days, yet, by my rather shaky calculations, time ran out for Veale on 11 November last year. Very nearly 12 months later, proceedings have yet to begin.
During this period, Veale has been raking in an annual salary of some £100,000 as adviser to the so-called Conservative PCC for Leicestershire, one Rupert Matthews. He must have taken instruction in the Boris Johnson school of ethics. On 7 March, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked the then Minster, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford:
“Does she accept that, in many areas of public and private life, persons against whom serious allegations are made are suspended from their office, employment or other contributions to public life while an investigation is conducted? Why is that not happening here?”—[Official Report, 7/2/22; col. 1120.]
The answer he was given bore no relation to the question.
Answers, the Government say, must be sought not from them but from the relevant police and crime commissioners, so a public-spirited person, well known to me, has been doing just that. He has asked Mr Matthews several times to justify employing the discredited Veale. On 9 August last year, Matthews’s casework officer replied. Veale, she said, was being employed for six months. She added that
“it is important to note that he is currently not in breach of any misconduct regulations. The investigation is ongoing, and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment on anything in relation to that at this time”.
All further requests for a proper explanation were ignored until last month, when the same words were sent again, preceded by the following:
“This matter was discussed at the Police and Crime Panel for Leicestershire.”
Why was Veale still there long after the expiry of the six-month arrangement? To that, there was silence.
Is Cleveland more open and accountable? Not exactly. The PCC was asked in July why Veale’s misconduct hearing had not started. An executive assistant in his office replied:
“I have spoken to the Police & Crime Commissioner Steve Turner, and he has advised me this is currently being reviewed by our Chief Executive.”
In October, she was asked whether the review had been completed. The person who could supply an answer was on annual leave. She said:
“I will speak to her upon her return to the office and send you an update with regard to the review.”
At this rate, Veale will retire on a fat pension, and never answer for his misconduct.
What is needed is a Minister at the Home Office who will challenge the well-entrenched attitude in it that PCCs should be left entirely to their own devices, as if they constituted a separate estate of the realm. It is an attitude that makes effective accountability impossible. That accountability is not going to come from the small number of local electors who take an interest in the work of PCCs. Who but the elected Government is going to stop the offices of PCCs fobbing off inquirers with feeble and totally inadequate answers?
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for securing this short debate. I agree with his every word. I want to stress that I still support the idea of police and crime commissioners representing the public of a police force area in their relationship with the police, holding chief constables to account and performing a vital community and partnership role. As the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, said, there are some superb examples of PCCs and their achievements. However, my support nowadays is sometimes sorely tested. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has added to my concerns.
As for the Veale case, this is a truly astonishing position. He was brought in to be my successor’s main adviser; got rid of all the others on day one, with a number of substantial contracts; and is facing a gross misconduct charge, still not decided, although it should have been decided in 100 days. Of course, he should have been suspended pending the tribunal decision, as normally happens in public life. This happened to a Minister from the other place just a few weeks ago during the Truss Government. He was immediately suspended from the Conservative Party, awaiting the result of an inquiry. That was the appropriate way to do it. I repeat the question: why has that not happened here, and why has the Home Office not insisted on it?
What has upset me as much has been what I describe as the masterful inactivity by my successor as police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland a couple of months ago, when there was much-publicised violence and trouble between minority communities in my city of Leicester. Surely it should be the priority of every police and crime commissioner to intervene and do what they can to prevent, stop and sort out community unrest of this nature by decreasing tensions, talking to the various leaders and bringing people together.
A prominent and senior Conservative asked me why I was staying silent on this. He said, “What is the point of police and crime commissioners anywhere if they do not act in such a situation as there was in Leicester a couple of months ago?” I agree with that senior Conservative. Given that, in my time, I had a deputy who understood the inner city, I believe that I and every other police and crime commissioner would have acted at once. Unfortunately, my successor did not, and a number of senior people of all kinds have confirmed what I am saying. Frankly, apart from a brief statement and a silent attendance at a post-troubles meeting with the city mayor, he kept out of it, finding displacement activities. Indeed, he was in London when the Home Secretary visited Leicester. That is just an example.
It pains me to say so, but this behaviour obviously gives police and crime commissioners a bad name. Being photographed endlessly enjoying tea and cake in beautiful Leicestershire villages is, frankly, no substitute for doing your job, and no excuse for not doing the hard grind, with the disappointments and the moments of success. That is what police and crime commissioners are elected to do, and most do it. If they choose not to do their job, particularly when it is difficult, who can blame the public for rejecting the system in place altogether?
I am sorry that I have had to say what I have said today, but I feel it strongly. I really think that it is time that the Home Office took an interest in this.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for securing this debate and setting out for us with his habitual clarity the issues at hand. I am particularly saddened to hear that the good name of a distinguished former Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath, has been traduced in the way that the noble Lord has described. However, I wish to approach this debate with a different focus.
Any hierarchy, any delivery of service, any public-facing organisation is fraught with multiple expectations and with the frailties and capacities of those who lead. For instance, diocesan bishops have wide discretion but are constrained by resource, custom, law, synodical structures and vocation.
The issues around effective delivery and of accountability in policing are very old. Historically, constables were at the direction of magistrates, who continued to sit on watch committees and police authorities until recent times. However, the growth in the size of forces and their operational complexity fuelled a sense of operational independence, away from political interference and amateur direction. It also allowed for co-operation at a national level where crime issues crossed county borders. Direct local accountability was seen to threaten professionalism, and it threatened the fight against crime nationally.
However, a police service insufficiently accountable fostered a culture apart from public concerns. In some places, it allowed corruption to be covered up and prejudices to become ingrained, and performance to become unchallenged. The alternatives, it seems, were national direction or local accountability, and the Government in 2011 opted for the latter by sweeping away local police authorities and replacing them, as we have heard, with directly elected police and crime commissioners.
Of the several commentaries on the progress of this innovation, the research commissioned by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in 2018 bordered on the excoriating. The more recent article by Simon Cooper in the journal Policing is more nuanced. It provides evidence for the sort of direct accountability and scrutiny the Government hoped for and for greater efficiency of action, but there is concern over idiosyncrasy of decisions, the increase in the removal of chief constables and the reluctance of suitable applicants to replace them.
This brings me to the special case of Dame Cressida Dick, who announced on 10 February this year that she would step aside as Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis in the midst of publicly expressed concerns about recent actions by the force. My thoughts on the matter are in no way related to the merits or otherwise of how the then commissioner carried out her role. Like others, however, I am concerned at the deficits in the process of removing her, identified by Sir Tom Winsor in his report of 24 August on her resignation, which was commissioned by the then Home Secretary—I have lost track of which one.
According to the former Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Dame Cressida was informed that morning that the mayor would publicly announce that same afternoon his lack of confidence and intention to begin the statutory process of removal. She had until then to act, and chose to go. The mayor, for whom I have a good deal of respect—in fact, a very great regard—has alluded to an “apparent degree of bias” in the report. There are questions about leadership and protection of the Metropolitan Police, but it remains the case that the process set down in Section 48 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 was not followed. The commissioner was not suspended. The commissioner was not formally informed of an intention that she should retire or resign and was given no opportunity to respond, and the Home Secretary’s consent was not obtained to remove her. Virtue lies in following agreed procedures when it is inconvenient to do so, not just when it is easy, especially when one is talking about a service which, in turn, is about ensuring law and order. I remain saddened and disappointed that this happened in this way.
There is some merit in examining a revision of the regulations applying to police and crime commissioners and mayors under the Act, or a code of practice on its operation, and I hope the Minister might indicate some willingness move in that direction.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on obtaining this debate, and on his speech, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on his. They clearly illustrated that there are serious problems with the current regime of the governance of the police, but there is nothing new in this. The governance of the police has always been difficult. In the middle of the last century the chief constable of Worcester was jailed for fraud. There were terrible problems with watch committees. We set up a royal commission on the police, and it pointed, in some very wise words, to the issues: that the police should be powerful but not oppressive; they should be efficient but not officious; and they should form an impartial force in the body politic, and yet be subject to a degree of control by persons who are not required to be impartial and who themselves are liable to police supervision. That encapsulates, as only royal commissions can do, the difficult issues.
However, since the police authorities regime was reformed under the guidance of that royal commission, two things have happened which transformed the position and necessitated change in the form of the introduction of police and crime commissioners. The first was the enormous growth in the power of the chief constable. This, like all changes that do not occur through legislation, occurred imperceptibly, and there is no doubt that by the early part of the current century chief constables were too powerful and needed a more effective body than the police authorities. Secondly, there had been a change in the power of the police. It used to be our view that the police ought to have just a little bit more power than the ordinary citizen. I am afraid that, with the Criminal Law Act 1967, we departed from that very long tradition of our constitution and gave the police enormous powers.
So, these two forces required reform. I do not want to criticise the change that was introduced by the introduction of police and crime commissioners. In the period where I dealt quite extensively with them, they did, on the whole, a very good job. But we have never really stood back, and this is why I so much welcome what the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Bach, have said.
There are now enough problems that we ought to have a proper review. I know that the Home Secretary has many other matters on her mind, but what about an independent review? I dare not suggest a royal commission—those are so wholly out of fashion; I just raise a number of points that require us to look at them again. First, is the way the office of police and crime commissioner is set up sensible? Not being a politician, I have always thought that the genius of our system was that politicians had a permanent office behind them that provided a degree of guidance: that there was some institution that could ensure continuity. Should not the police and crime commissioners have some sort of established office that supports them, and that has the protection of a permanent Civil Service?
Secondly—we have not thought about this enough—the police now have extensive powers to impose sanctions. They started with police cautions. Then, penalty notices were introduced, which were fine for things such as speeding, but no one has reflected properly on the extent of the problems of accountability. There was a public investigation by the police into very senior civil servants and Ministers, and yet the decision was made by the police, in an unreasoned way, as to what they did or did not do. It epitomises the growth in the use of the police as a punishing body—a body entitled to decide issues of justice—that we do not have a mechanism of accountability.
As I tried to point out during consideration of what I call the “police et cetera” Act—the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022—one of the defects is that there is nothing to provide a mechanism for supervising the penalty notices. Then, there is the problem of who holds the chief constable to account for operational matters, in so far as you can distinguish that from policy. Then, there is the whole question of the use of the police and crime commissioners in relation to criminal justice boards. I could go on and on. Of course, there is also the problem of Wales but I will not go into that tonight; that is too complicated an issue for police and crime commissioners.
All I am saying is that there is plenty of evidence that we need to look at this again, but we need to think of broader issues than these particular cases; they are the symptoms. We need to do everything with a proper regard to our constitutional rights, and acknowledge that the governance of the police is an intractable and difficult issue that has lived with us for a very long time.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on getting this debate. It is an interesting topic that we will keep coming back to, because we are facing legislation that will inevitably drag it to the fore.
In November 2011, the then Home Secretary Theresa May made the Policing Protocol Order, which stated:
“The establishment of PCCs has allowed the Home Office to withdraw from day-to-day policing matters, giving the police greater freedom to fight crime as they see fit, and allowing local communities to hold the police to account.”
The idea was that the public should have a direct say over policing in their area. I do not think that has happened. Although the old police authorities may not have been the ideal system, they were certainly more accessible by the average person. I was a councillor for four very long years and in my experience, people found it very easy to speak to me directly. They would stop me in the street, in the shops or in my front garden, and they were able to give me straight feedback on anything they were concerned about. When one has one person in a role of this kind, it is much harder to speak to them and to communicate. Police authorities probably worked much better and were probably more accountable.
I was on a police authority here in London for 12 years, from its start to its finish. It was a fascinating experience for somebody like me. I was possibly one of the rare types who went to protests and things like that, but not completely. We were an incredibly diverse bunch—a lot of elected people but also experts in various fields. It worked extremely well. We respected the successive police commissioners, but we also challenged them; we made them answer to us for their decisions. I think it worked extremely well.
At the moment PCCs can hire and fire police chief constables, who continue to manage things day to day. They also set the police budget and the police precept. They write the area’s policing plan and commission a range of crime-related services such as victim support. That is a very big job, and the PCCs I have spoken to need quite a lot of office help to make those things happen. Clearly, there have been many hiccups. One big problem that I have seen several times is that the chief constable resents the police and crime commissioner, and any breakdown in that relationship makes it incredibly difficult for the PCC to do their job properly.
In March this year the Home Office produced a report on a consultation it had done on giving PCCs greater powers of competence. The consultation had a staggering 84 responses—I am sure that all the groups that responded were very important—and the majority felt that PCCs should have more power. More scrutiny and accountability was also discussed. The police and crime commissioner review has considered options to strengthen the accountability and transparency of PCCs to ensure that the public can effectively hold them to account for the exercise of their functions. Given that the public find it difficult to hold them to account now, I guess that will be welcome.
Luckily, the end of the report states:
“We require primary legislation to provide PCCs with these wider powers. We will seek to implement the measures through the next appropriate legislative vehicle.”
So we lucky Peers will get the chance to debate this and suggest improvements. I rather think, given the nature of the debate today, that there might be a lot of amendments in the making.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for securing this debate. Liberal Democrats are in favour of greater police accountability but the system of police and crime commissioners appears to be broken, as the examples provided by other noble Lords have demonstrated.
Much criticism has been levelled at police leadership in recent years. We have seen justified criticism of the lack of Home Office involvement in the development and selection of the most senior police officers. Gone is the previous requirement that no chief constable be appointed without experience as an assistant chief constable or deputy in another force. Gone is the Home Office assessment of the suitability of candidates, including the grading of candidates for promotion. Instead, chief constables can appoint their own senior officers and PCCs can select their own chief constables—almost always the incumbent deputy.
Competition for chief officer posts in forces has all but evaporated, given the belief that the incumbent will always be selected, having developed a relationship with his or her police and crime commissioner. As we saw in the Wiltshire Constabulary case of the investigation of Sir Edward Heath, and as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has said, the PCC failed to launch an investigation into his own chief constable, and the Home Office then failed to hold either the chief constable or the PCC to account. Under the old tripartite system of Home Office, police authority and chief constable, the Home Secretary could and did overrule the police authority, but, because PCCs are allegedly democratically elected, they can be held to account only every four years by the electorate.
I say “allegedly” for a number of reasons. In places like Wiltshire there is an inbuilt Conservative Party majority. An Electoral Commission report in 2016 found that 72% of the electorate knew not very much or nothing at all about police and crime commissioners. With PCC elections costing £50 million a go, plus two by-elections so far—and on the last count only a 33% turnout, with voters clearly voting along party lines in most places—this is a very poor example of democracy. I understand that there are no independent police and crime commissioners left. The Home Office has abdicated responsibility for policing, placing it on police and crime commissioners who are dubiously elected on small turnouts, based on little or no public awareness, with voters voting along traditional party-political lines.
Placing too much power into the hands of one individual—in this case police and crime commissioners —creates the potential for other accountability issues. We saw this in Avon and Somerset, where inappropriate behaviour towards women was alleged against a chief constable. Vulnerable victims came forward and a case put to the police and crime commissioner, who then allegedly passed the details to the chief constable concerned, including details of the victims. While the chief constable was eventually forced to resign and has subsequently had his Queen’s Police Medal “cancelled and annulled” by the Queen, the police and crime commissioner remained in place.
The problem with the whole system of police and crime commissioners can be summed up by the current situation in the Metropolitan Police, which was placed into special measures by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, the subject of a damning report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, with the Government blaming the de facto police and crime commissioner, and the police and crime commissioner blaming the Home Office, with the public confused as to where responsibility lies, and no one being held to account.
Liberal Democrats want police boards with similar powers to PCCs, composed primarily of local authority members, to replace police and crime commissioners. Representing a broad cross-section of constituencies and political parties, minority groups and ideas, and having responsibility for the overall funding and provision of local services, not just the police precept, most if not all of the problems with the existing system of police and crime commissioners could be overcome. At the very least, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, there are now so many problems with police and crime commissioners that a review is necessary, if not their removal and replacement.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on achieving this debate. His remarks were of concern to all of us. I have no doubt that, like him, we are waiting for the Minister’s response to that. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, raised similar concerns, and they deserve real answers and real steps to be taken to address them so that we are not here in six months debating the same thing. We are concerned to hear those remarks again: it undermines the whole PCC system. They might all be individual cases, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, but individual cases undermine the whole system if we are not careful, and they need to be addressed and dealt with.
The creation of PCCs was to increase public accountability, due to a belief that police authorities were not working well—although some police authorities worked really well; I heard the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—and that a new structure of accountability was needed. There was a belief that the public were shut out of decisions with respect to the policing of their own communities and that something had to be done. Of course, the policy debate that then takes place is about what that is. How do you give the public a say without interfering with the operational independence of the police? That was the establishment of the police and crime commissioner reform that the Government took forward. The idea was a sort of compromise, and led to an individual accountable to a police and crime panel holding the chief constable to account. Various problems have emerged, and the Government themselves have recognised them and undertaken to conduct a part 1 and part 2 review. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some idea of the Government’s thinking, following on from those reviews.
The creation of PCCs was to increase public accountability but there is still a complete lack of public understanding about the role. What is being done by the Government to increase understanding of the role—how PCCs interact with the chief constable, and how the police and crime panels work and hold police and crime commissioners to account? On democratic accountability, what is being done to increase the turnout for PCC elections? The average was 33.2% across all PCC elections in 2021, with turnout generally higher in Wales; I mention that to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. Why was that? In Durham, the turnout was 16.9%. What work have the Government done to try to understand the differences in electoral turnout between different areas, what can be done, and whether there are any lessons to be learned about that?
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke about the complaints and misconduct processes. Earlier this month the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, found grave failings in the misconduct processes in the Metropolitan Police. We need urgent action, not only in the Met but to overhaul the whole police misconduct system. What are the Government doing in working with PCCs to look at a national reform of the misconduct process and see what can be done about that? If we do nothing, it leads to the sort of example that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, spoke to us about.
How is best practice to be spread? Some PCCs, as noble Lords have said, have done brilliant and innovative work and made a huge difference in their area. Some police and crime panels work really well. What are the Government doing to spread that good practice? How are they trying to ensure that some of the worst-performing areas are brought up to the level of the best?
In every area, what we all seek to do is to make a police and crime commissioner system work. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bach that it was an attempt to do something about a lack of democratic accountability. Many people have had faith in police and crime commissioners but are concerned about the way that they have operated. The Government have been slow in responding to the criticism and in coming forward with their own ideas. What we seem to get is a review reviewing the review that took place, whereas what people are demanding is action and reform. The police and crime commissioners, and the police of this country, deserve that.
One of the greatest problems facing us, as we have said before to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is the undermining of public confidence in the police. That is a huge concern to all of us across this Chamber. One way which could take us forward in dealing with it is to help police and crime commissioners work to provide the link they were supposed to provide between the public and the police. The system has not worked in the way that the Government would have expected or that all of us would have hoped but, by grasping the nettle of reform and listening to some of the criticisms and not simply objecting to them, the Government could and should find a way forward which would command support across the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and very much congratulate my noble friend Lord Lexden as well on securing this important debate. I know that the topic has long been of interest to him, and a wide range of views have been expressed relating to the roles and responsibilities of police and crime commissioners this evening. I ought to remind the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that the policy was introduced under the coalition Government. I do not believe that the model is broken, but I will come on to that in a second.
I also reassure my noble friend Lord Lexden that I am certainly not idle, but he may have noticed that I have had three bosses since he wrote his letter. I am still busily asking for the meeting that he requested. My predecessor asked for that meeting, which I am afraid was denied, but I will continue to persevere.
Before I get on to the bulk of the more general points, perhaps I may go into Operation Conifer to answer my noble friend Lord Lexden’s specific questions about that unfortunate case. Obviously I understand the strength of feeling on this matter. However, the Government have no plans to commission a review of either the conduct of the investigation into allegations made against Sir Edward Heath or the findings of that investigation. It is unfortunate, of course, that Operation Conifer was not able to resolve conclusively the position in respect of all the allegations made against Sir Edward Heath. I understand the desire of noble Lords to find a solution but the investigation has already been subject to considerable external scrutiny. I will go into that in a bit of detail.
There were three main bits of scrutiny. First, there was an independent scrutiny panel—I stress “independent”—to ensure proportionality. Secondly, there were two reviews by Operation Hydrant in September 2016 and May 2017, which concluded that the investigation was proportionate, legitimate and in accordance with national guidance. Thirdly, there was a review in January 2017 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary as to whether resources assigned to the investigation by the Home Office were deployed in accordance with value-for-money principles; the review concluded that they were. Finally, the Wiltshire PCC then referred two matters regarding Mike Veale to the IOPC. That is a lot of external scrutiny, if we are being objective about this.
I am going to talk more generally about the police and crime commissioner model and try to answer all noble Lords’ specific points. We accept that policing is a unique public service, but like any public service—I think all noble Lords acknowledge this—it needs to be transparent and accountable to the public. The introduction of PCCs in 2012 has brought real local accountability to how chief constables and their forces perform, ensuring that the public have a stronger voice in policing.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that I have no particular knowledge of his successor; I do not know him, and I do not know what he has been doing in Leicester. I would have thought that, given what the noble Lord has said about him tonight, he is very accountable to his public. If he has behaved as described, then he deserves what is coming to him. PCCs operate in the full gaze of the media and must justify their record via the ballot box. This is in stark contrast to the invisible and unaccountable police authorities that preceded them. I will go on a little bit until we get to the review, then I will talk a little about complaints.
We are approaching the 10-year anniversary of their introduction and we think it is important to recognise the vital role that PCCs play in the public safety landscape. They work with their communities to focus on local priorities, using their convening powers to drive crime-fighting efforts in their areas and advocate for victims across the criminal justice system. PCCs have a strong involvement in work to tackle some of the most significant issues facing our society, including county lines, anti-social behaviour and violence against women and girls. There are lots of examples of that. I will go back to one from my friend Katy Bourne, the PCC in Sussex. She points out that 10 years ago, for example, only 20% of police and crime plans referenced prevention and now it is included in all police and crime plans. That is a direct, positive feature of the introduction of police and crime commissioners.
I will go on to the review, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to. It is vital that PCCs continue to be strong and visible leaders in the fight against crime. That is why in July 2020 the Government announced a two-part review into PCCs to strengthen their role, to ensure that they are accountable to the public and that they have the tools and levers to carry out their role effectively. Recommendations from parts 1 and 2 were announced by Written Ministerial Statement in March 2021 and 2022 respectively.
These measures will sharpen local accountability and improve the consistency and quality of scrutiny by police and crime panels, as we were talking about earlier, and make it easier for the public to hold their PCC to account for their record on reducing crime. They will also ensure that PCCs have the necessary tools and levers to cut crime and will turn the dial on their involvement in the criminal justice system, giving PCCs a more defined role in relation to offender management and strengthening their role in key local partnerships. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding. That is why we have retained a relentless focus on delivery to realise the benefits of these important recommendations as quickly as possible. We have moved to multi-year violence reduction unit funding to facilitate long-term preventative strategies, better enabling PCCs to develop long-term strategies for reducing crime in their locality.
We have amended the specified information order to improve PCCs’ transparency by requiring them to provide a narrative on the Government’s crime outcomes, their force’s His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services performance reports and further complaint-handling information. We have also strengthened the scrutiny of PCCs by publishing new guidance for police and crime panels, including a variety of training tools such as videos, good-practice guides and sharing best practice, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Also under discussion, and which I probably should have mentioned earlier in Questions, are regional panels. These are being looked at in terms of the police and crime panels as a way of ensuring that best practice is shared.
I take the point that publicity around the role of PCCs could be improved. I am going to get to the subject of the relationship between PCCs and chief constables. It would be important to answer the right reverend Prelate’s concerns and the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the breakdown in communication and trust between those two roles. For a PCC to deliver to the community they serve, they need to have a strong working relationship with their chief constable. That has to recognise the operational independence of policing but also the local mandate of the PCC to deliver on local priorities.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the situation with Dame Cressida Dick. During the debate on the review of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, a week ago, I referred—at some length, I am afraid—to the mayor and MOPAC’s complex relationship with the Home Secretary in regard to this. I refer noble Lords to that in Hansard. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I do not think that anyone is blaming anyone; it is a complex relationship, and the lines unfortunately crossed on a number of occasions.
Through the PCC review, we heard loud and clear the need for clarification of the working relationships between policing system partners. This is one of the primary reasons why we consulted on the Policing Protocol Order 2011—I note the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—to ensure that we are able to support effective and constructive working relationships in the policing sector as well as possible. These responses are currently being considered, and we will update in due course.
We are also working with the sector to further develop the existing PCC and chief constable accountability guidance, which is designed to embed healthy working relationships between PCCs and chief constables, as well as outlining a framework for mediation for relationships that may be at risk of breaking down. We will also bring forward legislative amendments to make the chief constable suspension and dismissal process more rigorous and transparent, which in turn will make it fairer, ensuring that the chief constable has a voice.
I take the point about chief officer recruitment, which a number of noble Lords referred to. We want to ensure that there is a wide, well-rounded and diverse pool of candidates for appointment to chief officer ranks. We also want to ensure that there are consistent and high standards in selection processes. We welcome the College of Policing’s proposals for fundamental change to the current system, following a full independent review of progression and development to chief officer ranks. These measures will increase transparency and open up access to senior officer level development.
We continue to engage with local areas developing devolution deals to expand the mayoral PCC model, in line with the Government’s wider devolution and levelling-up agenda, and we have published our response to the consultation on giving PCCs greater powers of competence.
Time allows me to talk a little about the PCC complaints process, to which my noble friend Lord Lexden referred. Our announcement of the PCC review recommendations did not make specific recommendations on the PCC complaints system, and we are still committed to developing reforms in this area. This includes ensuring that there is clarity on what constitutes misconduct or a breach of expected standards by PCCs, deciding which body is best placed to handle certain types of complaints, ensuring that the system does not give rise to vexatious complaints and ensuring the effective handling of criminal allegations against PCCs.
Lord Lexden (Con)
What do the Government plan to do to prevent serious misconduct hearings being indefinitely delayed, as has happened in Cleveland? What will the Government do to get clear answers to public inquiries made to the offices of police and crime commissioners, instead of the hopeless and inadequate answers that I cited?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I will disappoint my noble friend to some degree. As I said, we are committed to developing reforms in this area, and this will obviously need to look at the specific sets of circumstances to which he refers. I will make sure that my noble friend’s particular points are taken back and incorporated.
As I was saying, developing reforms include ensuring that there is clarity on what constitutes misconduct or a breach of expected standards by PCCs, deciding which body is best placed to handle certain types of complaints, ensuring that the system does not give rise to vexatious complaints and ensuring the effective handling of criminal allegations against PCCs. We acknowledge that we need a system that is open, transparent and fair for all parties when handling complaints. While we develop the reforms in this area, we have taken interim steps to assist. This includes publishing guidance to strengthen the quality and consistency of scrutiny by panels, more clearly explaining their roles and responsibilities—I note the point of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—including in relation to their remit for handling PCC complaints.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, also asked what legal requirements exist to ensure that police and crime commissioners answer the inquiries made to them. The actions and decisions of PCCs are scrutinised by the panels, and the PCCs must provide information and answer questions raised by their PCP, where reasonable and appropriate, in line with their duties in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Where necessary, PCCs must also respond to freedom of information requests from the public, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
We intend to legislate to deliver those recommendations from the PCC review, which require primary legislation, as soon as parliamentary time allows. We are also fully committed to delivering the remainder of our non-legislative recommendations in conjunction with the sector by the end of this calendar year, where possible.
I am afraid I do not have any time left, but I close by saying that we seem to have debated the instances—very bad instances; no one is denying that—of one or two particularly bad apples. The fact remains that there are 39 PCCs and three mayors with PCC responsibilities and, as has been recognised, we should all acknowledge that they are, in the main, doing a very good job. I take this opportunity to thank all our sector partners for their continued support.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Monday 31st October 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 View all Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (31 Oct 2022)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that the power in Clause 9(1) is subject to conditions contained in a later amendment to that Clause.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I shall speak very briefly because this amendment gives rise to many of the same debates that we have already had this evening. We have tabled Amendments 12 and 15, which would prevent
“the delegated powers in Clause 9 from being used unless a draft of the instrument, a report of a relevant consultation exercise, and an appropriate economic impact assessment have been laid before Parliament.”
The Government say that Clause 9 is needed because the policy is not yet developed. We are worried about this, so these amendments would act as a safeguard by preventing the power being used unless the conditions in the amendment are met. We think Northern Ireland businesses would be better served if our amendment were to be accepted, notwithstanding all our previous comments on our approach to the Bill more generally. Businesses were telling us—I am sure other noble Lords have heard the same—that they want and need stability, predictability and security. I do not think this will be delivered by the Bill; it comes only through negotiation. We must amend the Bill; it is what we are here to do this evening. We have made this suggestion because we think it would be particularly helpful to the business community to have more of a say and to get more clarity from the Government on what they might intend to do.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I support these two amendments, but they are not even contesting the making of regulations or asking for substance or content; they just require a process for making the regulations. As my noble friend Lord Purvis said in the debate on the previous group, there is nothing in the Bill on consultation. Assuming that Clause 9 remains—which we hope it does not—this amendment is trying to put some meat on the bones that should probably already exist. The Government said in the delegated powers memorandum that the regulations under this clause would
“need to reflect the results of consultation with businesses”.
The problem is that this clause provides for no such consultation. Our Delegated Powers Committee commented:
“This is the frankest admission by the Government that policy is so embryonic that it has not yet been consulted on.”
The committee’s comment on Clause 5 is also pertinent and relevant:
“Ministers are said to need flexibility, but the reality is that policy has not yet been formulated … the Government could have formulated their policy, consulted on it, refined it (if necessary) and then brought forward legislation with the details filled in. This would have facilitated meaningful parliamentary debate.”
Yet, the Delegated Powers Committee went on,
“Parliament is being presented with a major Bill on the subject. Legislation has preceded policy development rather than vice versa”.
I think I may be repeating what my noble friend has already quoted.
Amendment 15 therefore contains reasonable and sensible conditions for a draft of any proposed SI—for a report on consultations with business and an economic assessment to be laid. I suggest that the Government will, or ought to, have some difficulty in finding arguments to resist these amendments.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I intervene briefly in support of these amendments requesting that the Government provide an economic impact assessment.
Nothing could better characterise the extraordinary nature of our debates today, Wednesday and next Monday—and their unreality—than the fact that the Government are asking us to enact a Bill that gives them complete powers to do whatever they like in circumstances where it has been impossible, in the Government’s view, to get a negotiated solution. I recognise that the Government’s preference is for a negotiated solution. They are proposing that we give them a blank cheque for that without telling us what the impact on the British economy or the economy of Northern Ireland might be. That is frankly bizarre. It is not truly credible.
Of course, we all know that, in the event and after we have given them those powers, they would probably publish something, but we need to know now. We need some guesstimates—I accept they could be only guesstimates—of what the likely consequences would be if the Government’s preference for a negotiated solution cannot be achieved and they use the powers in the Bill that they are asking us to enact. I cannot honestly think of an argument against it.
Five years before we joined the European Communities, the then Labour Government issued a White Paper under George Brown which was an impact assessment of joining the European Communities. Why is it impossible to do that now? Why can the Government not say what the impact would be if the car goes over the cliff? I hope the Government will relent and will provide some impact assessments of these matters, because we really need to see them before we are asked to vote on the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for Amendments 12 and 15 in her name.
Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have engaged extensively with groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and internationally. In addition to routine engagement, as I have mentioned, during the summer, the Government held over 100 bespoke sessions with more than 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators to inform the details of how the dual regulatory and trade boundary models should work in practice. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, I refer to some of my own engagement, not just with the dairy and agri-food sectors, but with business representative groups in Northern Ireland. That has been a similar experience to that of my right honourable friends, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State. We are very committed to this and we are reflecting on the huge wealth of feedback that we have received as we continue to develop the details of the underlying regime.
The clause is designed to provide stakeholders in Northern Ireland with certainty that the Government will deliver the solutions we have outlined. The House will have the opportunity to scrutinise regulations in the usual fashion, and the Government will provide all the usual accompanying material under normal parliamentary procedures. The full details of the new regime will be set out in, and alongside, regulations made under the Bill, including economic impacts where appropriate, so that Parliament may make informed scrutiny of the new regime which is being put in place.
The regulations themselves will be the product of engagement with businesses to ensure the implementation of the new regime is as smooth and operable as possible. Stakeholder views are of course important, but it is ultimately for Ministers to exercise these powers, and for Parliament to scrutinise and hold them accountable in the usual way. An additional requirement for the Government to lay an assessment and a report when it makes regulations using this power is therefore, in our view, unnecessary, and in that spirit, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister and to others who have contributed to the discussion on this group of amendments. I just gently say to the Minister that we do appreciate and respect the fact that a great deal of engagement is being undertaken by the Government and by others; we are all talking to businesses, and so we should. But that is not the same as a proper consultation process in line with Cabinet Office guidelines, which is what we really need here, because at some stage there will be decisions made by the Government about what they want to do, and it would be really unfortunate if those decisions were implemented without sufficient consultation. That is the point we are trying to get across to the Government at this stage, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(3) In exercising any of the powers under this section, a Minister of the Crown—(a) must act in a way that is compatible with the terms of Article 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol,(b) must not suspend or seek to diminish any of the other provisions of the EU withdrawal agreement or the Northern Ireland Protocol so far as they relate to Article 2 of the Protocol, and(c) must not suspend or repeal, or make alternative provision to, domestic law so far as it gives effect to Article 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol or any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement to the extent that it relates to Article 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect the operation of Article 2 of the Ireland-Northern Ireland Protocol.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments standing in my name in group 6, which all seek to protect the operation of Article 2 of the protocol. There is much that is highly contentious about the Bill that we are considering, but I hope that there is at least one issue that is not controversial: that fundamental human rights should not be undermined by this Bill. As my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Goudie both argued in their powerful speeches at Second Reading, they are too fundamental to the Northern Ireland peace process to risk that happening.
The purpose of Article 2 is quite clear: it is to protect the rights that those negotiating the Belfast/Good Friday agreement identified as the basis for moving Northern Ireland forward. The fear that Article 2 addressed was that these rights were underpinned by European Union law, and that that underpinning could be weakened, and in some cases destroyed, when the UK left the EU. The operation of Article 2 has never been regarded as controversial; indeed, when the Government identified the list of controversial issues in the protocol, Article 2 was explicitly identified as uncontroversial. So far as I am aware, no unionist politician—and in fact the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, referred to Article 2 earlier in a previous debate—has ever tried to argue that the operation of Article 2 is a problem for them, whatever other problems they consider the protocol to give rise to.
The Government themselves appear to have recognised the importance of Article 2 in Clause 15(3) of the Bill, which provides that the powers given to Ministers in that clause cannot be used to repeal Article 2. However, welcome as that protection in Clause 15(3) is, it does not deal with the problem. First, it does not apply to the vast panoply of ministerial powers granted by other clauses. Secondly, even regarding the limits it places on the exercise of ministerial powers under Clause 15, it only prevents Article 2 ceasing to have effect, not a weakening of Article 2 that falls short of repeal. Thirdly, it does not protect Article 2 from other provisions of the Bill that limit its scope immediately the Bill is brought into force and which are not dependent on the exercise of delegated powers to Ministers.
What is the problem and why are a significant number of amendments needed to protect Article 2? Simply put, the effectiveness of Article 2 in practice depends on other provisions of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol threatened by the Bill. To use an analogy, having a chair to sit on is pointless if all its legs are sawn off; it ceases to function as a chair. If the necessary supports for Article 2 are removed, it will cease to function. If the Bill is passed in its current form, it appears it will cut off one crucial support immediately, as well as enabling Ministers to remove all the other supports as they please.
I turn to the detail. I will identify the key questions which I expect the Minister to answer immediately or at least before Report; immediately following this debate, I will forward to him the text of the questions to which I seek answers.
When read together with Article 13 of the protocol, Article 2 requires that Northern Ireland equality law keep pace with EU equality law. This is the dynamic alignment requirement. My first question is this: may a Minister by regulation under Clause 14(4) provide that Article 13(3) of the protocol is disapplied in relation to Article 2? If so, can this power be used to prevent the equality directives in Annexe 1 being subject to dynamic alignment? Amendment 23A is relevant in this regard.
Clause 14(4) provides that:
“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make any provision which the Minister considers appropriate in connection with any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol and other parts of the EU withdrawal agreement to which this section relates.”
My second question is: does this mean that a Minister could, by regulation, provide that the provisions of the withdrawal agreement that enable disputes relating to Article 2 to go to international arbitration if they cannot otherwise be resolved—Articles 170 to 181 of the withdrawal agreement—may be disapplied with regard to disputes concerning Article 2? Amendment 23A is relevant in that regard.
Clause 15(2) provides that:
“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, provide for any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU withdrawal agreement … to become excluded provision”.
My third question is: does this empower a Minister to disapply Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement, which requires that the provision of the agreement be applied in good faith, in so far as it applies to Article 2 of the protocol? Amendment 31A is relevant in this case.
Clause 15(2) also appears to permit Ministers to designate Article 14(c) of the protocol as excluded provision. My fourth question is: does Clause 15(2) permit Ministers to limit the current powers of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to refer matters to the specialist committee under Article 14(c) of the protocol? In this regard, Amendment 31A is relevant.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has done the Committee a great favour by detailing this particular aspect of the Bill. She has shown that the powers which the Government are seeking to take cover so much that none of us has any idea whatever as to what it may mean. No doubt, the Minister will be able to write a letter which details the answers to each of her excellent questions, but behind those questions is the fundamental falsehood of this Bill. The Bill gives to Ministers powers the strength, width and depth of which none of us have any idea, and the Government have even less idea, clearly, because if they did, they would have restricted those powers and would not have asked this House to accept a proposition which is manifestly undemocratic and which could not be accepted by any democratic House in any country in western Europe.
By the noble Baroness’s detailed forensic explanation of her particular interest, she has revealed the basic falsehood in the Bill and the reason that many of us are not going to allow it to pass, because it is contrary to everything that we have ever done in our political lives. I have been in politics in one House or another for more than 40 years, and no one has ever suggested a Bill of this kind ever before. Ministers had better understand just how serious this is.
I want to say one thing about Ministers too. Having been a Minister for 16 years, which is longer than most people are in post, I learned how important it was to have parliamentary restrictions—how important it was that civil servants could say to you, “I’m afraid, Minister, you can’t do that because that requires Parliament’s acceptance.” It was a vital part of the democratic process. We are being asked to remove that from Ministers, and I say to my noble friends that it is very bad for them, as Ministers, because it is that restriction and control which ensure that they do not move beyond where they ought to go merely because it is convenient.
The last thing that I will say about the excellent offering of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is this. However detailed the answer is, it will not overcome the fact that any promise made in this House can be taken apart if we give the Government these powers. It is not for Ministers to promise us things, because, if the Act gives them powers, however fine they may be—and what a fine list of Ministers we have—their successors will be able to use these provisions in a way which undermines any promise made to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. That is why I wanted to come in particularly to congratulate her, because she has revealed the fundamental falseness of this whole proposition and the reason why this Bill, of all Bills, should not be passed by this House.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to comment on the nature of the Bill, which has now taken on gargantuan proportions. It is a raging beast running through our constitutional rights and liberties.
However, to be clear cut, it is a good deal more modest. It says that there will be no hard border. It guarantees that it will protect the European single market. Just before the dinner break, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out that, even if the Bill were implemented, it would not restore Northern Ireland completely to the UK single market in some pure form. He was quite right but it rather misses the point that this Bill is significantly more modest.
As for human rights, a very serious topic—the record of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in this respect is unequalled—the fact of the matter is that the Bill’s focus is the trade aspects of Articles 5 to 10. It is an attempt to remodel them so that it could reasonably be argued that the commitment in the protocol that the UK single market will be protected is lived up to rather better than it currently is. This seems entirely reasonable to me. I understand that there is a new doctrine in the House: if we read a document, we are all struck dumb by what was in the protocol and cannot even think. All further thought and debate about it is now over, as some mental trauma afflicts us all and we are so lost in admiration for it, but it is a problem. One of the many problems is this: there is a commitment to protecting the UK single market but we have many examples of how it is not protected.
However, the Bill is more limited than many would guess from listening to our discourse today. The crucial point with respect to this amendment is that Article 2 is not the target. That article and its points on human rights remain untouched by this Bill. It is Articles 5 to 10, which deal with the way trade is to be conducted, that are the target of the Bill. The Bill is therefore much more limited, and possibly less of a threat to our constitutional traditions, than has been said.
Above all else, there is a very simple thing that nobody seems to accept is critical: rather than saying, “We’re terribly sorry about the democratic deficit and so on,” how do you respond to the communities in Northern Ireland, who have a right under Article 1 of the international Good Friday agreement to have their aspirations protected by the sovereign Government and are saying, “We have a major problem here: the major issue of our alienation”? That seems to have disappeared entirely. For all its problems, at least the Bill is an effort to do this.
I am not convinced that the constitutionality of the United Kingdom and its great provisions are incredibly protected or defended by saying, “We just could not care less about that question.” This is about a more complicated balance. Is it not obvious that there is a balance to be found here? I desperately hope that it is reached in the negotiations with the EU. Is it not obvious that these strong, dramatic statements on both sides are not helpful in the struggle to reach the balance that must be found?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I want to bring the focus back to Article 2. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, said that this Bill is modest but the problem is that the law of unintended consequences could come into play here.
My noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed coined the phrase “Rumsfeld clauses”. I do not want to detract from his trademark on that phrase—he will kill me—but, as concerns Article 2, the Bill shows some evidence of having been written on the back of an envelope. Concerns about human rights and equality have been at the heart of the conflict in Northern Ireland, so those concerns were central to the Good Friday agreement.
Thus Article 2 of the protocol, ensuring a non-diminution of the wide range of rights set out in the Good Friday agreement, is a key clause. However, there are worrying implications of the Bill for human rights and equality protections, which are in danger of being overlooked. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland point out that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill make no reference to any consideration having been given to compliance with Article 2 of the protocol. Those two commissions have previously recommended that this should be the case regarding all relevant legislation. I understand that the Leader of the House of Commons, the right honourable Penny Mordaunt, is talking about draft guidance to Bill teams on this matter. This is in response to concerns that have been raised for quite a few months now by various committees, such as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Women and Equalities Committee in the other place, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I have the pleasure to sit, and our own Northern Ireland Protocol Sub-Committee. They have all raised concerns about compliance with Article 2 of the protocol.
The Government gave assurances about their commitment to Article 2, and it is true that this article gets a degree of protection under the Bill; for instance, that Clause 15 does not permit Ministers to make regulations defining Article 2 among “excluded provisions”. However, even Clause 15 needs completion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, pointed out. The logic of protection of Article 2 is far from fully reflected in other clauses of the Bill. Hence these amendments—and I support all those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, not just the two I have co-signed—propose a strengthening of Clauses 9, 10, 13 to 15 and 20.
This Government do not like the European Court of Justice, but its role is essential at various points in relation to Article 2. That article includes a commitment to keep pace with EU laws, as the noble Baroness pointed out, with EU law developments falling within the scope of the six equality directives listed in Annexe 1 to the protocol. As these directives are updated or replaced under the normal process of EU legislation, the UK Government are committed to ensuring that domestic legislation in Northern Ireland reflects any substantive enhancements in relevant protections. There are also other relevant EU laws beyond the six equality directives that underpin rights in the Good Friday agreement, such as the victims’ directive, the parental leave directive, and the pregnant workers’ directive.
The Government are committed to ensuring that there will be no diminution of protections as contained in relevant EU law on 31 December 2020. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland have acquired additional powers to oversee the Government’s commitment under Article 2. However, it is essential that Clause 20, which removes the binding nature of judgments of the European Court of Justice, is amended to ensure that the dynamic alignments—the keeping pace—guaranteed under the protocol for citizens’ rights in Northern Ireland can be delivered. The same applies to Clause 13.
The UK-EU joint committee supervises the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, but where there is a dispute regarding the interpretation of EU law which the joint committee or the arbitration panel cannot resolve, then under Article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, the ECJ must be asked to give a binding interpretation. This needs to be recognised and incorporated in Clause 13.
I mentioned Clause 15. The remaining problem there is that it does not prevent Article 14(c) of the protocol, which provides for the UK-EU specialised committee to consider matters brought to its attention by the two commissions in Northern Ireland—human rights and equalities—from becoming excluded provision by sort of oversight. The same applies to the lack of protection of the protocol’s Article 15, which provides for a joint consultative working group on the effective operation of Article 2.
The other amendments in this group raise similar and related issues. For reasons of time, I will not dwell on them. I am sure that noble Lords get the drift. One is left to conclude that there was either a lack of thorough preparation on the Bill—hence my quip about the back of an envelope—or a disturbingly cavalier disregard for Article 2 of the protocol. I am not sure which is worse. Neither is excusable, but I hope the Minister can tell me that the Government will take away especially all those excellent, very dense and precise questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. Quite honestly, what is in the Bill at the moment is not remotely satisfactory to honour and safeguard Article 2 of the protocol.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, these amendments relate to Article 2 of the protocol. However, it is clear that Articles 1 and 2 subject that protocol to the prior treaty, the Belfast agreement. That is the fundamental point that must not be overlooked. There is merit in examining in detail what, for instance, Article 2(1) says, because it lends weight to arguments that we have advanced on our side and that have been advanced very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. Article 2(1) specifically places an act of duty on the UK Government. That duty is as follows:
“The United Kingdom shall ensure no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.
However, the operation of the protocol, as it is currently being operated and is designed to operate, is diminishing the rights set out in
“that part of the … Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity”
and in the Belfast agreement, which sets out
“the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
That applies right across the whole remit of lawmaking in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Up until 31 December 2020, the people of Northern Ireland were represented in all the lawmaking to which they were subject.
However, since then, more and more laws are being applied that have been developed by the European Union, in which Northern Ireland representatives have absolutely no representation whatever. It is helpful that we are looking at Article 2. The operation of the protocol is therefore actively diminishing the Belfast agreement’s
“right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
People in Northern Ireland can currently not do that—by standing for election or electing someone to the relevant legislature, whether here at Westminster or at Stormont—because they cannot make any laws. They have no say in any laws to which the people of Northern Ireland are subject in over 300 areas, hence the need for the Bill, which will return lawmaking powers for goods destined for Northern Ireland to a legislature within the United Kingdom.
I have listened to the outrage—as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, described it very well—that has been expressed about the powers that will be taken by Ministers. However, there seems to be little or no outrage felt at all about the absolute lack of any democracy whatever when it comes to whole swathes of laws over the economy in Northern Ireland. Never mind giving the powers to Ministers, or bringing forward regulations or statutory instruments capable not of being amended but at least of some scrutiny in a United Kingdom legislature—these are laws being brought forward on a dynamic basis, aligning Northern Ireland to EU law, different from UK law in many cases, with no scrutiny, say, vote, or anything else by anyone elected in Northern Ireland.
Where is the outrage about that? Where are the fulsome expressions of how this is a travesty of democracy, the like of which has not been seen—I cannot count any kind of precedents for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referred to the idea of a stool that has legs being cut off it. It reminds me of the description of the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement: a three-legged stool, with strands 1, 2 and 3; strand 1 being the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, the Assembly and so on; strand 2 being north-south; and strand 3 being east-west. When you interfere and cut the leg of the east-west relationship, which is what has happened as a result of the protocol, and you also interfere with the cross-community voting mechanisms of the Assembly itself in order to undermine any kind of unionist opposition to the protocol, you are cutting away at the legs of the Belfast agreement as amended by St Andrews. That is the reality, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, we need to focus on the fundamental problem, which is that the Belfast agreement is being undermined by the protocol. Until it is sorted out, there will not be proper functioning of that agreement.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I want to rise very briefly in support of these amendments and also to say that my noble friend Lady Ludford made an extremely clear and very good case. I just want to add three very brief points.
The first is that I refer the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, to Hansard in 2019 and my contributions, among others from these Benches. We debated these issues and highlighted them, and he knows that. I am sure this evening it is just rhetoric in our Committee. He knows we have raised the concerns that he just outlined now. They are why we opposed it. So I do not think he can present that fact towards these Benches.
The second is that in my view Article 2 of the protocol should not be seen in a static form. Article 2(1) states:
“The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights … results from its withdrawal from the Union”.
This is a permanent agreement, a permanent commitment, and therefore it cannot be seen that those that were in place in 2019 are now kept in aspic. So my noble friend is absolutely right that if you are taking away what is case law and when those rights and freedoms protected by Annexe 1 powers are adapted, unless they are dynamic, there is a diminution of those rights, by definition. The Bill proposes retaining them in aspic. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is absolutely right to highlight the fact that those Article 2 rights need to continue to be dynamic.
I know the hour is late, but I want to remind the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and others of Northern Ireland Protocol Bill: UK Government Legal Position, which is the founding basis upon which this Bill has been brought for our consideration. The final sentence of the penultimate paragraph is:
“The UK urges EU Member States to provide a new negotiating mandate to the Commission, wide enough to change the terms of the Protocol to respond to the full range of issues addressed by this legislation.”
So far, I have not heard a squeak from any Minister saying that the position of the Government is still that there should be a new negotiating mandate from the Commission to EU member states. I have not heard that; I am willing to be intervened on, or, if not, I want to hear from the Minister whether that is still the position. That was the legal position of the Government: that they are seeking a new negotiating mandate from the Commission. It is there in black and white, but I have not heard whether that remains the same. When it comes to putting faith in the negotiations, what is the basis of these negotiations if the Government’s legal position is that there has to be a new mandate and that is not forthcoming?
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I will comment again briefly. I have said on the Floor of this House during these debates that I did not consider it necessary to reopen the mandate. If the EU can genuinely commit itself, as it is committed in the protocol, to defending the Good Friday agreement in all its parts, although it has not really understood what that means, my personal view is that that would be enough. I can understand why the Government feel the EU should reopen the mandate, but it is not a problem for me. I accept the point and I believe there could be successful talks without the reopening of the mandate; that is, providing that the EU accepts what it said itself that this is about protecting the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. As long as that part of the commitment, which has already been made, is upheld, I think there is a good prospect for these talks.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by thanking my noble friend Lady Ritchie for tabling this group of amendments. It has provoked an extremely interesting debate, with some strongly held views. First, in welcoming these amendments, my noble friend built on the contribution of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who spoke last week about the importance of preserving the rights of people from all communities. The withdrawal agreement was not about the practicalities of trade; first and foremost, it was about setting out matters relating to the rights of citizens. Article 2 of the protocol reflects this, with the Government having committed to
“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”
under the 1998 agreement.
The concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Ritchie are legitimate and need a detailed answer from the Minister. The Government’s obsession in relation to the European court is not helpful when it comes to questions about the rights of individuals. As my noble friend said, this is indeed an opportunity for the Government to show that they are protecting Article 2 at all costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked a couple of very important questions. I think I wrote down correctly that he said that the Government do not even know the extent of the powers they are asking for in this Bill. That is quite a statement to make. He also gave a very telling comment about the importance of parliamentary restrictions when one has the responsibilities of a Minister. I thank him for making those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, had a different view. He said that the Bill is less important than the noble Lord, Lord Deben, seemed to imply and that really the focus was on Articles 5 to 10; they are really the target of the Bill, not Article 2. I would be interested to see how the Minister reconciles those two points of view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, spoke of the law of unintended consequences. She went into some detail—almost the same level of detail as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—with a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, maybe in writing at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked some interesting questions and reminded us all that two committees have highlighted the unprecedented nature of the Bill. This is an opportunity for the Minister to reassure us that the Article 2 rights can indeed be dynamically maintained through the Bill.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for her amendments, which have provoked a wide-ranging debate at this late hour. I put on record my acknowledgment of her forthright defence of human rights in Northern Ireland over very many decades.
I note that some of the amendments that have been debated this evening follow on from briefings and comments made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, both of which are important institutions that were established under the 1998 agreement and were set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They perform a hugely important function, as noble Lords have pointed out, as part of the dedicated mechanism under Article 2 of the protocol. I do not think there is any difference between us on that point.
I therefore reaffirm at the outset that the Government are committed to Article 2 and to ensuring that rights and equality protections continue to be upheld in Northern Ireland. If noble Lords will forgive me, I think I have long enough experience in Northern Ireland itself to understand the importance of those protections. That is why Article 2 is explicitly protected from being made an excluded provision by Clause 15 in the Bill. To be clear, the Government will not do anything to undermine the provisions of Article 2. We believe that the Bill gives us all the powers we need to ensure that we can protect it. The noble Baroness’s amendments therefore seek to address problems that we do not envisage arising from the Bill.
I could go into great detail now but, given the lateness of the hour, I will say that we will continue to look at these issues as we consider plans for secondary legislation under the Bill. We will be particularly mindful of any interactions with Article 2, given the interest of the Committee. In that spirit, I look forward to receiving the detailed questions from the noble Baroness in writing. Of course, I give her an undertaking that we will provide her with very detailed responses, which will be placed in the Library well in advance of Report so that noble Lords have a chance to consider them.
On the noble Baroness’s specific question, Article 2 is not excluded and cannot be. Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will always apply. None of the provisions that the noble Baroness mentioned ceases to apply to Article 2 under this Bill, including Article 13(3), the arbitration provisions, Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement and Section 7C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. As I say, I am happy to put this down in much more detail in writing so that all noble Lords will have a chance to consider the responses.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, regarding the EU negotiating mandate, I am happy to confirm that the Government are still engaging with the EU in talks, and we are clear that movement from the EU is needed that goes beyond its 2020-21 proposals. We need to be able to make changes to the protocol.
To conclude—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I know that it is late; it is very kind of the Minister to give way. Just so we are crystal clear, that means that we have formally sought EU member states to seek a new mandate from the Commission.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not give a running commentary on the negotiations. I have set out the Government’s position, and I do not really want to be drawn beyond it.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but when he replies to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, will he answer the question not just whether the Government will do these things but whether they would have power to do these things? That is the question that most concerns me and many on this side of the Committee.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, and I will ensure that the answers to the noble Baroness are as full and detailed as possible.
In conclusion, given the lateness of the hour and the need to make progress, I genuinely believe that the aims of the Government, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this evening are broadly aligned. There might be differences of approach, but we do not believe that the amendments are required. I will write to the noble Baroness in detail and, in that spirit, urge her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, including the Minister who responded. I obviously look forward to the detailed answers following the submission of my speech, outlining the questions to him. What the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just expressed, and it is the thread running through the contributions made by noble Lords this evening, is the fear of the power that Ministers will have through the regulations. That will have a damaging impact on Article 2, perhaps by default, but it is the worry and the concern of both commissions in Northern Ireland. I understand that they have a statutory duty under the dedicated mechanism to deal with these issues, but it might be useful for the Government to enter into discussions. I do not know whether that is possible, because one is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and the other is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office, but it might be useful, because of their joint responsibility, to have further discussions with them in relation to these issues.
Because of the lateness of the hour, I look forward to the answers from the Minister. I believe that the problem lies with the further powers in the regulations that are yet to be revealed to your Lordships’ House. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, with the proviso—dependent on the answers received—that I might bring some of these issues back on Report.