House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
Scottish National party Members may want independence, but they certainly do not have independence of thought. The UK Government are providing the Scottish Government with a record block grant settlement of £41 billion a year over the next three years. That is the highest spending review settlement since the advent of devolution, and I hope that the SNP will join me in welcoming that, although I will not hold my breath.
Patricia Gibson
So much for “Jackanory”. According to the House of Commons Library, the Scottish block grant was cut by 4.1% this financial year and is set to be cut by a further 6% in the next financial year. That is a two-year real-terms cut of nearly £5 billion. The UK Government repeatedly claim to be increasing the funding for Scotland, but that is clearly not true, so why do the Minister, the Secretary of State and his Government refuse to admit that they have cut the block grant and plan to cut it even further, and when will the Secretary of State for Scotland stand up for Scotland?
Mr Jack
This Secretary of State is standing up for Scotland. The £41 billion settlement over three years was a record figure; it is the highest figure since devolution began and the first grant was agreed in 1999. I am standing up for Scotland, but I recognise that the Scottish Government have tough choices to make. Inflation is affecting the whole world and they will have to make responsible choices. I do not believe that it is responsible for them to cut their public services by £1.25 billion.
Anne McLaughlin
Independent research shows that the Scottish block grant will be cut by £5 billion in real terms over the next two years. What if the Scottish Government have £5 billion less to spend and our councils have less to spend, despite cost and demand going up? Let us consider Glasgow City Council. The city treasurer, Councillor Ricky Bell, said today:
“The consequences of what looks likely to be passed on to Scotland’s public services will be catastrophic and communities, already reeling from 12 years of Tory austerity, are being pushed to the brink of destruction.”
What can he do, other than support independence, to stop those communities being destroyed?
Mr Jack
Supporting independence will certainly not help the finances of Scotland; many independent economists have made that observation. As I said, it is absolutely a choice that the Scottish Government have to make about how they spend their budget. If they need to do so, they have tax-raising and borrowing powers. That is a decision for them, but equally, they have to choose what their priorities are. I would say that keeping £20 million in the budget for an independence referendum that no one wants is not responsible.
Alan Brown
Thanks to Brexit, the UK has the highest inflation in the G7, which has caused an additional £1.7 billion to be knocked off the Scottish budget due to pressures such as energy increases, wage increases and the cost of living. Instead of giving a robotic answer about the biggest budget being awarded—the Secretary of State wrongly stated that Scotland has borrowing powers, which we do not for our revenue budget—will he say what discussions he has had with the Chancellor about additional revenues coming to Scotland to offset the inflationary pressures?
Mr Jack
I must set the record straight: borrowing is available for both capital and revenue, and there is an emergency figure, as was available during covid. The hon. Gentleman raises a point about inflation. Rising energy costs and rising food prices, as a result of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, have affected continental Europe and the United Kingdom. This is a global issue. The Bank of England is taking steps, and the Chancellor’s statement will take further steps tomorrow, to stabilise the markets. What we are very clear about is that we have put in place support for people through the household support scheme, the energy price cap and the £37 billion that the Chancellor announced earlier this year. As we have always said, we will protect the most vulnerable in society.
Deidre Brock
Public sector pay increases are a sensible way for a Government to help their citizens with a cost of living crisis, but the UK Government are denying devolved Governments the ability to do that by cutting devolved budgets. Would a better use of public money not be to shut down the Scotland Office propaganda unit and transfer its budget to the Scottish Government to help fund pay rises for tens of thousands of people in Scotland?
Mr Jack
The hon. Lady and I have this discussion on many occasions, because this is one of the points that she is keenest to make in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. She knows the answer, which is that the Scotland Office’s spending on its communications pales into insignificance in comparison with the Scottish Government’s.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The block grant for Scotland covers many of the Government spending priorities that affect the people of Scotland from day to day, such as health, education and local government. However, I am afraid that there are many areas it does not cover, from pensions and most social security to consular services for Scots imprisoned abroad, such as my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal of Dumbarton, who has been arbitrarily detained for five years by the Government of India. We know that the Prime Minister met the Prime Minister of India at the G20 summit. Does the Secretary of State know whether they discussed Jagtar’s detention? If he, as Scotland’s man in the British Cabinet, does not know, why not?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s supplementary does not relate to the question, so it cannot be answered.
Alison Thewliss
Anti-poverty groups such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Child Poverty Action Group have praised the Scottish Government for expanding and trebling the Scottish child payment—a watershed moment for tackling poverty in Scotland. Families in Scotland now get £100 every four weeks for each child up to the age of 16, which will have a significant impact. Instead of trying to hamstring such positive anti-poverty activity by cutting the block grant, will the Secretary of State increase spending for Scotland so that we can put it into the pockets of needy families hammered by Tory austerity?
Mr Jack
There has been an increase. As a Barnett consequential, there is an extra £82 million coming to Scotland this year through the household support fund. As a result of the rates cut in England, there is an extra £296 million coming this year. We have devolved some of those benefits, so it is the Scottish Government’s choice how they spend that money.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon wrote in the Financial Times that the Scottish Government’s budget this year has
“not received a single additional penny from the UK government.”
The Secretary of State will know that that is completely false. It is another example of this fibbing First Minister, who has recently been forced to correct the official record in the Scottish Parliament for false claims made there. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is a misleading and incorrect quote from Scotland’s First Minister? Will he outline what additional funding has gone from the UK Government to the Scottish Government this year?
Mr Jack
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have just said to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), the extra funding from Barnett consequentials that is going to the Scottish Government this year from the household support fund is £82 million; it was £41 million last year. The council tax rebate in England has generated another £296 million that is going to the Scottish Government.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
In my right hon. Friend’s assessment, did he reflect on what the impact on the Scottish block grant would be if hon. Members on the separatist Benches achieved their ambition of breaking up our United Kingdom?
Mr Jack
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Scotland is the best-funded part of Great Britain, and there is a Union dividend there of £2,000 per man, woman and child.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State, or should I say Lord Jack-elect, was blindingly loyal to the former former Prime Minister, the former former Chancellor, the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor over the summer. They crashed the British economy on the back of handing out tax cuts to the richest. The economic crisis was created around the Cabinet table in Downing Street by the people the Secretary of State sits beside, and it will be paid for by working Scots. What price does the Secretary of State think Scottish public services and Scottish working people should pay for his Government crashing the economy?
Mr Jack
First, as I have said in previous answers, we are facing a global economic downturn as a result of Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he wants to protect the most vulnerable in society.
The hon. Gentleman refers to my previous roles in Cabinet. I do acknowledge that mistakes were made. The Chancellor took immediate steps to restore market stability when he came into his new role.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree about one other thing. Along with leading economists, we can all agree that the biggest risk to the economy of Scotland is the reckless—[Interruption]—I was just waiting for the temperature to rise—the reckless plans of the Scottish Government.
Ian Murray
It is the reckless plans of both Governments that pose a danger to Scotland, but the point is—and this is what the Secretary of State denies—that it is about not just the last 12 weeks but the decisions of the last 12 years.
A few weeks ago, a constituent came to my surgery in tears. My constituent’s 1.79% five-year fixed-rate mortgage rate was expiring, and the remortgage rate was nearly 6%. That familiar story, which means going from a stable income and affordable bills to the crushing anxiety of being unable to pay for the roof over the heads of one’s family, was totally avoidable, but this Government and Secretary of State chose to ignore the experts, ignore their own officials and ignore independent bodies such as the Office for Budget Responsibility, and the result has been a Tory premium on everyone’s mortgage. Does the Secretary of State think that he and his new Prime Minister should stop refusing to say sorry and give the public an apology, which is the least that they deserve?
Mr Jack
I do understand how concerned people are about their mortgages. Obviously, a number of factors are influencing interest rates, but we are doing all we can to limit those factors and to support the people who need support most at this difficult time.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
It is very concerning to hear the Secretary of State dispute the figures from the House of Commons Library. Let me emphasise that Scotland’s block grant is being cut, our services are being eroded by Tory cuts, the economy is being undermined by Brexit and Scotland, as part of the UK, is facing the deepest recession in Europe. This Government’s response is more austerity, despite Scotland’s rejecting that premise for more than 50 years. Will the Secretary of State and the rest of his disaster capitalist Tories get out of Scotland’s way, stop denying democracy, and allow Scotland to choose its own path out of this nightmare?
Mr Jack
As the hon. Lady knows, the party that is denying democracy is the one that does not accept the result of the 2014 referendum.
Mhairi Black
I would not be here if we had not accepted the outcome of that referendum, and I do not need any lectures on democracy from a soon-to-be-unelected baron. No matter how much this Government deny it, Scotland’s budget is being cut. Let us put independence aside for a moment. Does the Secretary of State think that it is the Tories who are causing Scotland’s demise and short-changing us, or is it this Union institutionally?
Mr Jack
As I have said before, the Union brings a Union dividend of £2,000 per man, woman and child to Scotland. It deals with last year’s deficit of—according to the Scottish Government’s own figures—£23 billion. It is a Union that delivers jobs. As we announced yesterday, it is delivering 4,000 jobs on the Clyde for the building of five type 26 frigates. This is a Union that serves the whole United Kingdom well. At different times, different parts of the United Kingdom pull their weight in different ways, but we are all much stronger together.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
Without pre-empting the details of the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow, I can say that the Government’s position is that, while tough decisions will be necessary, we remain committed to targeting support at the most vulnerable people in our communities across this land. As well as benefiting from a record block grant settlement to the Scottish Government, the people of Scotland benefit from higher levels of public spending, as is demonstrated through the Union dividend of about £2,000 a year per person.
Chris Stephens
The number of food bank parcels handed out by the Trussell Trust has doubled since 2015 as a direct consequence of austerity. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no further return to austerity so that we can tackle the root causes of food poverty and the cost of living?
John Lamont
I hope that, as the Member of Parliament representing Govan, the hon. Member will join me in welcoming the £4.2 billion defence investment in Glasgow’s shipyards for the building of those five Type 26 frigates, which will support hundreds of jobs in his constituency.
The UK Government will always act to help the most vulnerable people in our society. The Government are helping to protect households from significant energy bill rises through the energy price guarantee, holding down inflation, and that is on top of the targeted support for the most vulnerable, including £1,200 in direct payments this year. As for other measures, I encourage the hon. Member to wait for the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow.
Angela Crawley
Last week I hosted a cost of living event in Hamilton, and every day I am inundated by people contacting me about the potential loss of the triple lock on pensions. My constituents were just getting by before the cost of living crisis, but they are now avoiding supermarkets, struggling to pay heating bills and fearing starvation and hypothermia this coming winter. Will the Minister act now to prevent pensioner poverty and call on the Chancellor today to guarantee the triple lock on pensions and to ensure that they rise in line with inflation?
John Lamont
As I said earlier, the focus of this Government is on supporting the most vulnerable people in our society, and we will always take this responsibility seriously. The Government will act, as they always do, to take the action necessary to support the constituents that the hon. Lady has mentioned. She mentioned the potential effect of Government spending decisions. I will gladly tell her about the very real effect that the SNP Government’s spending decisions are having in Scotland: they have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on ferries that do not float; a fortune has been wasted on malicious prosecutions at Rangers football club; their mistakes have cost hundreds of millions of pounds to fix Edinburgh Sick Kids and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Glasgow; and, worst of all, they have spent millions of pounds pushing for another independence referendum that does not match with the priorities of the people of Scotland.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
There are no current plans to do so. However, trust is important, and I hope that Members opposite share my concerns at the use of inaccurate or misleading statistics covering energy and health by the SNP Government in Edinburgh.
Richard Thomson
This year’s Scottish social attitudes survey has revealed that 66% of people trust the Scottish Government to work in Scotland’s interests just about always or most of the time, which compares with only 22% who trust the UK Government to behave in the same way and 46% who consider that they can never trust the UK Government to work in Scotland’s best interests. That is a quite remarkable set of findings. Does the Minister have any useful insights into why the people of Scotland might feel this way?
John Lamont
The Prime Minister has been clear about the need to rebuild trust and to put the public above politics. We will act with integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level of Government. The hon. Member refers to the social attitudes survey, but I would suggest that the figures from the survey that should cause that the SNP most concern are the falling levels of satisfaction with the SNP-run NHS in Scotland. Two thirds of Scots, 66%, believe that the standard of the NHS has fallen in the past 12 months. The priority of the SNP should be the NHS, not another independence referendum.
Allan Dorans
Allowing former Prime Ministers to fill the Lords with their friends, funnelling public funds to cronies during a pandemic, crashing the economy and debasing and embarrassing this Parliament by allowing a sitting Member to appear in a reality TV programme—is it any wonder that the people of Scotland do not trust the Conservative Government? Does the Minister think that trust in the Government is low because of this, or is it distrust in the Westminster system itself?
John Lamont
I struggled to hear parts of that question, but the people of Scotland can always trust this United Kingdom Government to be upfront and honest about the challenges that we face, unlike the SNP Government in Edinburgh, who refuse to come clean about the huge economic impact of their plans to divide Scotland with another referendum.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I say to the Minister that his Government will never regain the trust of the Scottish people as long as they do not respect the democracy of our Parliament. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State might have his bolthole in the House of Lords, but the Minister and all his other Scottish colleagues will have to face the wrath of the electorate, so what representations has the soon-to-be Baron Jack made on behalf of him and his colleagues to make sure that they are safely ensconced in the House of Lords? [Interruption.]
John Lamont
I struggled to hear the end of the hon. Gentleman’s question.
We remain committed to Scotland remaining at the heart of the United Kingdom. We respect the result of the 2014 referendum, and I encourage the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and his colleagues to do the same.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
When the Prime Minister was anointed, he stood in Downing Street and said he would put integrity at the heart of his Government. That was just three short weeks ago. Since then, one of his key Ministers has had to resign for threatening to slit someone’s throat; his Home Secretary is clinging on to her job—the one she resigned from a week before being reappointed; his predecessor has appointed his old mates and cronies to the House of Lords; and the old but newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister has been outed as a bully. Does the Under-Secretary think that speaks to integrity at the heart of Government?
John Lamont
The Prime Minister has been crystal clear about the need to put integrity at the heart of his Government. It is also certain that the people of Scotland can trust this United Kingdom Government to deliver for Scotland, whether through the covid-19 vaccines or the record £41 billion budget for the Scottish Government. This is what really matters to my constituents in the Scottish Borders and to people across Scotland.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The Government recognise the important role that infrastructure plays in supporting the commercialisation of floating offshore wind at scale across the United Kingdom, including in the Celtic sea, and are committed to building capacity in infrastructure and supply chains to support the growing offshore wind industry.
Selaine Saxby
My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the Kincardine floating wind farm off the coast of Aberdeen, but he might not be aware that the fabrication of its turbines took place in Rotterdam because UK ports do not have the capacity to do that work. Does he agree that, to realise the potential of this industry, investment in port infrastructure is crucial and that the lion’s share of this investment should be in the Celtic sea?
John Lamont
I commend my hon. Friend for raising this issue, as it is an important part of the Scottish economy. Scotland is a world leader in floating offshore wind, and it is home to both the world’s first and the world’s largest commercial floating wind projects—Hywind Scotland and Kincardine. The ScotWind leasing round, announced earlier this year, includes nearly 18 GW of potential floating wind capacity, underlining the scale of the opportunity.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues and with his Scottish Government counterparts about the number of jobs created in Scotland through greater investment in offshore wind?
John Lamont
We continue to engage with our colleagues in the Scottish Government on this and a number of other policy areas, I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss further opportunities that we might be able to create in future.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The UK Government’s energy price guarantee will reduce the unit cost of electricity and gas so that typical households across Great Britain, including in Scotland, save around £700 this winter, reducing bills by roughly a third.
Wendy Chamberlain
When people face energy price increases, it is important that they have confidence that the bills they receive from their provider are correct. After an intervention from my office, we have sorted out my constituent’s bill, but she has now had another invoice. This seems to be a growing trend, as I am now dealing with seven cases. What discussions has the Scotland Office had with Ofgem? With rising prices and higher energy costs in Scotland, it is critical that we address this issue.
John Lamont
I am concerned to hear about that case. Ofgem is independent of the Government but, if the hon. Lady sends me the details, I would be happy to raise the case directly with Ofgem.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I have regular discussions with the Ministry of Defence on matters relating to defence in Scotland. This includes the crucial role of the armed forces presence at our strategic bases in Scotland. RAF Lossiemouth and His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde are vital to maintaining the security of the United Kingdom and our NATO allies. The defence industry is also vital to Scotland’s economy, and I am delighted to see that the new Type 26 frigates, costing £4.2 billion, will be built by BAE Systems on the Clyde in Govan. This will secure thousands of Scottish jobs for years to come.
Alexander Stafford
The British armed forces are the pride of our nation and represent every corner of our beloved United Kingdom. I am proud that our nuclear deterrent is based at Faslane, with our brave submariners working to keep Britain safe. It is highly regrettable, however, that some would strip us of our nuclear deterrent in Scotland. In an ever more dangerous world, and facing threats from Russia and China, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that our base on the Clyde and all other military bases in Scotland are not going anywhere?
Mr Jack
I completely agree with my hon. Friend: our nuclear deterrent plays a key role in protecting every United Kingdom citizen from the most extreme threats and to abandon it would put us all at greater risk.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister (Dominic Raab)
I have been asked to respond on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is attending the G20 leaders’ summit in Bali.
After the missile strike in Poland yesterday, we reaffirm our solidarity with Poland, we express our condolences to the victims and we are working with our allies to determine precisely what happened. The Foreign Secretary will be making a statement shortly.
Mr Betts
I begin by associating myself with the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments. I am sure the whole House will want to reaffirm our complete support for Ukraine and for Poland in the face of Russian aggression.
When he got the job, on his first day, the Prime Minister promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. I assume that the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with that promise and would expect all Ministers to follow such principles. Therefore, does he also agree that the Prime Minister should ensure, in line with his promise, that no Minister who has a complaint of bullying upheld against them should continue to serve in his Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his shared solidarity on the issue in Poland. He is right to quote what the Prime Minister said, and I take it as an article of personal faith that we behave with absolute integrity and accountability. I am confident that I have behaved professionally throughout, but immediately on hearing that two complaints had been made—I believe they were made yesterday; I was notified this morning—I asked the Prime Minister to set up an independent investigation, and of course I will comply with it fully.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. At this important time of year for the Sikh community and the Sikh faith, I join her in what she has said. The Sikh community make an outstanding contribution in her constituency, with the Midland Langar Seva Society and the Guru Har Rai Gurdwara, but they also make an amazing contribution to the whole country, and we are grateful for it.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I join the Deputy Prime Minister in his remarks regarding the Sikh community and, most importantly, the incident in Poland last night. I know that the whole House stands united in our support for the Ukrainian people and sends condolences for the tragic loss of life. Britain has an unshakeable commitment to NATO and our allies, including Poland. The Government have rightly requested that we establish the facts and avoid unhelpful speculation, so I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister might not be able to go further today, but does he agree that, last night’s events aside, the fact that Russia is launching missile attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure while world leaders meet shows the utter contempt that Putin has for international order?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady. I entirely agree with what she said. President Putin started this war, and whatever determination is made in relation to the events yesterday, they result whether directly or indirectly from the unlawful aggression perpetrated by the Russian Government. That is why the Prime Minister is out at the G20 rallying support, making sure that we wean ourselves off energy dependence on Russia, and making sure that our energy supply is from other parts of the world. I agree 100% with what the right hon. Lady said.
Angela Rayner
It is right that we condemn Putin in the strongest terms. The G20 is also an opportunity to work together to tackle the economic challenges that we all face, yet, as our international allies race to crack down on multinationals using tax havens to stash profits abroad, this Government are dragging their feet to protect their profits. We have a Budget tomorrow, and it has been briefed that tough choices will be impacting families across Britain. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that every pound hidden in tax havens is a pound lost from the pockets of working families?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We want people to come to this country to create the jobs and to generate the tax revenue—whether that is through non-dom status, which, given the changes that we have made, is stricter under this Government than under the last Labour Government; or whether it is the Prime Minister’s approach to big-tech companies, where he has led the charge with the G7 presidency in making sure that there is an international approach, delivering global minimum corporate tax rules. We have lowered the tax gap—the difference between the tax owed and the tax raised—to its lowest level, certainly lower than under the last Labour Government, and we will continue to do so.
Angela Rayner
I notice that non-dom status has not been abolished, Mr Speaker. The Conservatives would have us all believe that the economic problems are out of their hands, when the truth is that it is working people paying the price for their choices. They have chosen to protect corporate profits and not household incomes. There are 38 countries in the OECD’s two-year growth league table. Where does the UK rank in that table?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady will know that, on the latest data, unemployment remains at a 50-year low. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says that it has gone up. It is half the level left by the last Labour Government. When it comes to GDP, she will know that the IMF has said that we will have the strongest growth in the G7.
Angela Rayner
I think the economic situation that families face speaks for itself. I will answer the question for the Deputy Prime Minister. The answer is 38th out of 38 on growth. If there were a World cup for growth, we would not even qualify. Working people are paying the price for 12 years of Tory failure—the wrong choices by the wrong people.
After days of dodging and denial, this morning, the Deputy Prime Minister finally acknowledged formal complaints about his misconduct, but his letter contains no hint of admission or apology. This is Anti-Bullying Week. Will he apologise?
The Deputy Prime Minister
On the economic challenges, which are global and caused by covid and the war in Ukraine, we have got a plan to grip inflation, balance the books and drive economic growth. If we listened to the right hon. Lady, debt would go up, unemployment would go up and working Britons would pay the price.
The right hon. Lady asked about the complaints. I received notification this morning and I immediately asked the Prime Minister to set up an independent inquiry into them. I am confident that I behaved professionally throughout, but of course I will engage thoroughly, and I look forward, may I say, to transparently addressing any claims that have been made.
Angela Rayner
Let me get this straight: the Deputy Prime Minister has had to demand an investigation into himself because the Prime Minister is too weak to get a grip. We have a Prime Minister, who has been in office less than a month, with a disgraced Cabinet Minister who resigned with his good wishes; the Home Secretary, who breached the ministerial code and risked national security, still clings on; and now the Prime Minister defends his deputy, whose behaviour has been described as “abrasive”, “controlling” and “demeaning”, with junior staff too scared to even enter his office. And that is without mentioning the flying tomatoes. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that his behaviour was unacceptable, so what is he still doing here?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am here, and happy to address any specific points the right hon. Lady wishes to make. [Hon. Members: “Flying tomatoes?”] That never happened. I will thoroughly rebut and refute any of the claims that have been made. She has not, in fact, put a specific point to me. If she wishes to do so—and this is her opportunity—I would be very glad to address it. [Interruption.]
Angela Rayner
Maybe the Deputy Prime Minister just does not think there is a problem, or maybe he is suggesting that civil servants are liars. Now he is reportedly banned from meeting junior staff without supervision, while we await an inquiry that the Prime Minister has not even instigated from a watchdog that he has not even appointed. In the Prime Minister’s letter, he did not say how and when this will be investigated, or by who—no ethics, no integrity and no mandate. And still no ethics adviser. When will the Government appoint an independent ethics adviser and drain the swamp?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The recruitment of the new ethics adviser is already under way and taking place at pace.
There is a reason that the right hon. Lady has come to the Dispatch Box with her usual mix of bluster and mud-slinging: it is because Labour does not have a plan. We are helping people into work; she is in hock to the unions. We are protecting our borders; she voted against every single measure to control illegal immigration to this country. We are delivering cleaner growth and energy security; she wants to send billions in reparation payments abroad. The British people want a Government who can deal with the real challenges, and Labour Members are not up to it.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, and congratulate her and Hope House Children’s Hospice on the amazing work they do. I have been working very closely with Shooting Star Children’s Hospices, a similar organisation in my constituency. If my hon. Friend ever gets bored of the trains, I should say that I jumped out of an aeroplane at 15,000 feet to raise money for Shooting Star, and she would find it a thoroughly enjoyable experience.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I associate myself and my colleagues with the remarks made about the immense contribution of our Sikh communities.
SNP Members extend our full support and condolences this morning to Poland, following the death of two civilians last night. While a full investigation is ongoing, we reiterate our calls for Russia to end its brutal war of aggression against Ukraine.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister was asked six different times to apologise for the disaster of the Tory mini-Budget and the financial crisis it caused, and all six times, he refused to say sorry. This morning, people are waking up to the news that this Christmas, they will be hit with the worst inflation in 41 years, so will the Deputy Prime Minister stand up today and do what his boss would not? Will he say sorry?
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I thank the hon. Lady for what she said about both Poland and the importance of our solidarity with the international community against the appalling illegal invasion by Russia of Ukraine?
Inflation is clearly a problem. As Chancellor and now as Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend has for months been making clear that it is the No. 1 economic challenge we face. We have a plan to grip inflation, to balance the books and to drive economic growth. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make the autumn statement tomorrow, setting out our plan to take the Scottish people, and everyone across the United Kingdom, through these challenges.
Kirsten Oswald
If the Government cannot even say sorry for the mess that they have made, what hope do we have of them fixing it? Let us be clear: tomorrow’s Budget is imposing austerity 2.0 on all our constituents. That is the political choice that the Tories are making. But there are always different and better choices. Only this week, the Scottish child payment rose to £25 a week—a 150% increase in eight months—and it will help 400,000 children. If the Tories will not say sorry for the mess that they have made, will they at least make the right choice for once? Will the right hon. Gentleman’s Government join the fight against child poverty tomorrow, follow the lead of the Scottish Government and match the Scottish child payment?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Lady will know that we are facing challenges that are faced all around the world, because of covid and the war in Ukraine. We have seen rising inflation in Germany, the eurozone and the US. The reality is that this Prime Minister and this Chancellor have a plan—more detail will be set out in the autumn statement—but of course, the UK Government will continue to work collaboratively with the Scottish Government to safeguard and protect the most vulnerable right across the United Kingdom. I think that is what the Scottish people expect.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this. Yes, we will of course continue to monitor the condition of Belper Mills and the planning applications. The best I can say is that we strongly encourage all the local bodies—whether it is the council or the applicant—to continue to work together because, above all, her constituents will want to continue to celebrate the proud and rich tradition represented by Belper.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will join me in welcoming the comments made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary to the European Scrutiny Committee—that securing Northern Ireland’s place within the Union will be the priority of the Government in the negotiations with the European Union on the Northern Ireland Protocol. One of the benefits of the Union is the support that the Government of the United Kingdom are providing to households and businesses across the entire country to tackle the cost of living crisis. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that the £400 energy support payment that is due to be made to households in Northern Ireland will be announced as soon as possible?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. What he said about securing Northern Ireland’s place within the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK is absolutely vital. The Prime Minister has been very clear on that, as has the Foreign Secretary. Of course, the Chancellor will say more tomorrow on the economic measures and, in particular, on the fiscal measures that the right hon. Gentleman referred to.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I totally agree that we need to strain every sinew to stop this appalling trade in misery. There is no silver bullet, although I think the agreement the Home Secretary made with her French opposite number will help, and we are embedding UK officials with their French counterparts for the first time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is right to say that the Bill of Rights can also help, not least in preventing interim orders from the Strasbourg Court from being recognised in UK courts. On ID cards, we already have e-visas for people coming to visit and live in the UK, and they act as digital evidence of a person’s immigration status. What is clear, however, is that we will have to do all these things in the teeth of opposition from Labour Front Benchers.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
We are very sympathetic to the challenges that all our schools face. More will be said about specific measures tomorrow, but the hon. Lady should stand assured that we are the top spenders as a percentage of GDP on primary and secondary education in the G7, and that standards, which matter to pupils and parents the most, have increased, with the proportion of schools rated good or outstanding up from 68% in 2010 to 87% today.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Torbay. The Chancellor will make a statement tomorrow and I cannot speculate on the spending decisions, but my hon. Friend will have noticed already the tourism recovery plan, which will help recovery from the pandemic and is also part of the wider levelling-up agenda.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
As a former Housing Minister, I know how important these issues are. I can tell the hon. Lady that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is looking very carefully at the situation of renters and landlords, and legislation is to be brought forward shortly.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
My constituent Mikey Akers, who has verbal dyspraxia, said a few weeks ago:
“I am not ashamed of my disability, I am ashamed of the people who judge me without knowledge or understanding”.
According to the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and the Dyspraxia Foundation, 5% of children are affected by speech and communication needs and more needs to be done to raise awareness in society. Will my right hon. Friend agree to convene a meeting with the Prime Minister to raise awareness about verbal dyspraxia, so that inspirational people like Mikey are never again left without a voice?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for being a doughty champion and highlighting Mikey’s campaign. All children and young people should receive the support they need to make the very best of all their talents and potential. He will know that in March we published a Green Paper covering a range of these issues, and I will certainly make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is referring to an employment dispute that was settled before I entered the House. It was not an NDA but it did involve a confidentiality clause, which was standard at the time.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
All our constituents want to see an end to the dangerous and illegal channel crossings. One of the best ways to do that is to make sure that services are delivered in the first safe place to which refugees flee. In that context, will the Deputy Prime Minister, as a former Foreign Secretary and Development Minister, commit to backing the work of Education Cannot Wait, which delivers education in refugee camps?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the brilliant work that Education Cannot Wait does. She will know the importance of the campaign for girls’ education under both the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister. We will certainly look at what more we can do to support that brilliant work, particularly for children growing up in refugee camps.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Ind)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is looking at all such matters. He will have heard what the hon. Lady has said and, although I will not prejudice what further measures he is going to bring forward, I will ask him to write to her to address her specific proposals.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has noticed that the people who are currently criticising him—[Hon. Members: “Give him a job.”] No, thank you. The people who are currently criticising him have a record of bullying that is second to none. A Labour Member of Parliament left Parliament because of antisemitic bullying; a distinguished BBC journalist needed bodyguards at Labour party conferences; and a current right hon. Labour Member was suspended from the service of this House for bullying. Does my right hon. Friend think, as I do, that this is at the very least hypercritical, and may be a stronger word that is not necessarily parliamentary?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes his point in his usual inimitable way. All I will say is that I think it is important that we all take responsibility for our actions, and that is precisely what I have done today.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady, who has been a consistent champion on this issue, for which I recognise and pay tribute to her. My understanding is that the information is available to veterans and their families, who may request details of their service and medical records, but if the hon. Lady would like to write to me, I will make sure that she gets an adequate answer on her more specific point.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I rise not to perpetuate partisanship nor parrot party lines, but merely to amplify the sentiments of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). The nuclear test veterans—those brave servicemen who did so much so long ago to ensure our safety—were recognised by former Prime Minister David Cameron and, in a meeting with the hon. Lady and me, by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). Will the Deputy Prime Minister and our new Prime Minister recognise them too, not only by doing what the hon. Lady has asked for but by giving them the service medal that they so richly deserve and that we owe them?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. friend is absolutely right. We should forever be grateful to all those service personnel who participated in the British nuclear testing programme. I can reassure him that we have asked officials to look again at recognition with medals. Any recommendations will be announced in the usual way.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Lady that our £96 billion integrated rail plan will make Northern Powerhouse Rail a reality. We are committed to the project; the precise details will be set out in due course.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
If migrants who crossed the channel from France illegally were immediately returned to France, it would stop illegal migration to this country, break the economic model of the people smugglers and, perhaps more importantly, stop thousands of people descending on northern French cities, which would benefit the French. When the Prime Minister spoke to the French President, was a returns policy discussed? If so, what was the President’s response?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. I cannot tell him the precise read-out from the meeting—I have not seen it yet—but I can tell him that the Home Secretary’s deal and agreement with her French opposite number means a 40% increase in officers patrolling beaches in northern France; UK officers embedded with their French counterparts for the first time; investment in port security infrastructure; more technology; and more wider European co-operation. We have taken all those measures in the teeth of the opposition from the Labour Front Bench, who have opposed every single measure that we have taken to stop illegal immigration, including things where I would have thought there would be cross-party consensus, such as life sentences for traffickers who play on human misery.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is not a matter of blaming anyone; it is a matter of a team effort and shared endeavour, working with the Scottish Government, to make sure that we get a grip on inflation, which is the No. 1 priority. It has to be said that if the hon. Lady takes the position that we agree with inflation-busting pay rises—as difficult as these decisions are—we will only see inflation stay for longer. That will hurt the most vulnerable in our communities, whether in Scotland or across the rest of the UK.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then. We have a brilliant Home Secretary but the Deputy Prime Minister will be aware of the wicked and vicious bullying campaign led by the Opposition over the last four weeks or so to get her sacked. Can he reassure me and the people of Ashfield that the Home Secretary will be given all the tools that she needs to solve the migrant crisis and keep the bully boys out of No. 10?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We fully support the Home Secretary and the important measures she has taken, whether on the Rwanda scheme, implementing the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, or the new deal with France to make sure that we collaborate with our international partners on a shared issue. He can also rest assured that that will be opposed tooth and nail by the Labour party.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady. She will know that we have extended the eligibility of free school meals to 1.9 million pupils. On top of that, there is the £200 million holiday activities and food programme and the £1,200 of direct payments to the most vulnerable. I gently say to her that we also need to keep an eye on the macroeconomic picture. The No. 1 priority is to get inflation down, and we will not be able to do that if we follow the Opposition’s plans.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Given that we have the highest burden of taxation in living memory, it is clear that the Government’s financial difficulties are caused by overspending, not due to under-taxing. Does the Deputy Prime Minister therefore agree that if the Government have enough money to proceed with HS2 at any cost, then they have sufficient money not to increase taxes; but if they have so little money that they have to increase taxes—the last thing for a Conservative Government to do—then they do not have sufficient money for HS2? So can I gently urge the Deputy Prime Minister not to ask Conservative MPs to support any tax rises unless and until this unnecessary vanity project is scrapped, because I for one will not support them?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. I think I followed the various steps of logic in that question. I understand her opposition to HS2. I think we have some very difficult decisions to make. They will inevitably involve a balanced approach. I will leave it to the Chancellor to set them out in the autumn statement tomorrow.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Member raises a really important point, and we are doing everything we can to support those who may be reliant on food banks or otherwise struggling to make ends meet. He can see that with the £1,200 cost of living support that is going to the 8 million most vulnerable households, the energy price guarantee and further measures for pensioners. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out further measures tomorrow. Of course, as I have said before, the No. 1 priority is getting inflation down. We will not be able to do that if we follow the spending plans of the Labour party.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is also the Justice Secretary, and everybody in this House, irrespective of party, will know that for the reputation of this House standards are important. He has said that from the Dispatch Box this afternoon. However, in response to some of the points raised by Opposition Members, am I naive to still believe in that good British tradition that one is innocent until proven guilty?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have said I will co-operate fully with the independent investigation. In fact, I welcome the opportunity to address these complaints. I think, though, that it is important that we have zero tolerance for any bullying and hold the highest standards in public life, and it is important for all of us to adhere to those standards.
Migration
(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 Speaker
Let us start the first urgent question—[Interruption.] Sir John, what are you doing? [Interruption.] Well, why didn’t you go out the other way? Give him a job on that Front Bench! I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on migration.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
The continued rise of dangerous channel crossings is completely unacceptable. This phenomenon is not only a clear abuse of our immigration laws and deeply unfair on the British people, but puts the lives of those who attempt these journeys in grave danger. This Government are determined to put the people smugglers out of business and to make this route unviable.
This week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary met her counterpart, Minister Darmanin, to agree a new multi-year strategic and operational plan with France. That will be supported by UK investment of up to €72 million in 2022-23. It includes a 40% uplift, with UK-funded officers patrolling the French coast over the coming months, improved security at ports, cutting-edge surveillance technology, drones, detection dog teams and CCTV, to help detect and prevent those crossings. For the first time, reciprocal teams of embedded officers will be deployed on the ground in control rooms, to increase joint understanding of this issue. This renewed partnership will enable us to build on our joint partnership with France, which so far has seen good progress, with more than 30,000 illegal crossings prevented since the start of the year, hundreds of arrests made and 21 organised crime gangs dismantled.
Beyond our ever closer collaboration with France, we will also work closely with other international partners, including further upstream, to help address issues closer to their source. The UK will be joining near neighbours and other countries, to agree collective action to tackle illegal migration. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today discussing those issues at the G7 Interior Ministers meeting in Germany.
These are issues of the utmost seriousness, and they have been discussed at prime ministerial level. We are taking action to deter those intent on exploiting the UK’s generosity, by implementing the Nationality and Borders Act 2002, pursuing migration partnerships with safe countries such as Rwanda, cracking down on those here illegally, and expediting returns agreements. There should be no doubt whatsoever about the Government’s determination to grip this problem and deliver the strong and secure borders that the British people desperately want and deserve.
Yvette Cooper
Twenty-seven lives were lost in the channel a year ago, and a criminal gang profited from sending people to their deaths. Will the Minister tell the House whether anyone has been prosecuted or convicted for that awful event? We have long called for a stronger agreement with France to stop these dangerous boat crossings. That is why it is important that there is scrutiny on this issue. Additional beach patrols are welcome, and intelligence sharing is vital—it is unfathomable that it was not happening already.
The level of convictions is pitiful: just four a month, on average. The Minister said that 21 gangs had been dismantled, but on Monday the Home Secretary said that it was 55. Which is it?
Journalists report 100 gang members operating in one small corner of Calais alone. The scale of response to the criminal gangs is tiny compared with the scale of the challenge, and the Government are simply not doing enough. This multimillion-pound criminal industry is putting lives at risk. The Minister referred to a joint intelligence cell. How many national crime agencies are currently involved in that, how many are deployed in Europe, and what will that number increase by? We need to know.
This agreement does not include anything on safe returns or safe family reunion. The number of children safely reuniting with family has plummeted since the end of the Dublin agreement, and charities warn that they are trying to go by boat instead. Asylum returns have plummeted from 1,000 people returned to the EU in 2010 to a tiny handful today. Of the 16,000 referred to the third country unit, just 21 returned. Did Ministers even try to get an agreement on returns and family reunion, and if not, why not? What is the Minister’s timescale for getting a grip on the total collapse in Home Office decisions on asylum, and at what point will they double so that we get a faster pace? The way the Home Office is handling local authorities has been disgraceful, with many of them not being told what is happening.
Finally, what is the £140 million from the Rwanda agreement actually being spent on? Too often, the Home Office talks about things but is not delivering—this is too important.
Robert Jenrick
I am pleased that the right hon. Lady welcomes our agreement with France. She is right to raise the anniversary of the tragic and abhorrent deaths that occurred in the channel one year ago. I am pleased that a concerted effort with partners across Europe has led to arrests and the disruption of gangs, and to the capture and destruction of boats, directly as a result of that. The good work that our intelligence services did with respect to that incident is now being rolled out with respect to other criminal gangs right across Europe.
The agreement that we have reached with France will enable our world-class intelligence services to be directly in the room with their French counterparts, ensuring that the intelligence they are gathering, which is rich—I observed it myself on visiting the clandestine command in Dover—can now be passed on in real time to their French counterparts, ensuring that more crossings are stopped, more arrests are made and more criminal gangs are disrupted. That will make a positive impact in the months to come.
I politely point out to the right hon. Lady that she is becoming like a broken record on immigration. She opposes everything helpful that the Government have done and suggests nothing useful. She voted against the Nationality and Borders Act that created deterrents for people crossing the channel. She voted against measures that would have increased sentences for people smugglers. She would scrap our world-leading migration partnership with Rwanda. She voted against our plans to remove dangerous foreign national offenders. One of the key policy platforms on which her leader, the Leader of the Opposition, stood for the leadership of the Labour party was to close down our immigration removal centres—the very centres where we house people like foreign national offenders, murderers and rapists as we are trying to get them out of the country.
The truth is that Labour is the party of uncontrolled migration and the party of mass migration. We understand the instincts of the British people, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I will do everything to ensure that their will is implemented and we secure our borders.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Minister knows well the problems that I have with Serco’s procurement of accommodation in my constituency and I thank him for his engagement in recent days. Given the woeful communication with MPs and local authorities in recent days and weeks, can he confirm that lessons will be learned and that communication will be stepped up?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the productive and constructive conversations that we have had. It is absolutely essential that the Home Office and partners such as Serco treat local authorities and Members of Parliament with respect and engage with them productively. Since my arrival in the Department, I have set in place protocols so that all Members of Parliament and local authorities will be notified in good time before hotel and other accommodation is procured, and so that we move to a better procedure, whereby there is effective and constructive engagement in the days prior to taking the accommodation.
It is worth saying, however, that those are the symptoms of the problem. The core of the issue is the fact that 40,000 people have chosen to cross the channel this year alone and that places immense strain on our system. That is what we need to tackle, that is what Government Members are committed to doing and that is what the Opposition refuse to address.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The £120 million totally wasted on the Rwanda plan could have quadrupled the number of caseworkers and cleared the backlog in asylum cases urgently. Can we have a Department focused on the nuts and bolts of getting the job done, instead of crazy, brutal and counterproductive headline-chasing policies? After all, that is the root of all our problems—that and the lack of safe and legal routes. A number of months ago, I tabled a written question asking for a list of all the safe and legal routes and it would not even have filled half a page. So can we do something about that?
The revelations in ITV’s “The Crossing”, a documentary about 27 channel deaths last November, were utterly heartbreaking and horrifying. Did the Home Secretary discuss with her counterparts how best to ensure that disputes about precisely where a boat is play a distant second fiddle to saving people’s lives?
May I end by saying how disappointed I am? The Minister distanced himself from the Home Secretary’s crass comments on migrants, but today we have heard him talk about murderers and foreign offenders. We are talking about asylum seekers, and he brings up murderers as if they are one and the same thing. It is an absolute disgrace, because he knows the impact that that has on not just asylum seekers but all migrants.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady needs to face the facts. We on the Government Benches will always behave with decency and compassion, because those are our values. But we will not be naive. We are capable of making the distinction between genuine refugees and genuine asylum seekers fleeing persecution and human rights abuses, and Albanian economic migrants coming to this country for all the wrong reasons. We are also perfectly capable of making the distinction between good people who deserve our protection and support, and bad people who are foreign national offenders who need to be removed from the United Kingdom as soon as possible. I am surprised to see her joining in with the Opposition, who want to close down the very detainment centres where we keep those people while we try to get them out of the country.
The hon. Lady says she is disappointed that we are pursuing Rwanda. I think Rwanda is an important part of our efforts to tackle illegal migration because deterrence has to be suffused throughout our entire approach. Everything we do to create further pull factors to the UK ensures more people cross the channel in perilous ways and more pressure is put on our public services. It prevents us from helping the people who genuinely deserve our support, such as those who come from Ukraine, Afghanistan or Syria under our resettlement schemes. I will say again—I have said it before: if the SNP wanted to help with this issue, it would address the fact that proportionately Scotland, in particular SNP local authorities, takes fewer people on those resettlement schemes than any other part of the United Kingdom.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I do not envy my right hon. Friend having to do this urgent question, having done a few myself. I know he will recognise that system-wide reform of asylum is needed. The deal with France is welcome, but it is only a small part of what needs to be done overall. The particular point I want to focus on is the issue of notification and engagement with local authorities, which seems to have disappeared, as he will be aware from the situation in Torbay. Can he reassure me that that will now be restarted? At the very least, it is common courtesy to notify MPs and local authorities—we should not find out via third parties.
Robert Jenrick
Yes, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his good service in this role and others previously. He was highly respected and is missed by his former colleagues at the Home Office.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need good engagement with Members of Parliament and, crucially, local authorities. When we are bringing groups of migrants to a local area, often with complex needs, we need to ensure the local authority is involved in that, can prepare for their arrival and provide good services. One issue that has been experienced in recent weeks is that the sheer number of individuals crossing the channel has put immense pressure on the Manston facility. As the Minister responsible, my first duty and priority was and is to ensure that Manston operates legally and decently. That has meant that we have needed to procure a lot of accommodation relatively quickly and that has meant some procedures have been weaker than any of us would have wished. I hope we can move forward from that, stabilise the situation, and get into a pattern of engaging MPs and local authorities in the manner that they deserve.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Today, my International Development Committee launched an inquiry into how and why the Home Office is spending foreign aid to support refugees in this country. Does the Minister have a budget or a blank cheque? Does he have official development assistance specialists in the Home Office to make sure that that money represents value? Does he think it is morally right to be spending money, which should be going to the poorest in the world, to prop up the Treasury? Other countries are spending their own money to fund refugees in their own countries.
Robert Jenrick
First, it is the Home Office’s responsibility to ensure that money is spent wisely and provides taxpayer value. How it is accounted for under overseas development aid or otherwise is a matter for the Treasury, not for me and my officials. But the point at the heart of this is that we need to ensure we stop people crossing the channel illegally. We do not want to be spending billions of pounds addressing this issue. The Opposition, I think, do because they oppose every single measure we take to try to address it. We want to get people out of hotels. We would like to move to a system that is based on resettlement schemes, such as the Ukraine and Syria schemes, whereby we choose people at source, they come to the UK and we are able to prioritise our resources on them, and we do not, frankly, waste hundreds of millions of pounds managing a problem of economic migrants who should not be in the UK.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
This weekend, a new migrant hotel was set up in my constituency. I was contacted on Sunday and told that it would be happening—future tense. I subsequently found out that it had actually happened already, on Saturday. As yet—it is now Wednesday—we still have no details on who, how long and what is in place around that facility. On Monday morning, several local people presented themselves as homeless, having been kicked out of the same hotel, which was previously used by the local authority as temporary accommodation. My right hon. Friend must surely agree that this is wrong and untenable, and will cause a huge amount of anger locally. The Government need to stop this—he knows that—but can he, at the very least, ensure that, after this urgent question, he is able to investigate in his Department to ensure that local stakeholders and councils are able to get the information they need urgently to put the support in place that they need at local level?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe my officials have already reached out to his council to provide it with further information. As I said earlier, this is not the situation that any of us would want to be in. It is the product of record numbers of people crossing the channel and a failure to plan in the months prior to this sudden surge. What we need to do now is move forwards and ensure, as our first duty, that Manston is operating legally and correctly. We must then ensure that any further accommodation is procured in a sensible way—simple and decent accommodation, not luxurious hotels—and that we have proper communication with local authorities. That is my objective and I am very happy to work with him to achieve it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Unlike some of those who are criticising the Government today, the Democratic Unionist party has supported most of the measures that the Government have brought forward. We understand that there are genuine asylum seekers who need help. In my own constituency just last weekend I met many from Ukraine who are grateful for what this country has done for them. Almost every year, Ministers come with a new plan to deal with this problem, yet it gets worse all the time. The numbers are increasing, and frustration is increasing too. Does the Minister not agree that one way of stopping people coming via the dangerous route they are using at present, giving revenue to criminal gangs and stopping priorities being dealt with for real asylum seekers, would be to ensure that those who enter this country illegally are not allowed to apply for asylum in the first place?
Robert Jenrick
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We have already taken action through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are reviewing our legal framework to ensure it meets the scale of the challenge we are currently facing. If we conclude that further steps are necessary, he can be assured that we will take them urgently. He makes a strong and compelling case that there should not be a route to a life in the UK if you choose to come here illegally.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I strongly support the Minister in what he said by highlighting that most of the Opposition parties—certainly the Labour party and the SNP—have zero credibility coming to this House and questioning him when they vote against and criticise absolutely every legal measure we bring in to tackle this problem, which all our constituents care deeply about. I am sure the Minister would like to know what my constituents are asking me. They want to know why we cannot turn back the small boats and dinghies when they are in the channel. Of course, we all understand we have an obligation to save lives at sea, but surely that does not extend to people who seek to undermine our generous hospitality and our asylum system, which is there for genuine refugees. Please can he change the law to do that?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes a very important point and speaks for the British public, millions of whom ask exactly the same question. We are pursuing returns agreements with safe countries and have secured one in the last 12 months with Albania. One thousand Albanians have already been removed under that agreement. Clearly, I would like that number to be significantly higher and we are reviewing what further steps we can take. We would like to secure a returns agreement with France. The agreement we reached this week is a good first step, but the Home Secretary will be meeting other northern European Interior Ministers through the Calais group shortly to discuss what the next steps might be. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is prioritising the issue and the broader relationship with France, as we can see in the positive conversations he has had thus far. If it is possible to take the agreement further, we will certainly try to.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On Monday, as part of Parliament Week, I spoke to a group of 100 asylum seekers and refugees who are learning English at Hammersmith & Fulham College. Some had been in local budget hotel rooms with their families for a year and a half, having had no Home Office interview since they arrived. All are willing and able to work but are prevented from doing so. Does the Minister realise that, along with indefinite detention, this is a failed policy, which is not only cruel and inhumane, but hugely wasteful of public money?
Robert Jenrick
I respectfully disagree about indefinite detention. There is an important role for detaining individuals, particularly foreign national offenders, while they are here in the UK and until we can remove them from our shores. If we had further capacity, we might detain more people, frankly.
As for whether migrants whose asylum claims are being processed should be able to work, there are arguments—and differing opinions—on both sides of the House. On balance, I take the view that it is not wise to enable asylum seekers to work because there are already significant pull factors to the UK as a result of the relative ease of working here, access to public services and the fact that we have relatively high approval rates for asylum seekers. I am not persuaded that it would be wise to add a further pull factor to the mix.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he is saying and doing on this vital subject. I shall be here all next week, ready to vote for whatever legislative changes are necessary to protect people who need asylum and to defend our country from people who deliberately and wilfully break our laws. So will he please apply the toe of his shoe to the bottoms of the people who need to draft the legislation that we can all support?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for that intervention and I will take that back to my officials in the Department. My hon. Friend can be assured that the Home Secretary and I are doing everything we can. If we can make further legislative changes in the spirit of what he said—relating to individuals who come here not for safety from persecution, human rights abuses and war, which asylum was designed to support, but from safe countries looking for a better life—we will do so and secure the borders as a result.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
As we heard, on 24 November last year at least 27 people drowned while attempting to cross the channel in a dinghy, including a little girl. Five are missing and only two survived. A documentary called “The Crossing” that was shown on ITV on Monday night presented evidence that the tragedy happened in UK waters, notwithstanding multiple distress calls from the people in the dinghy while the French and UK coastguards passed the buck over many crucial hours. I understand that solicitors acting for the families of some of the deceased and one of the survivors passed evidence to that effect to the British Government in March this year. The normal political response to loss of life on that scale would be the prompt announcement of an independent public inquiry. Will the Minister tell me what it is about the people who drowned that means that no independent public inquiry has been announced into the circumstances of their drowning?
Robert Jenrick
The events of a year ago were very shocking and deeply tragic, and my sympathies go out to the individuals’ families and friends. As a result of that incident, I assure the hon. and learned Member that very significant further steps have been taken by British authorities to enable those crossing the channel in dangerous crafts to be helped ashore in the UK. We are at the point where, I think, 98% of boats that attempt the crossing and pass the median line are helped ashore by Border Force, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or the Royal Navy. I pay tribute to those British authorities; I have met them and they do that difficult work superbly. We will not be able to secure the passage of everyone who chooses to get in an unsafe dinghy at the behest of people traffickers and cross the channel. The best advice is, “Do not make that dangerous passage. It is illegal and extremely perilous.” That is key: we should not encourage people to make that crossing in the first place. We cannot assure safe passage to everyone.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent, decades ago, voluntarily entered the asylum dispersal scheme, but enough is enough. We have done our bit for this country to protect some of the vulnerable people and illegal economic migrants who come here through safe countries such as France. I am sick to the back teeth of hotels being used in our great city and being dumped on by Serco because we voluntarily entered that scheme. The local authority is against it, as are the police and all three Stoke MPs, and for good reason. Islamic extremists such as Hizb ut-Tahrir are operating around the corner from the hotel. The far right is looking to recruit in our city. There is public anger and outrage about local services being depleted while services elsewhere are reinforced. When will the Minister tell Serco that Stoke-on-Trent has done its bit and to use it no more? If he will not, why not?
Robert Jenrick
We have taken further steps during my short tenure in the Department, and while my right hon. and learned Friend has been Home Secretary, to provide a fairer distribution of migrants across the country. The Home Secretary ensured that there was the mandatory dispersal of children, so that all local authorities can play a part in ensuring that children are in safe accommodation, whether that means in children’s homes or with state or private foster carers. We are also attempting to procure accommodation in a much broader range of local authorities. Historically, the issue centred on cities, including Stoke-on-Trent. We are now seeking to procure accommodation more broadly in smaller cities, towns and, in some cases, rural areas. That means, I am afraid, that as long as numbers are so high, more parts of the country will experience this issue, but it will ensure greater fairness in how we tackle it as a country.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Is it true that the Home Secretary disagreed with the ideas of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), on extending the seasonal agricultural worker scheme to help to provide important extra, temporary migrant labour for our farming sector?
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
According to Home Office figures, the 116 asylum seekers who arrived in Warrington last week can expect to spend about 400 days waiting for their cases to be dealt with. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to speed up the process so that those who do not meet the test for asylum can be returned to the safe countries from which they came?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Productivity in the Home Office fell very sharply during the covid period and has yet to recover in its entirety. That is wrong and we need to change it. We need to ensure that caseworkers review and decide on cases at least at the same speed as they did a couple of years ago. A pilot in Leeds on how to do that has more than doubled the productivity of caseworkers. We want to get that still higher and roll it out across the country. The Home Secretary and I will say more shortly.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
As legislation rightly progresses to address the shameful sacking of UK seafarers by P&O, another injustice is arising through the Home Office’s actions. The extension of the offshore wind workers immigration rules concession 2017 means that UK seafarers are being replaced by cheap Filipino crew. That is happening 15 km from the coast of Fife in an offshore wind field operated by the state companies of France and Ireland. The contracts have largely gone abroad and the jobs are now going south. Given that this is an urgent question about migration, why is the Minister allowing that to happen? The UK crew who require that employment and have been working hard are now being replaced by workers providing cheap labour, who, frankly, are being exploited and brought in by unsavoury contractors.
Robert Jenrick
We are not allowing that to happen. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 led to a short extension in the practice until April 2023, at which point it comes to a close. Measures relating to the valid criticisms of the hon. Gentleman will be put into effect shortly.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
We all agree that putting asylum seekers in hotels is not really a great policy, so we need to process their applications as quickly as possible. Is it possible for each hotel to be given a timeframe for the processing of applications? That would give confidence to the local community that the hotel will be returned to its normal activity sooner rather than later. It might also incentivise Home Office staff to improve their productivity.
Robert Jenrick
I will take that suggestion back to the Home Office. Our objective is to ensure that we process claims as quickly as possible; a great deal of work is now going on in the Home Office to achieve that and to bring productivity back to where it should always have been, frankly. We want to bring use of the hotels to a close as quickly as possible. We have already set out some of the steps we will take to achieve that, such as considering larger sites and dispersing individuals in local authority accommodation and the private rented sector elsewhere in the country. The real task, however, is to prevent people from crossing the channel in the first place. We cannot build our way out of the issue; we have to reduce the numbers making the crossings.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York wants to do all it can to support people seeking asylum, but as a result of providing initial accommodation as opposed to contingency accommodation, it is not receiving the funding that it vitally needs. When will the Government provide parity in the funding that local authorities need to support people who are seeking asylum? When will the Government bring forward a homes for refugees scheme so we can ensure that people are settled in our community and are getting the support they need from families?
Robert Jenrick
I will happily speak to the hon. Lady separately about the specific concerns of City of York Council. The hotel accommodation is fully funded by the Home Office, but I appreciate that there are knock-on costs for local authorities. I met London Councils earlier today; if not for this urgent question, I would have been meeting representatives of councils across the country to hear their concerns and see how we can improve the situation.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On addressing the illegal crossings, the Minister said that the new initiative would cost about £72 million. In 2019, when I was on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, we were told that the joint co-ordination centre with France would help to address individuals illegally crossing. Did that system work? How much did it cost? How will the new system work? My constituents in Kent are at the forefront of the illegal crossings. The Government consistently tell us that they will take tough, firm, decisive action, but instead the numbers have increased. How will the new system work better than the previous system?
Robert Jenrick
I do not want to overstate the value of the agreement, but it is an important step forward and might presage further agreements with France in the months and years to come. It contains at least two important steps. First, there will be a 40% increase in French personnel on the beaches of northern France intercepting crafts about to enter the water and making arrests. French officers on the beaches currently intercept about 40% of craft, so increasing personnel by 40% will lead to a significant improvement. Secondly, the joint centre that we will establish with our French counterparts will ensure that the very sophisticated intelligence that the British security services are now drawing up on what is happening in northern France can be delivered to their counterparts in real time.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd. The Home Office is spending millions on the Rwanda scheme, on the new border scheme with France and on hotel bills, but I am told by a council with a hotel in its area that it has yet to receive any money from the Home Office. Serious concerns have been expressed by the Children’s Commissioner for Wales about the welfare of migrant children in hotels. How is the Home Office working with the Welsh Government, Welsh local authorities and Welsh health trusts to ensure that services are fully funded? How is the welfare of migrant children in Wales being monitored?
Robert Jenrick
If it were not for this urgent question, I would have been meeting representatives from Welsh local authorities, including the Welsh Local Government Association. I will reschedule that meeting as soon as possible; one of its aims is to ensure that we have the best possible engagement with local authorities and support them with the broader needs of individuals, including health and education.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Senior police officers in my constituency tell me that the majority of the serious organised crime and the drugs trade in Blackpool is now orchestrated by Albanian gangs. Does the Minister recognise that some of those who cross in small boats and subsequently abscond when they arrive in this country are playing a part in fuelling a crime epidemic in towns such as Blackpool?
Robert Jenrick
The evidence presented to us by security services such as the National Crime Agency shows a significant and concerning link between Albanian migrants coming to the UK and criminality. My hon. Friend and others have raised the issues with me anecdotally. We screen all migrants when they arrive illegally at Dover, and we have counter-terrorism officers and others there to ensure that we catch as many individuals as possible, but I am afraid that there is a serious problem. That is why we need to take the most robust action possible on economic migrants from Albania and remove them as swiftly as possible.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister inform the House whether the British Government have found an airline willing to facilitate their Rwanda policy? Privilege Style has joined Titan Airways and AirTanker in stating that it will not participate in deportation flights. Is it not the reality that commercial operators are turning their back on the Government’s immoral policy?
Robert Jenrick
I do not believe that the Rwanda policy is immoral. I do not think that there is anything ethical about allowing individuals to cross the channel illegally, risking their lives and those of their children. We want to create a system that is suffused with deterrents so that people do not make the crossing in the first place and so that if they want to claim asylum, they do so in the first safe country that they enter. France, of course, is a perfect choice.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
When our own citizens, never mind visitors, come to this country, they dutifully form a queue and present their passport at border control. Does the Minister agree that it makes a complete and utter mockery of our border control systems when people arrive illegally, thereby committing a crime, and are then put up in hotels across the country, where they are fed and watered and do not have to pay energy bills? My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) spoke about cases going on for 400 days; I know of others that have gone on for years and years. When will we implement the Rwanda plan? When will we push back? When will we return people to France directly? Deterrence will be the main thing that stops them crossing in the first place.
Robert Jenrick
I totally agree. Deterrence must be the test to which we hold all aspects of our immigration policy. We will implement the Rwanda plan as soon as it has passed through the courts, and I think it will make a significant impact on deterring people from making this dangerous crossing.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my grave concerns about the radio chatter recorded just this week by one of my constituents? It records a high level of co-operation between the French navy and UK Border Force as the French navy escorts migrants through French waters to be picked up on our side of the median line. The new French deal is trying to stop beach launchings. Welcome as that deal is, does it include a requirement for the French navy to stop and pick up migrant dinghies while they are still in French waters?
Robert Jenrick
We do not support the chaperoning of crafts to the median line to be picked up by British vessels and brought to Ramsgate, Dover or other British ports. Ultimately, that is counterproductive: it creates yet another pull factor to the UK. These are exactly the things that closer co-operation with France should enable us to resolve.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
EU nations are safe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that eligible asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country where they arrive and put their first foot down on safe soil? When will we be able to spend Home Office funding on fighting crime and supporting our police, rather than on dealing with illegal trafficking into this country?
Robert Jenrick
If there are further legislative changes that we need to make, my hon. Friend can be assured that we will make them; I will be grateful for her support. The Home Secretary and I are looking at the most robust possible measures to tackle the issue.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Peterborough is a caring city that supports more asylum seekers than any other town or city in the east of England. In the past week, two hotels have been stood up to accommodate single men who have crossed the channel in small boats. One in particular, the Great Northern Hotel, is most inappropriate. Will the Minister outline the criteria by which the Home Office will award longer-term contracts for hotel accommodation? Will he listen to me, my local council, the local police, local health support services and local refugee charities about why the Great Northern Hotel in particular is so inappropriate?
Robert Jenrick
I know that, like many other Members on both sides of the House, my hon. Friend has been campaigning vociferously on this issue and is deeply concerned about it. We want to ensure that we can move as quickly as possible—as quickly as is legally possible—to a system whereby we apply sensible, common-sense criteria. That includes ensuring that prominent business hotels such as the Great Northern are not chosen to house asylum seekers, and that instead we choose hotels that provide decent, value-for-money accommodation in appropriate places.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
As if the acquisition of the Best Western Buckingham Hotel, costing hotel staff their jobs and putting unacceptable pressure on local services, were not bad enough, Buckinghamshire Council learned at third hand from a London borough just this morning that an asylum seeker who is under investigation for a very serious offence was transferred to the asylum hotel in Buckingham by the Metropolitan Police but was not escorted into the premises, and has since gone missing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that process is wholly unacceptable, as were the lines of communication which meant that my local council learned the facts from a London borough rather than from the Home Office or the police, and will he give a commitment that everything possible is being done to apprehend that individual and ensure that until the investigation has been completed the individual is in secure accommodation?
Robert Jenrick
That does sound like a very concerning incident. My hon. Friend has my assurance that I will raise it with the Home Office and, indeed, the police, and will report back to him.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
On 23 September, when I was crossing the channel—quite legally—I spotted the French warship Athos behaving very strangely. I have here a screenshot of the warship, which I took on a navigational device. It was circling a small open boat full of people.
Giles Watling
The warship made no attempt to pick those people up, as it should have. As a yachtsman, I can tell the House that they were in danger and should have been taken off the boat, but the warship was, as my hon. Friend says, escorting that boat to our shores.
I am pleased with the deal that the Home Secretary made, and it is, as my right hon. Friend said, a good first step, but in my view it does not go far enough. Should we not push to get British boots on the ground and on the beaches alongside their French counterparts, in joint operations, to keep people on the shores of France, or on the shores of the continent?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has made an important point. Of course we would like to have an effective returns agreement with France, and we would like to have British officers supporting their French counterparts in northern France. Those issues remain for discussion with France, but it is an important first step that we now have our officers working with their French counterparts in the control centre so that the very sophisticated intelligence that we are now gathering is being shared in real time and acted upon by the French.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Yesterday the National Crime Agency confirmed that Albanian organised crime gangs are ferrying thousands of young men to enable them to enter the country illegally so that they can set up, take over and run cannabis farms across the country. On arrival they claim asylum, and the Home Office then transports this criminality to communities up and down the country to infiltrate the local crime scene.
Once such community is Kettering, where there is a disgraceful proposal to house potentially up to 150 Albanian single males in a 50-room hotel with no kitchen facilities, slap bang in the middle of the town centre. This is the biggest night-time economy in north Northamptonshire, and it is near a family park. These young men will be milling around getting into all sorts of trouble. I cannot think of a worse location for an asylum hostel. Will the Minister meet me as a matter of urgency so I can explain to him why the proposal should not go ahead? From where I am sitting, at this present time, His Majesty’s Government is neither protecting our shores nor protecting my local community from an increase in imported crime.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has raised important concerns, and I should be more than happy to meet him. He and I have already spoken, but a formal meeting would be an obvious next step.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Communities such as Ilfracombe, which is on my patch, are dependent on the tourism economy. What steps is the Home Office taking to support local tourism economies which are being damaged every single day? These hotels are not welcoming their normal visitors. What more will be done to expedite the return of tourist hotels to their communities?
Robert Jenrick
We want to ensure that we exit the hotels as quickly as possible, and wherever we can we will do that in a prioritised fashion, so that when hotels are particularly unsuitable and particular harms are being done to local economies—including tourist hotspots—they should be at the top of the list as we exit these hotels and move to a more sustainable future.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My constituents are angry and frustrated about the present situation, and are genuinely concerned about the possibility that a local hotel might suddenly be found to accommodate asylum seekers. However, I also see the other side of the coin in my role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the western Balkans. I meet many Albanians who are here legally and are working in our health service and other public services, but who are being targeted by unruly elements in our society, so there are losers on all sides. Neither the Albanians nor my constituents can understand why the Government cannot get to grips with the situation and process the applications in a seemly manner and on time. What additional resources are being put into ensuring that that happens?
Robert Jenrick
We have put further staff into the processing centres, and there will shortly be 1,500 decision makers working through the claims. As I have said in answer to earlier questions, we are determined to ensure that we return to sensible levels of productivity so that we can bust the backlog. However, that is not the sole problem here. Ensuring swift approvals of applications will only create a further pull factor, so we have to take other action as well.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Along with a number of colleagues, I have studied the Australian approach to dealing with illegal immigration. It is often derided by those on the left who say that it was not successful, but it was successful. My colleagues and I met a number of officials to see what was being done. That is why we welcome the Rwanda scheme. Will my right hon. Friend give us some sense of the timescale for the scheme, and also reassure us that he is engaging with Australian officials? The Australians had a huge problem of illegal immigration, but they embraced offshore processing and no longer have a huge problem. It is very clear what works and what does not.
Robert Jenrick
We are determined to bring the Rwanda proposals into force as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the matter is currently being heard by the British courts, but we are optimistic that our case will be successful, and once it is, we will of course bring those proposals into effect as quickly as we can for all the reasons that my hon. Friend has given, to ensure that there is a proper deterrence factor for those making an illegal crossing.
I suspect that that was the last question, Mr Speaker, so may I thank you for the work that we have done together? I know that you too have been very concerned about hotel accommodation in Chorley. My officials are in conversation with your local authority, and hopefully we can improve the position as soon as possible.
Iran
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary to update the House on the current situation in Iran and the treatment of protesters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The news on Sunday that the Iranian regime had sentenced a protester to death was tragic. It is an act that the UK Government utterly condemn, in the strongest possible terms. Sadly, this is yet another act of desperation on the part of a regime that clearly cares more about its own survival than about the human rights of its own citizens. This is not the first time we have seen the Iranian regime use barbaric methods to clamp down on those standing up for basic freedoms. Following the 2019 fuel protests, more than 300 people were tragically killed.
The latest violence levelled at protesters has been utterly appalling. We have seen over 14,000 people detained so far, and over 300 deaths, of which 43 were children. The UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, but it is all the more abhorrent when those sentenced are being arrested for standing up for their rights. My fear—which I am sure my hon. Friend shares—is that the frequency of these death sentences is only likely to increase as the regime processes the thousands of arrests that have been made during the protests. The Iranian judicial system is notorious for its lack of transparency and process, and this barbarism is just one of many threatening and intimidating techniques that the regime has rolled out in response to the protests.
The repeated targeting of journalists and systematic constraining of media freedom, including restricting internet use, in Iran, which I know is important to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), is yet another sign of the regime’s weakness in the face of grassroots protesters. These threats have extended to journalists residing in the United Kingdom, and on Friday the Foreign Secretary summoned Iran’s most senior representative in the UK to the Foreign Office to make it clear that this would not be tolerated and that the UK would always stand up to threats from other countries.
On Monday we announced a second round of human rights sanctions against 24 Iranian security officials for their part in the violent crackdown on protesters. That is on top of the sanctions we introduced last month on the morality police and seven other individuals, and we continue to keep our sanctions list under review. The Government are also driving efforts in multilateral forums to hold Iran to account. We firmly support a special session of the Human Rights Council that will press to mandate a UN investigation into the protests. We are working closely with the US and other international partners to remove Iran from the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.
What we are seeing in Iran is a grassroots movement from the people of Iran, who are showing outstanding bravery in the face of a brutal crackdown. Iran needs to stop trying to blame this on everyone but itself, take responsibility for its actions and instigate real change. That is what the Iranian people have been bravely calling for and it is what they rightly deserve.
Bob Blackman
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for presiding over it. I thank the Under-Secretary for his response.
The House will be aware that, since the murder of Mahsa Amini, there have been nationwide protests in Iran over the past six to seven weeks. Contrary to the reports that the Minister mentioned, the reports I have are that more than 60,000 people have been arrested. These are men, women and children just protesting about the murder of one young lady. The individuals who have been arrested have been tortured, they have been denied legal representation, they have been denied medication and in most cases they have been denied bail as well. When bail was first introduced, huge sums were demanded from families who simply did not have the money. We should remember that the President of Iran, President Raisi, was responsible as the prosecutor in Iran for 30,000 executions of political prisoners in 1988, so the direction from the top is very clear. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, journalists in the UK have been threatened, and indeed the Foreign Secretary called in the chargé d’affaires on Friday about those threats. We are also aware that sentencing and executions are beginning in Iran, and that many thousands of people may end up being executed.
I have a series of questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. What representations have been made to Iran directly on the treatment of the protesters? What action has been taken at the United Nations to remove Iran from positions of responsibility? He has mentioned one position but there are many others that Iran shares. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is directly implicated in the torture of individuals in Iran. What more do we have to see before the IRGC in its entirety becomes a proscribed organisation in this country? President Macron has made it clear that progress on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiations is impossible during these events in Iran, so does my hon. Friend agree that making any progress on the so-called nuclear deal with Iran is impossible in these circumstances?
Finally, will my hon. Friend join me in wishing the England team every success in beating Iran on Monday?
David Rutley
I thank my hon. Friend for his insightful comments, as always, on this vital issue. I join him in wishing every success to the home nations—both England and Wales, of course—in all their matches. We always want to keep sport and foreign policy separate, because our concerns are not with the Iranian people, whom we absolutely support. Our concerns are with the Iranian regime, which my hon. Friend and many others have consistently and rightly called out.
My hon. Friend has made a number of important points. I reiterate that we are utterly appalled by the detention of what we calculate to be about 14,000 people. He has come up with a much bigger number, but whichever number it is, they are most often held without due process, and that is completely wrong when they are really just protesting courageously for basic human rights. He talked about the freedom of journalists. The Foreign Secretary has rightly made sure that the Iranian chargé d’affaires understood that we would not tolerate threats to journalists based in the UK, but we are also calling out and condemning the persecution of BBC Persian staff and will continue to do so.
My hon. Friend made an important point about where things stand with the JCPOA. Quite understandably the situation that we find ourselves in now, following Iran’s recent actions, has made progress even more difficult, but I can assure him that we are actively considering next steps with our international partners. He also asked about the IRGC. He is a dog on a bone with this subject, and I know that it means so much to him. As I have explained to him before in the Chamber, we are very concerned about the IRGC’s destabilising activity. The list of proscribed organisations is kept under constant review, but we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription.
I think the last point my hon. Friend raised was about the United Nations. As I said earlier, we are pressing for support for a special session of the UN Human Rights Council and for a UN investigation. I know from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office oral questions that there is concern about Iran’s presence on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, and we have joined the US to forcefully seek for it to be removed from that. I hope that he and all hon. Members understand that we are absolutely committed to the task of calling out these acts and taking the required action at this stage.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing forward this urgent question. Iranians have been protesting in almost every town and city for several months, and these protests, led by women and girls, are demanding in a loud and clear voice the end to brutal repression under the Islamic Republic. Iranians are calling for human rights, for an end to state violence and for the right to live free from the Islamic Republic’s diktats on what women should wear and how they choose to live their lives.
This movement is going from strength to strength, but the regime’s crackdown has been brutal. More than 15,000 people have been detained, and 227 Iranian parliamentarians have supported calls for the detainees to face the harshest punishment—the death penalty—with only 63 voting against. Two brave protesters have now been sentenced to death, and human rights organisations have grave concerns about the fate of many more. The UK must stand unequivocally against the death penalty, which is a gross abuse of human rights. The vote by the Iranian Parliament represents an escalation in the brutality of the response to these protests. At home, the Met police have warned about threats—described as presenting an imminent, credible risk to life—against British Iranian journalists. The UK must act to ensure the safety of those journalists, whose work is vital to the success of protesters in Iran.
Will the Minister please tell the House what further sanctions will now be put in place on those linked to the regime, in response to this escalation? Can he tell me what steps the Government are taking to protect journalists and UK nationals who are critical of the regime? I acknowledge the steps being taken with the UN, but what other diplomatic steps are the Government taking to garner international opposition to the violence and human rights attacks by the Iranian regime on its own citizens?
David Rutley
As always, the hon. Gentleman asks thoughtful, thorough and relevant questions. He says these protests are grassroots in nature, which is why it is so important that Iran does not try to confuse them with international action. These are grassroots protests, which is why we stand by the Iranian people.
We absolutely condemn the use of the death penalty, particularly in these circumstances, and we continue to call it out in our interactions with the Iranian regime. We have taken steps to seek protection for journalists and for those on the ground in Iran with BBC Persian. Our sanctions are under constant review. As I said, we took further steps on Monday against 24 officials in the light of these horrific repressive activities by the Iranian regime, and it will be kept under constant review. We are working with international partners at the UN on the basis I have already talked about. We will work to broaden those coalitions in driving for action.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
We are seeing further savage behaviour from a toxic regime against its own people, and the sparse coverage in our own media is a cause of disquiet at a time when politicians, the media and civic society should be united in giving moral support to the Iranian people as they seek basic human rights.
These abuses are not only happening in Iran. We know Iran has been sending drones to Russia, to oppress the people of Ukraine. We know Iran Air was used to transport those drones from Tehran to Russia. Why, as I have asked before, is Iran Air, an organ of the Iranian state, still operating daily flights out of Heathrow rather than being banned?
David Rutley
My right hon. Friend is a strong advocate on these matters, and I reassure him that we have taken urgent steps in response to Iranian activity in support of Russia’s military action in Ukraine. We have already put sanctions in place. I will take away his point about airlines and speak to Lord Ahmad, who covers this policy area. I will also raise it with the Foreign Secretary.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I warmly commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this urgent question. He is a long-standing advocate on these issues. I also commend the Minister for his measured response to an almost impossible situation.
The SNP, along with other colleagues, stands foursquare with the brave protesters of Iran, led by women and girls, against an oppressive, despotic regime. We have already seen 500 or so people killed, with two people, that we know of, being formally executed and thousands, if not tens of thousands, being at risk of execution in Iran’s jails, which are known for their opacity and lack of judicial standards.
The SNP supports the Minister in supporting the protesters, but we have three concrete questions. First, surely now is not the time to cut BBC World Service funding. It is the time to build up that funding. I appreciate that we will have a statement tomorrow, but, surely, is this not an open-and-shut case?
Secondly, on asylum rules, there is only so much we can do against the Iranian regime, but will the UK offer a safe haven to those fleeing damage and persecution? Thirdly, I always urge dialogue, however difficult, but I find it increasingly difficult to promote dialogue on the JCPOA with this regime at this time. Does the Minister think it is finished? If so, with what will we replace it?
David Rutley
We are grateful for the cross-party support on these issues, which sends a very clear message from across the United Kingdom.
BBC World Service is obviously going to be important. It has an independent editorial and operational approach, but we are actively supporting it by funding its work on disinformation and so on. All I will say is that there has been some misreporting about its radio content, as most people are moving to digital. There is a digital-first process, as most people who listen to BBC Persian do so via television or online. We are working on that dimension.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about sanctions, which we continue to monitor and push forward. I will gladly meet him after this urgent question to discuss the other issues.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
There are reports that the Iranian authorities are using live ammunition to shoot at teenage girls. There are stories of young women being arrested, forced into marriage and raped. These children just want the most basic of rights, so it is good to hear from the Minister that the UK is working to remove Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Can he categorically confirm to the women and girls of Iran who may be listening that we will always stand on their side against oppression and that we will not stop until we have used every single tool in our diplomatic and sanctions toolbox?
David Rutley
My right hon. Friend is a terrific advocate for women, both in her amazing work at the FCDO and outside. The sad death of Mahsa Amini is a shocking reminder of the repression faced by women in Iran. We stand four-square with them. I am the father of two daughters, and we have to be ever-mindful of the rights of women, particularly in countries that have a brutal regime such as Iran’s. We will continue to stand four-square with them.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Sanctions are needed against those who commit abuses in Iran. Can the Minister explain what his Government are doing to ensure that the burden of sanctions does not fall on ordinary, innocent Iranians?
David Rutley
That is a good question. Our focus is on targeting sanctions against those who perpetrate the most heinous acts, but the sanctions are under constant review.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s strong statement of British values towards Iran and his strong statement of support for the brave women and girls who are protesting for their fundamental human rights. Our values and rights ought to dictate our policy. Will he comment on the slightly more difficult contrast with countries such as Egypt? Egypt has 60,000 political prisoners, including Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British-Egyptian citizen about whom the Prime Minister made representations at the recent summit. We still do not have consular access to him.
Will my hon. Friend also comment on our policy towards Israel and the composition of its new Government? That must give very grave cause for concern, as must the fact that Israel has now been found guilty by the world’s three most distinguished human rights organisations of running an apartheid policy, and of being in gross violation of the fourth Geneva convention.
David Rutley
I reassure my hon. Friend that human rights are at the forefront of our conversations, dialogue and diplomatic activity, whether with Iran, Egypt—we have already talked about the case of Mr Fattah—or Israel. It is at the forefront of our work, particularly in the middle east.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this urgent question, and I add the Liberal Democrats’ voice to the solidarity with the brave Iranian people, who deserve so much better.
May I press the Minister on giving safe haven to some of these brave protesters? They are patriots, and they clearly want their country to be a better place, but their being locked up and executed is not the way to ensure Iran’s future stability. Surely it would be better to offer them temporary safe haven in this country, so they can go back and rebuild. What consideration has he given to a resettlement scheme?
David Rutley
There may well be routes available for these individuals, and I will certainly bring it to Lord Ahmad’s attention.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
It has been clear for many years that Iran is a rogue state, presided over by gangsters posing as clerics and seeking to maintain control through the actions of thugs posing as police officers and militia. It is clear that the regime is terrified of losing that control, which is why it is now resorting to executing its own citizens for confected crimes. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time for the United Kingdom to position itself on the right side of history by declaring unequivocally that it supports the demands of the brave people of Iran for regime change in that country? I understand that he will not comment on what proscription the Government may be considering, but will he take it from me that very many hon. Members would be delighted if they woke up tomorrow morning to discover that the IRGC had been proscribed today?
David Rutley
I understand the points that my right hon. Friend makes. The destabilising activity of the IRGC, be it in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon or Syria, is very concerning, in the region and beyond. We are constantly keeping that proscription under review but, as he knows, I cannot comment at this stage.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
What measures are the Government taking to curb the activities of agents of the regime attempting to operate in this country and elsewhere in Europe? In particular, what actions are being taking to ensure that Iranians with diplomatic status in this country are genuine diplomats?
David Rutley
Obviously, I cannot comment on the detail of these things, but I am sitting next to one of my esteemed colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, the Minister for Armed Forces, and all these issues are constantly monitored.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Lots of grim things are happening in the world, but many of us will be particularly troubled and disturbed by what has been happening in Iran recently. My heart goes out to everyone who is protesting, particularly the women and girls. I support the views expressed by many of my colleagues today, because I think that the IRGC should be listed as a terrorist organisation, but I would like to ask the Minister about the Christian community in Iran. Last Friday, I met a Christian who fled Iran and is now a key part of the local church in Ipswich. What steps are the Government taking to support the Christian community in Iran and the many people fleeing persecution?
David Rutley
That is a good question, and on a subject that I feel strongly about too—I note that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is in his place and he feels strongly about these issues too. We raise those issues about Christians and about other minorities in Iran, as we absolutely need to do.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
We know that we have Iranian nationals here in the UK who have clear links to the regime. We also know that Iranian and, in particular, Iranian-heritage journalists based here in the UK have been subjected to incredibly serious harassment and threats. A recent report from MI5 said that up to 10 assassination attempts have been made on British residents this year. What is the Minister doing to work with his colleagues across Government to ensure that those speaking out against the regime who are based here in the UK are safe, and that those who are propping up the regime and living in the UK know that that is utterly unacceptable?
David Rutley
As I have said previously, in response to a very serious issue that has been raised, the Foreign Secretary asked the chargé d’affaires to come to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, where it was made clear to them, in no uncertain terms, that we do not allow or condone any of these intimidatory activities. We are constantly monitoring that situation and we will call that activity out.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Iran’s Human Rights Activists News Agency has reported that protestors have already been murdered and buried in unmarked graves. This is similar to activities that happened in 1988, when 30,000 people were killed—President Raisi was also involved with the organisation of that. My hon. Friend will know, as he has already listed these things, that the IRGC will orchestrate such behaviours—it did so for the bomb plot that targeted myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. We do not want the Minister to comment on proscription, we simply want him, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety.
David Rutley
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue and I completely understand, given the circumstances he and other colleagues found themselves in, why it is particularly poignant for them. However, as he says, it also has a much wider reach. I note that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in his place. He is very aware of these issues and we have had conversations about them, along with Lord Ahmad.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Women protestors in Iran are bravely protesting for their fundamental freedom to live their lives as they choose. The UK has a responsibility to support them. Will the Minister explain how the UK intends to do that?
David Rutley
As others have said, it is vital that we support these brave Iranian people; it is a grassroots-led protest movement. As I have highlighted, we have made sure that we are calling out this activity at every opportunity, we have put sanctions in place and we are undertaking multilateral activities, one of which, importantly, is working with the United States to remove Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women. We have already talked about that.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and other right hon. and hon. Members in reiterating my call that the Government should proscribe the IRGC. It is impossible to separate the Iranian regime’s violent repression of its own civilian population from its broader ambitions for regional dominance and to develop a nuclear weapon. Today, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors convenes for an important meeting to discuss Iran’s many nuclear transgressions. Will the Minister assure me that the UK will be leading efforts to call for a motion of censure in the light of Iran’s flagrant breaches of the imploding joint comprehensive plan of action nuclear agreement?
David Rutley
That is another important point. There are many dimensions to what is going on in Iran, but it is clear that Iran’s latest actions have made progress on tackling the Iranians’ nuclear activity much more difficult. As I have said, we are considering the next steps with our international partners, but it is vital that Iran co-operates with the IAEA.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
More than 14,000 protestors have been arrested in Iran since September and now there is real concern that many of these brave women—journalists, activists, lawyers and educators—are soon to be executed by the regime. I am grateful to the Minister for his answers to the questions today, but perhaps he could give an answer as to how the UK Government are going to work with international partners to ensure the safety of these women and ensure that they do not face the death sentence.
David Rutley
As I have said, it is vital to make sure we call this out. The fact is that we have seen common cause and a common voice across the Chamber today in condemning these actions—not just the repression of these protests, but the death sentences that have been meted out. We will continue to do that, particularly in multilateral forums, as I have highlighted. We need to keep putting the pressure on this brutal regime.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I know that the Minister has been pressed on these issues already today, but it is important that he hears the strength of feeling across this House. As the violent enforcer of the supreme leader of Iran, the IRGC must be held accountable for its ongoing crimes against the Iranian people. As the principal financier and arms supplier of terror groups across the middle east, it is also responsible for targeting innocent civilians from Iraq and Israel through to Yemen and the United Arab Emirates, and it has been linked to the deaths of more than 100 British military personnel. Does the Minister share my concerns, and those of others from across this House, that the IRGC is likely undertaking activities in the UK? Does he agree that the IRGC must be proscribed?
David Rutley
I completely understand why my hon. Friend has added his voice to those with concerns about the IRGC’s activities. We are concerned too, as its activities in country and in the region are incredibly destabilising. I cannot add anything to what I have said about proscription, but we monitor the IRGC’s activities and we will call it out and confront it.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is right when he says that there is universal condemnation across this House, where we have today talked powerfully about human rights abuses and the persecution of the people of Iran, particularly the women fighting for their most basic freedoms. Does he agree that if we are to learn the lessons from our suffragette foresisters about deeds not words, government needs to join up? Some 11,000 Iranians are making an application for asylum in the UK and only 98 such applications were granted last year. Iranians are the third largest group of people in the channel-crossing boats. In the previous urgent question today, people felt that the very same people whose persecution we are now talking about should be penalised. What discussions has the Minister had already with his Home Office counterparts about providing sanctuary to those people, who we recognise are being persecuted and do not wish to leave languishing in hotels?
David Rutley
As I have said, there are routes available. I will make sure that the hon. Lady’s points are raised with Lord Ahmad, who covers this policy area. Her words will also not be lost with the Foreign Secretary here.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Many constituents have contacted me in support of the brave women and girls and their allies protesting in Iran, and that was before the latest despicable attack on them. The death penalty is being given to who claim basic human rights. Next weekend, I, like many women, will be marching to reclaim the night. Such a protest attracting the death penalty would oppress and silence us all. What will the Minister do to ensure that every protest, every arrest, every act of torture and every threat of death receives global attention, and how does slashing the BBC Persian radio service contribute to that?
David Rutley
I have already responded to the point about BBC Persian. We recognise the bravery of the people the hon. Lady mentions, and we have put sanctions in place to call people out. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady talks about amplifying that message. One key step that we are taking is working to remove Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women. That is a positive step forward in this context.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
In the light of the unacceptable response to protests by the Iranian authorities, what are Ministers doing to ensure that Iran is removed from the UN Commission on the Status of Women, as women have borne the brunt of many of the abuses?
David Rutley
As I have said, we are working with our international partners, and we are working very closely with the United States on that specific point. The hon. Lady is right: it makes a difference, and we will push that matter forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his response to the questions and for his desire and determination to assist the protesters in their quest for democracy in Iran.
Iranian protesters are calling for a non-religious state, where the rights of women and religious minorities are protected—an issue on which both the Minister and I agree. A revolutionary court in Tehran has started sentencing protesters to death on charges that allegedly include “enmity against God” and “corruption on earth”. Those charges have a chilling effect on protesters and religious minorities and have led to fears of large-scale executions in Iran in the coming weeks. Does the Minister agree that, as a country, we must pursue every available measure to support Iranians asserting their fundamental human rights and sanction officials responsible for these violent crackdowns?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman always makes these points with conviction and real passion. I share his views. We want to support the Iranian people—women, girls and those of religious minorities—in their struggle. We will take every possible step forward that we can, and, with cross-party support here, we will have extra weight and clout in making those calls for action.
Missile Incident in Poland
(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 your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the missile strike in Poland overnight.
At approximately 7 pm local time last night, there were missile explosions in a village in eastern Poland, approximately four miles from the border with Ukraine, killing two civilians and wounding four, during an extended Russian bombardment of Ukrainian territory.
As soon as I received the report, I contacted my Polish counterpart to express the sympathy and solidarity of the United Kingdom—I am sure the whole House will share that sentiment—and to offer our practical support. I then spoke to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a trilateral call with my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, while the Prime Minister was attending the G20 summit in Indonesia.
The Prime Minister immediately called President Duda of Poland to convey the UK’s condolences for the tragic loss of civilian life and to assure him of our unwavering support to a steadfast NATO ally. My right hon. Friend then spoke to President Zelensky about the latest situation and also attended an ad hoc meeting of G7 leaders called by President Biden to discuss the evolving situation.
This morning, I spoke to the Polish Foreign Minister and I commended Poland’s decisive, determined, but calm and professional response to the situation. It is wise to advise the House that, at this point, the full details of the incident are not complete, but, earlier today, Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary-General, said there was
“no indication that this was the result of a deliberate attack”.
He added that the incident was
“likely caused by a Ukrainian air defence missile fired to defend Ukrainian territory against Russian cruise missile attacks.”
Poland will lead the investigation to establish exactly what happened, and the UK stands ready to provide any practical or technical assistance. In the meantime, we will not rush to judgment; our response will always be led by the facts.
The House should be in no doubt that the only reason why missiles are flying through European skies and exploding in European villages is Russia’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. Secretary-General Stoltenberg was absolutely right when he said today that what occurred in Poland is “not Ukraine’s fault” and that “Russia bears ultimate responsibility”.
Yesterday, Putin launched one of the heaviest attacks since the war began, firing wave upon wave of more than 80 missiles at Ukrainian cities, obliterating the homes of ordinary families, destroying critical national infrastructure and depriving millions of Ukrainians of power and heat just as the winter sets in. This brutal air campaign is Putin’s revenge for Ukraine’s successes on the battlefield, where Russian forces have been expelled from thousands of square miles of territory. Now he is trying to terrorise the people of Ukraine and break their will by leaving them shivering in cold and darkness. I have no doubt that he will be unsuccessful in that endeavour, but this is why Britain is helping Ukraine to strengthen its air defences, and we have provided more than 1,000 surface-to-air missiles thus far. I know that the House will be united in our support for Ukraine’s right to defend her territory and her people.
On Monday, I signed a memorandum of understanding as part of our £10 million commitment to help Ukraine rebuild its critical energy infrastructure. The tragic incident in Poland last night is ultimately the result of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. That is the only reason why it has happened, and it would not have happened otherwise. That is why the UK and our allies stand in solidarity with Poland, and that is why we are determined to support the people of Ukraine until they prevail and their country is once again free. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I am grateful for the direct communications that we had on this matter on Privy Council terms last night.
This was a serious incident that led to a tragic loss of life. I join the whole House in sending condolences to the families of those killed, and I expressed them directly to the Polish ambassador last night.
Poland and NATO allies deserve praise for taking the correct steps to assess this incident carefully and avoid escalation. It is right that we continue to proceed with cool heads to determine exactly what has taken place and work in lockstep with Poland and our NATO allies.
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary and I restated on our visits to NATO headquarters in Brussels last week, Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable. We also note, as the Foreign Secretary did, the NATO Secretary-General’s words earlier today. He said:
“Russia bears ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine.”
This incident highlights the sheer recklessness of Putin’s war and the ongoing need to guard against miscalculation and deter aggression. Yesterday saw one of the largest barrages of missiles against Ukraine since the war began, cruelly targeting civilian infrastructure as the winter approaches. Ukraine will continue to have our total support and complete solidarity in its brave fight against Russian aggression. It is right that we play our full part in strengthening Ukraine’s air defence capacity.
As the world gathered in Bali with an agenda to address common problems, one leader did not show, instead hiding from scrutiny and condemnation. Putin’s warmongering is being met with ever greater isolation. On Monday, the UN General Assembly approved a resolution calling for Russia to be held accountable for invading Ukraine, and recognising the need for
“an international mechanism for reparation for damage, loss or injury”
caused by Putin’s wrongful acts. Labour stands with the international community in demanding that Russia is held accountable. Her actions are bringing death and destruction in Ukraine, and economic pain for the whole world. The numbers in the latest UN vote are proof that more needs to be done to build and sustain global opposition to Putin’s barbaric war. What strategy have the Government put in place to strengthen opposition to the invasion, particularly across the global south?
The result of this war will depend on who has more endurance: Putin’s Russia, or Ukraine and its supporters around the world. Labour stands fully committed to work in support of Ukraine until it wins its freedom—that is what must happen.
James Cleverly
I find myself in complete agreement with the shadow Foreign Secretary. It is absolutely right that we stand in solidarity with our allies—our formal allies in NATO, and also the Ukrainian people as they defend themselves. He speaks about endurance; I have spoken in the past about the need for strategic endurance, recognising that we must send the message to not just Vladimir Putin, but every other potential aggressor around the world, that we will defend the UN charter, international humanitarian law and the right of territorial integrity until the job is done. We must maintain that strategic endurance.
The shadow Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to ask about support for the international coalition that has condemned Russia’s actions. Some 141 countries voted for the resolution at the UN General Assembly at the start of the conflict, and 143 voted to condemn the illegal annexation of the eastern and southern oblasts in Ukraine. However, that coalition needs to be supported. I and the Ministers and officials within the Department regularly engage with countries in the global south that are worried about food security, fuel security and the availability of fertiliser. We have worked in conjunction with our international allies, particularly Turkey, to ensure that the Black sea grain initiative is supported. We hope that that initiative will be extended, and we are lobbying for that extension to occur so that Vladimir Putin cannot use hunger or the fear of hunger as leverage to support his illegal attempted invasion of Ukraine.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks about strategic endurance. From our point of view, that must surely involve the continued supply of the munitions that have enabled Ukraine to resist so effectively so far. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he and the Defence Secretary have made appropriate representations to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister that tomorrow, we must not send a signal of weakness in respect of how much we are prepared to invest in defence?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the need to send an important message to the world, and indeed to our Ukrainian friends, that we are in it for the long haul—that we do have that strategic endurance, and we will support them until the job is done. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions; indeed, we will have high-level representation at the Ramstein donor conference, which is occurring as we speak, to ensure that we listen to the needs of Ukraine, and that both the scale and nature of our support are co-ordinated with Ukraine so that it can defend itself against the evolving threats it sees from Russia.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I also thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and commend him for its welcome, measured tone. Speaking for the SNP, I also express our total solidarity with, and condolences to, the people of Poland, and commend them for their restraint overnight—I think a lot of us did not get much sleep last night, as we were contemplating what might be the consequences of this incident. If this was a tragic accident, it was a tragic accident, but as the Foreign Secretary rightly says, it is the Ukrainians who are on the frontline, and have been for many months. The responsibility for the fact that rockets are flying at all sits entirely at the door of Vladimir Putin, and the SNP stands four-square as part of the global coalition in Ukraine’s defence.
Sadly, the Kremlin’s tactics in Syria surely tell us that this is going to continue, if not get worse: as we see land advances by the Ukrainian forces, we will see more indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure by air. As such, what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the need for further air support, not just for Ukraine but for neighbouring countries? I appreciate that 1,000 or so missiles have already been given, but what more do we need, and is it now time to be talking about a no-fly zone over Ukraine and neighbouring countries to deter—to the extent we can—further Russian aggression?
James Cleverly
I would also like to put on record my recognition of the fact that right across the House, including from the SNP Benches, we have had a unanimity of voice on the world stage. If Vladimir Putin felt that his aggression in Ukraine could in any way drive wedges between people who are like-minded on these issues, he was wrong. That is true in this House, and it is true on the international stage.
I thank the hon. Member for the points he has made. He has made an incredibly important point about the evolving threat. As I said in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), it is now clear that as Russia sees failures on the battlefield, it is moving to attacks from the air. We have provided surface-to-air defence missile systems and AMRAAM air-to-air defence missile systems. We will be looking at further air defence donations that can come from the international community and also, importantly, making sure there is integration in the air defence cover that Ukraine is able to provide. We know what Putin intends to do—as I have said, he intends to starve and freeze the Ukrainians into submission—and we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in order to prevent him from doing so.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I presume that the Foreign Secretary agrees with me that article 5 of the NATO treaty is just as relevant now as it has ever been—in other words, that an attack against any member of NATO is an attack against all of us—and that we should make it absolutely clear to Russia that that remains the case.
James Cleverly
My right hon. and gallant Friend makes an incredibly important point about the importance of our collective defence. I remind the House that the NATO Secretary-General’s assessment is that this was not a deliberate attack, so in this instance, article 5 would not be the most appropriate response. Again, I commend the Polish Government on their swift and decisive, but calm and measured, response to this incident. I had a conversation this morning with our permanent representative at NATO in Brussels; NATO also acted swiftly and calmly by discussing this incident, and the response will be calibrated to the facts on the ground. However, as I say, my right hon. and gallant Friend is right that our collective defence is a cornerstone of our safety.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. We all, obviously and correctly, totally condemn the Russian invasion, the war against Ukraine and the illegal occupation, as we condemn illegal occupations everywhere else. Possibly more than 200,000 people have already died in this conflict, and with the current trajectory, tragically, there are going to be many more deaths of Ukrainians and, indeed, Russian conscripts. There are going to be devastated families all around.
I hear everything that the Foreign Secretary has said, but he did not say anything about the possible role of the United Nations or any other world body in trying to bring about a process that could at least halt this conflict, restore the status quo in terms of land areas, and try to bring about an early end to this war. Otherwise, we are going to have hundreds of thousands more dead as a result of what is, of course, the totally wrong occupation of Ukraine.
James Cleverly
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that calls for halting the war were not emanating from Moscow when the Russians felt that they were on the front foot. They were not calling to halt the war when those tanks were surrounding Kyiv; nor were they calling to halt the war when they thought that President Zelensky’s Government would collapse. I find it interesting that calls to halt the war are coming from certain places now that Russia is on the back foot and losing territory in the east and south of Ukraine.
It is important to make the point that ceasing a conflict is not in itself a neutral act. The Ukrainians have been attacked and murdered, their cities damaged, and their critical national infrastructure put beyond use. It is incredibly important that the message is sent—both to President Putin and to other potential aggressors around the world—that those who start conflicts such as this have to be prepared for the consequences of the nation defending itself and its friends around the world helping it to do so.
Ultimately, of course, we want this war to come to an end. We would prefer for it to come to an end quickly, but it has to come to an end on terms that are acceptable to the Ukrainian people, and only the Ukrainian people can decide when that time is.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
May I add my voice to the condolences to the people of Poland? President Duda is a very thoughtful man, and we should all be deeply thankful for his calm and rational approach in recent hours.
Putin is using military missiles to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure. He is doing so because he wants innocent Ukrainians to freeze and starve to death this winter. There can be nothing more evil than that. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we and our allies will continue to provide Ukraine with the support that it needs to take down those missiles before they land?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in her assessment of what Vladimir Putin is attempting to do. I remind the House that the rocket attacks we saw overnight were targeting locations deep to the west of Ukraine, hundreds of miles away from the line of contact—specifically, they were targeting critical national infrastructure. At the start of the conflict, it was our anti-tank missiles—the NLAW missile systems—that helped the Ukrainians to defend themselves. Now, they need air defence and energy generation, and we will continue to supply them with what they need until they prevail in this conflict.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
A swift and measured response is absolutely the right call. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the tone of his statement, which was spot on. I am very aware of how, across the House, we have pulled together and, at every moment, spoken with one voice. Through the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, we have tried to put in place as many measures as possible to punish Putin and his cronies. One area is largely missing from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, however: golden visas.
We have still not seen the Home Office’s report on the visa scheme. The Government could this afternoon accept the amendments to the National Security Bill, which would compel them to publish that report within two weeks. Will the Foreign Secretary look at that? We in this House must strain every sinew to hold Putin and his cronies to account.
James Cleverly
I remind the hon. Lady that that scheme is closed and has been for some time. Obviously, visas are a matter for the Home Office rather than the Foreign Office, but I remind her that, in a number of instances, people come to this country because they are fleeing persecution in the countries of their birth. I know that, for a number of British nationals of Russian heritage, that was very much the case.
I am very proud that the UK was one of the first countries to bring in sanctions specifically to target the money people around Vladimir Putin and to choke off the supply of funds that helped him to prosecute this conflict. We will continue to work in conjunction and co-ordination with our international allies to do likewise.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making it so clear that it is irrelevant whose missile it was and that the state of affairs is the responsibility of the aggressor: Putin’s Russia. In that context, can he use this incident to amplify to our allies in Europe, and to some of our colleagues in the Government, that Putin’s Russia is not just at war in Ukraine, but at war with us? His hybrid campaign—cyber-attacks, assassinations, sabotage of critical national infrastructure in European countries and, of course, the energy war—is against us. Unless we defeat Russia in the war in Ukraine, it will be a defeat for the west. Therefore, we must galvanise ourselves and put ourselves on the right footing and in the right frame of mind to ensure that the Ukrainian people prevail.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the multiple things that are at stake in this conflict. We have seen military lives lost, civilian lives lost and, sadly, in ground that has been ceded by the Russian military, what appears to be evidence of widespread and systematic human rights abuses. Those are the things that we are defending against, but in addition, we are defending the UN charter and the concept of adherence to international law. As he rightly said, we in the UK have been the recipients of cyber-attacks and attacks on our homeland that we have attributed to Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime. All those things are at stake all at once. We have to defend ourselves against the full range of threats, and he is absolutely right to highlight that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Russia must bear the responsibility for all the consequences of its illegal war. It is clear that Putin’s strategy is to use energy as a weapon by attacking energy infrastructure in Ukraine and seeking to hold Europe to ransom with spiralling energy costs. I am glad to hear that we are supporting Ukraine in rebuilding its infrastructure. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must never again be subject to the whims of fossil-fuel autocrats, and that we instead need clean, secure and homegrown energy?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Her words echo those of the Prime Minister and mine on the international stage. What we have seen, through Vladimir Putin’s attempt to use energy supply to blackmail countries that are supporting Ukraine in its self-defence, is a warning that we have to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons—particularly those through which we are reliant on autocratic states such as Russia.
That incentivises us to work at renewable energy generation and storage here in the UK, and to work with our international friends and partners to wean the world off hydrocarbons, which is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I did when we went to Sharm El Sheikh for COP27. It is one of the points that he is discussing with the membership of the G20 in Indonesia at the moment. We have been at the forefront of many of the green energy generation technologies. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we help the Ukrainians to defend themselves in the here and now, and that we all defend each other through a greener and more sustainable energy mix in future.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
In this unfortunate incident, two facts seem to be clear. First, the strategy of the Russians is to hold a military line across the south and the east and to destroy Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure; we probably agree on that. I understand fully the great work the Government are doing, which is generally fantastic, and the fact that we are the largest donor in Europe by some distance. However, there is a simple fact that we cannot get around. The Ukrainians have been saying for months that they do not have the air defence equipment to protect the cities and the infrastructure and the water supplies and the electricity and their own troops. Despite the fantastic work that the Secretary of State and his team are doing, the Ukrainians do not have enough air defence kit, and this is becoming critical to the survival of the Ukrainian state and its people’s morale in the coming months.
James Cleverly
My hon. and gallant Friend, who has made a career, both in uniform and out, of analysing these things, is absolutely right in his assessment of the immediate tactics that the Russians are endeavouring to use. By extension, he is also right about the need to help the Ukrainians with their air defence systems. I am assured by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Armed Forces that exactly that issue will be discussed at Ramstein, at military-to-military level and at Foreign Minister-to-Foreign Minister level. The equipment and the integration of that equipment are key, and will remain an absolute priority for us.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I know the whole House agrees that this is a time of great tension and uncertainty, and this incident demonstrates the dangers posed by Putin’s warmongering, but it is critical that clear channels of communication remain open on all sides. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what steps the Government have taken to establish contact with his Russian counterparts having learned of the incident in Poland, in order to prevent escalation?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady will understand that we maintain lines of communication wherever possible and practical. The House will remember my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary updating the House a number of weeks ago on a conversation that he had had with the Russian Government’s Defence Minister Shoigu. She and the House will understand why at this stage I am not willing to go into the details of all the lines of communication, but I assure them that we maintain our desire to avoid miscalculation and unnecessary escalation, and to give the opportunity for more sensible decisions to be made in the Kremlin.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Earlier this year, when I and other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee visited Ukraine and Poland, it was clear that in the border area there are significant flows of civilians and efforts to get humanitarian support to them, so yesterday evening’s incident is deeply troubling. Regardless of the missile’s origin, it is Putin’s Russia’s fault that the incident occurred. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary assure me that this country will continue to provide the Ukrainians with air defence systems, such as the lightweight multi-role missile produced by Thales here in the UK?
James Cleverly
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking at the systems produced in the UK that are used by the British armed forces, but we are also working with our international partners to procure these systems from wherever in the world they are available, because the Ukrainians need them. They need the numbers and they need them now.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My thoughts and those of my constituents are with all the people killed or injured in the strike and their families. We are grateful for the measured tone of the response from Poland, NATO and the Foreign Secretary. In his annual threat update, the head of MI5 said that the Kremlin is actively attempting to rebuild its espionage network, following the expulsion of spies from Europe at the start of the war. How is the Foreign Secretary working with international allies to prevent this?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady will understand the long-standing convention that we do not discuss intelligence matters on the Floor of the House. I can none the less assure her that the threats and the risks that the heads of our security and intelligence agencies have put in the public domain are absolutely understood by the UK Government and our allies, and we continue to work very, very closely with our defence and security partners around the world on precisely the issue she highlights.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister was right to say at the G20 summit that Putin’s casual disregard for human life will ripple around the world for years to come. Can my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary update the House on conversations that the Prime Minister has had with our global allies at the G20 to convince Russia to withdraw from Ukraine?
James Cleverly
I am not able to give a full update because the meetings in Indonesia are still going on, but I spoke with our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister late last night and I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that this is very much in the thoughts of leaders at the G20. Obviously, the conversations at the G20 cannot just be about Russia and Ukraine, but the implications for the global south and for many member countries of the G20 are very much at the forefront of our thinking, particularly for energy security and food supplies and the need to ensure that the hungry people of the world are not made more hungry as Vladimir Putin uses their hunger and their need for energy as leverage in his brutal war of aggression against the Ukrainians.
Gareth Johnson
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that whatever the outcome of the investigation under way into exactly what took place in Poland yesterday, responsibility for the deaths in Poland is 100%—not just mainly, but 100%—Russia’s? The Russians are the aggressors; they are the ones who commenced this military action and they are the ones who should be held responsible for those deaths.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ukraine has the right to defend itself against aggression. The Ukrainians enjoy our enduring support as they defend themselves against aggression. The only reason the missile systems are being engaged in the border area between eastern Poland and western Ukraine is Russia’s attacks on targets in western Ukraine. This is the fault of Russia; the deaths are the result of Russia’s action. It is Vladimir Putin who has blood on his hands because of his illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the world-leading response by this Government to support the Ukrainian people in the face of Putin’s barbaric assault on their nation. Will he confirm that we will redouble our efforts to provide vital food and humanitarian aid to the people of Ukraine, and that we will help the Ukrainians with energy equipment and the means to repair the infrastructure to keep the lights on and the heating working this winter?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is exactly right. In addition to the military and economic support, we have provided and will continue to provide humanitarian support to Ukraine. Just yesterday, I signed a memorandum of understanding on support valued at £10 million to help the Ukrainians to rebuild the energy infrastructure being targeted and damaged by Russian attacks, and we will continue to provide that support.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to be led by the facts, and hopefully those facts will become clearer, given reports that a NATO E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system was on station at the time. One thing is clear now, however: that Putin’s evil regime is targeting the civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. My right hon. Friend has just described the support we are giving to maintain lighting and heating systems. Will he emphasise once again that we are giving that aid so that the brave Ukrainian people have the lighting, the heating and the food they need, especially as winter approaches?
James Cleverly
My hon. and gallant Friend makes the incredibly important point that the Ukrainians are the ones who are defending themselves. It is the Ukrainian people who are putting their lives at risk on the frontline in the conflict against the Russian invasion, and it is the Ukrainian people, right across Ukraine and, indeed, beyond its borders, whose strength, perseverance and incredible bravery is enabling the pushing back of the Russian military out of eastern and southern Ukraine. We must ensure that we help the Ukrainian people to maintain the morale they need to persevere in the defence of their homeland.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
On Friday night, I and a small group of my friends made the 2,000-mile trip to Ukraine. We crossed the Polish border and the Ukrainian border, then entered Lviv to deliver much-needed humanitarian aid to suffering families. That was not the only precious cargo on board, because we took with us, after 222 days of their living with my family, the mother and little boy who have been living at home with me in North Norfolk, and reunited them, together, in what were the most remarkable, humbling and emotional scenes I will probably ever see.
Of the aid delivered, the generators that the people of North Norfolk were able to get on to the van were incredibly well received. Those generators are not available in Poland any more, so may we have some sort of national push to try to get generators to the people of Ukraine? To bring it home, Secretary of State, last night the father of the little boy whom my wife and family are looking after spent the night in Lviv after missile strikes with no energy, no water and no heating. This is affecting civilians and people I can now proudly say are part of my family.
James Cleverly
First, I commend my hon. Friend for the generosity he has displayed in hosting a Ukrainian family in wonderful North Norfolk, which is a part of the country I know well. It is a privilege to serve alongside him on these green Benches. I know that a number of Members from all parties have done likewise, and that is to their credit.
My hon. Friend’s story is incredibly moving and he is absolutely right that behind the statistics, facts and numbers are people. We have to ensure that, on their behalf, we stick with it and maintain our willingness to do what is right. Even though we in the UK will go through difficult times this winter domestically, our difficulties pale into insignificance compared with the difficulties faced by people right across Ukraine, not just in the east and south where the land conflict is ongoing. We of course have a duty to help and support people who are here in the UK, but while doing so we also have a duty to help and support the brave people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against the brutal, illegal and unjustified invasion of their homeland by Russia.
Social Housing Standards
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Members throughout the House and people across the country will have been horrified to hear about the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Awaab died in December 2020, just days after his second birthday, following prolonged exposure to mould in his parents’ one-bedroom flat in Rochdale. Awaab’s parents had repeatedly raised their concerns about the desperate state of their home with their landlord—the local housing association, Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. Awaab’s father first articulated his concerns in 2017, and others, including health professionals, also raised the alarm, but the landlord failed to take any kind of meaningful action. Rochdale Boroughwide Housing’s repeated failure to heed Awaab’s family’s pleas to remove the mould in their damp-ridden property was a terrible dereliction of duty.
Worse still, the apparent attempts by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing to attribute the existence of mould to the actions of Awaab’s parents was beyond insensitive and deeply unprofessional. As the housing ombudsman has made clear, damp and mould in rented housing is not a lifestyle issue, and we all have a duty to call out any behaviour rooted in ignorance or prejudice. The family’s lawyers have made it clear that in their view the inaction of the landlord was rooted in prejudice.
The coroner who investigated Awaab’s death, Joanne Kearsley, has performed a vital public service in laying out all the facts behind this tragedy. I wish, on behalf of the House, to record my gratitude to her. As she said, it is scarcely believable that a child could die from mould in 21st century Britain, or that his parents should have to fight tooth and nail, as they did in vain, to save him. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Awaab’s family for their tireless fight for justice over the past two years. They deserved better and their son deserved better.
As so many have rightly concluded, Awaab’s case has thrown into sharp relief the need for renewed action to ensure that every landlord in the country makes certain that their tenants are housed in decent homes and are treated with dignity and fairness. That is why the Government are bringing forward further reforms. Last week, the House debated the Second Reading of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. The measures in that Bill were inspired by the experience of tenants that led to the terrible tragedy of the Grenfell fire. The way in which tenants’ voices were ignored and their interests neglected in the Grenfell tragedy is a constant spur to action for me in this role.
Before I say more on the substance of the wider reforms, let me first update the House on the immediate steps that my Department has been taking with regard to Awaab’s case. First, as the excellent public-service journalism of the Manchester Evening News shows, we are aware that Awaab’s family was not alone in raising serious issues with the condition of homes managed by the local housing association. I have already been in touch with the chair and the chief executive of Rochdale Boroughwide Housing to demand answers and that they explain to me why a tragedy such as Awaab’s case was ever allowed to happen, and to hear what steps they are now undertaking, immediately, to improve the living conditions of the tenants for whom they are responsible.
I have been in touch with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), both of whom are powerful champions for the people of Rochdale. I have discussed with them the finding of suitable accommodation for tenants in Rochdale who are still enduring unacceptable conditions. I also hope to meet Awaab’s family, and those who live in the Freehold estate, so that they know that the Government are there to support them.
It is right that the regulator of social housing is considering whether the landlord in this case has systematically failed to meet the standards of service it is required to provide for its tenants. The regulator has my full support for taking whatever action it deems necessary. The coroner has written to me, and I assure the House that I will act immediately on her recommendations.
Let me turn to the broader urgent issues raised by this tragedy. Let me be perfectly clear, as some landlords apparently still need to hear this from this House: every single person in this country, irrespective of where they are from, what they do or how much they earn, deserves to live in a home that is decent, safe and secure. That is the relentless focus of my Department and, I know, of everyone across this House.
Since the publication of our social housing White Paper, we have sought to raise the bar on the quality of social housing, while empowering tenants so that their voices are truly heard. We started by strengthening the housing ombudsman service so that all residents have somewhere to turn when they do not get the answers they need from their landlords. In addition, we have changed the law so that residents can now complain directly to the ombudsman, instead of having to wait eight weeks while their case is handled by a local MP or another “designated person”.
One of the principal roles of the housing ombudsman service is to ensure that robust complaint processes are put in place so that problems are resolved as soon as they are flagged. It can order landlords to pay compensation to residents and refer cases to the regulator of social housing, which will in future be able to issue unlimited fines to landlords that it finds to be at fault. Of course, all decisions made by the ombudsman are published so that the whole world can see which landlords are consistently letting tenants down.
It is clear from Awaab’s case, which sadly did not go before the ombudsman, that more needs to be done to ensure that this vital service is better promoted, and that it reaches those who really need it. We have already run the nationwide “Make Things Right” campaign to ensure that more social housing residents know how they can make complaints, but we are now planning—I think it is necessary—another targeted multi-year campaign so that everyone living in the social housing sector knows their rights, knows how to sound the alarm when their landlord is failing to make the grade, and knows how to seek redress without delay.
Where some providers have performed poorly in the past, they have now been given ample opportunity to change their ways and to start treating residents with the respect that they deserve. The time for empty promises of improvement is over, and my Department will now name and shame those who have been found by the regulator to have breached consumer standards, or who have been found by the ombudsman to have committed severe maladministration.
While there is no doubt that this property fell below the standard that we expect all social landlords to meet, Awaab’s death makes it painfully clear why we must do everything we can to better protect tenants. Our Social Housing (Regulation) Bill will bring in a rigorous new regime that holds landlords such as these to account for the decency of their homes. As I mentioned, the system has been too reliant on people fighting their own corner and we are determined to change that. The reforms that we are making will help to relieve the burden on tenants with an emboldened and more powerful regulator. The regulator will proactively inspect landlords and, of course, issue the unlimited fines that I have mentioned, and it will be able to intervene in cases where tenants’ lives are being put at risk. In the very worst cases, it will have the power to instruct that properties be brought under new management.
Landlords will also be judged against tenant satisfaction measures, which will allow tenants—indeed, all of us—to see transparently which landlords are failing to deliver what residents expect and deserve. It is the universal right of everyone to feel safe where they and their loved ones sleep at night, which is why our levelling up and private rented sector White Papers set out how we will legislate to introduce a new, stronger, legally binding decent homes standard in the private rented sector as well for the first time. We recently consulted on that decent homes standard and we are reviewing the responses so that we can move forward quickly. It is a key plank of our mission to ensure that the number of non-decent homes across all tenures is reduced by 2030, with the biggest improvements occurring in the lowest-performing areas.
The legislation that we are bringing forward is important. We hope that, as a result, no family ever have to suffer in the way that Awaab’s family have suffered. We hope that we can end the scandal of residents having to live in shoddy, substandard homes, such as some of those on the Freehold estate. We want to restore the right of everyone in this country, whatever their race or cultural background, to live somewhere warm, decent, safe and secure—a place that they can be proud to call home. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. I join him in sending our condolences to the family of Awaab Ishak. It is the worst thing that any family could possibly imagine. It is very difficult to come to terms with the fact that, in 21st-century Britain, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, a family could find their child dying at just two years old through completely and utterly avoidable circumstances that could, would and should have been prevented. I acknowledge that their only ask as a family is that, once and for all, the conditions for those in social housing are improved.
Today has to mark the start of a real step change in our level of urgency to improve the condition of our social housing stock and the rights of people in it. This is not just about social housing stock, however: as the housing ombudsman made absolutely clear, there are people in every form of tenure who are forced in 21st-century Britain to endure these appalling, unconscionable conditions.
The coroner said that the death of Awaab, who suffered prolonged exposure to mould,
“will and should be a defining moment for the housing sector”,
but it should also be a defining moment for us and a wake-up call to every single Member of the House who has, in whatever limited form and to whatever extent, the power and platform to make sure that this never, ever happens again. It should not take the death of a two-year-old boy in completely avoidable circumstances to get us together and act.
The truth is that although this is the most shocking outcome that anyone could imagine, this is not an unusual set of circumstances to come across the desk of any hon. Member or housing lawyer in the country. Our inboxes and constituency surgeries, in every part of the country, are overflowing with people in this position—people who have sounded the alarm over and over again, but who have simply been rendered invisible by decision makers who do not respond.
I know that the Secretary of State and I are wholly united on this issue and that he is sincere about getting a grip on it and doing something about it. Only a week ago, we stood across from each other at the Dispatch Box and talked about what we could do to strengthen the measures in the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill that is currently before Parliament to ensure that this House delivers the strongest possible legislation. If there is unity, however, there is no excuse for delay. It is time for urgency.
In that spirit, what further steps will the Secretary of State’s Department take? There is a systemic issue of housing unfit for human habitation in the social and private rented sectors. Too many families are living in overcrowded, damp, mouldy and squalid conditions, and they are disproportionately likely to be black, Asian and ethnic minority families in poverty. This has not just a heavy social cost; NHS England already spends £1.3 billion a year on treating preventable illnesses caused by cold and damp homes.
The consultation on the decent homes standard closed weeks ago, so can the Secretary of State give a timescale for that being brought into law without delay for the private and social rented sectors? We are 100% committed to decent homes standard 2, so we will work with the Government day and night to ensure that it is tough and fit for the 21st century, and that it is delivered quickly.
New regulation matters but, as the Secretary of State knows, there is a crisis for local authorities up and down the country. It would be wrong not to acknowledge that, for well-intentioned local authorities—the ones that are good landlords and are responsive to their tenants’ needs—there is still a huge, gaping hole in their finances. Will he ensure that he sits down and works through those problems with local authorities? Everybody understands that there is a major problem with the public finances, but we have to find creative ways to help local authorities now, including through longer-term funding settlements. Will he particularly ensure that any social rent cap is funded? Otherwise all we do is load more cuts on to local authorities that cannot afford them and ensure that that money is stripped out of our local housing stock at a time when, as he knows, the situation is already unconscionable.
Damp is more likely in homes that are excessively cold and expensive to heat. With energy bills going through the roof, a cold winter will lead to a spike in mould problems, as the Secretary of State will know. What is he doing to bring about the retrofitting and insulation of older social housing stock to make homes cheaper to heat? We have a housing crisis in this country, but we also have a growth crisis. There are a lot of people around the country who could use good jobs bringing those homes up to standard and literally saving lives this winter.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has called in the chief executive of Rochdale Boroughwide Housing to explain himself, but will the Secretary of State commit to a wider investigation of the case and what can be learned, including the housing association’s structure and governance and whether the lack of democratic representation on its board played a part in its lack of responsiveness?
I am grateful that the Secretary of State repeatedly acknowledged during his statement that Awaab’s family have said that, in their view, it is beyond doubt that racism played a role in their treatment and the handling of their concerns. Beyond an acknowledgement, I would like to see some action to deal with that. Nobody should be subjected to personal and intrusive questions about their private lives, lifestyle and bathing habits in their own home. I was glad that the coroner recognised that Rochdale Boroughwide Housing now knows that that was completely unacceptable, but how on earth was it allowed to conclude that lifestyle and bathing habits contributed to the majority of the mould?
Further to that, an important part of the system is providing legitimate migrants and refugees with safe and secure housing. Will the Secretary of State commit to a wider review of how housing is provided and maintained for refugees in this country? I am convinced that Awaab’s family are right that the imbalance of power posed an acute problem for those who are unfamiliar with the system. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who is in his place, and to the Manchester Evening News. They are a powerful voice for people who do not understand the system. However, there is a problem here, and it needs to be addressed. Will the Secretary of State look at the over-representation of BAME people in poor-quality housing?
Finally—I will come to a close, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that there is huge interest in this across the House—we stood in this place five years ago, after the shocking events of Grenfell, and said, “Never again.” Never again has to mean something. It has to mean a legacy for the people who have lost loved ones as a consequence of the shocking imbalance of power in the housing system. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with us in the Opposition to deliver a housing system fit for the 21st century?
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Lady for the points she made and the questions she asked, and for the very open and constructive approach she is taking to making sure that we can all work together to learn the appropriate lessons from this tragedy.
The hon. Lady is right, of course, that the circumstances were utterly avoidable. She was also right to say that we require a step change in levels of urgency in dealing with these problems. She is right, too, that the problems identified by the coroner and held up to the light exist in every form in tenure across England. Damp and mould are not an unusual set of circumstances, but a problem that afflicts constituents all of us know of and all of us represent, and they should not be a problem with which people have to live. The impact on individuals’ health and their quality of life can be profound, and action needs to be taken across the country, by all of us, to ensure that this scandal ends.
The hon. Lady is right to say that poor housing quality, while it exists across England, is particularly concentrated in certain communities, and it disproportionately affects families from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. This is part of a broader pattern of unequal outcomes that we do need to address. It requires sensitivity in handling, but she is also right that it requires urgency and focus on the part of all of us in investigating the factors that lie behind it.
The hon. Lady asked particularly about the decent homes standard and when we will bring forward new regulations in response to the consultation. We hope to do so as early as possible. It may not be until the beginning of the new year, but we will do so, I hope, in a way that ensures we can legislate effectively either in this Session or in the next.
The hon. Lady makes a fair point about local authority funding. Every part of the public sector and public realm faces funding challenges at the moment. I have been talking to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this, and he is very sensitive to these concerns. In the autumn statement tomorrow, he will be saying more about what can be done, including with reference to the social rent cap. As we all know, it is important to balance the additional sums that individuals may be required to pay at a time of inflation in order to ensure that housing associations are appropriately funded for the work that they need to do. There is a difficult balance to strike, but I have talked to Kate Henderson and others in the housing association sector, and I believe that the way forward that we have found is one that will be considered to be fair, in admittedly tough circumstances.
The hon. Lady asked about a wider investigation into the governance of Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. I had the opportunity to talk briefly to the chief executive earlier this afternoon. In the course of that conversation, it became even more clear to me that there are systemic problems in the governance and leadership of that organisation. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and the two Members of Parliament covering the metropolitan borough to address that.
The hon. Lady also made a point about the campaigning work of not just local MPs, but of the Manchester Evening News. As I referenced briefly in my statement, I am grateful to the Manchester Evening News, which is an exemplar when it comes to a local newspaper that speaks for its communities and campaigns effectively.
The hon. Lady’s final point about safe and secure housing for all, including refugees, is one that I absolutely take on board. We do need to ensure that people fleeing persecution and being welcomed into the country know that this country is a safe home for them and that they have a safe home within this country. I would only say that it is our responsibility and our duty to ensure that every citizen of the United Kingdom believes that everyone in this House is on their side in ensuring that they have somewhere safe, decent and secure to live.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Roughly how many social housing homes are below standard, and what proportion of the stock is that?
Michael Gove
A significant proportion of social housing homes are below standard—we think significantly more than 10%—but the proportion of homes that are below standard in the private rented sector is even higher.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
There is no doubt that the death of Awaab was tragic, but it was also preventable and unforgivable. I endorse the exchange between the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), in which some very important points were raised. I have limited time today, Madam Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I can make a few points.
At the national level, the Secretary of State rightly says we need the new definition of decent homes. Does that include classifying mould as a category 1 hazard, for example, because that would be an important step in providing protection? Will he also guarantee this important matter? There is a debate about the funding of local authorities, but there needs to be specific recognition that if we are to prevent this kind of tragedy, we must have enforcement and we must have structures that have the resources to enforce, such as local authority housing ombudsmen.
At the local level, the Secretary of State made reference to Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. I have to say that I have very little faith in the senior management of that body. There were so many ways in which this tragedy could have been prevented, so it is unforgivable that it has happened. Exemplary fines will not necessarily do the trick, however, because this simply penalises those who pay rents and penalises the taxpayer. There needs to be some personal responsibility in this, and the capacity for those at a senior level to face the consequences either legally, or in any case of losing their job. I would welcome an investigation into Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, and I hope this can now be done, because there are serious issues. I really do think that the chief executive, and perhaps some of those on other executive bodies, need to question their own role and whether they should be there any longer.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for the points he makes. Again, I express my sympathy to his constituents who have had to deal with some of the defects that Rochdale Boroughwide Housing has exhibited for some years now, and I know that he has consistently questioned the service they have received.
On the first point about damp and mould, it is already the case under the legislation introduced by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck)—the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018—that damp and mould is a No. 1 concern when it comes to whether a house is fit for human habitation. However, the hon. Member is quite right to say that, when it comes to identifying a category 1 hazard, reviewing that in the context of the decent homes standard is something we do have to do. I think that, under any circumstance or under any standard, the conditions in which Awaab’s family were living were simply not decent and would have failed the decent homes standard, but he is quite right that we need to keep these under constant review.
The hon. Member is also right to stress that, when it comes to appropriate support for people in all types of tenure, we need to make sure that local authorities are appropriately resourced to ensure that they can be the champions of those whom they are elected to represent.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
When I think about this case I vacillate between profound sadness and white-hot anger. This is not an isolated incident. Just this week, I was sent photographs of a house in Middleton with its walls caked in black mould and rising damp. That is an RBH property, and my constituent sent me a copy of her doctor’s note saying that she and her children are now severely ill because of these conditions. RBH are modern-day slumlords. Can I encourage my right hon. Friend, and I thank him for all his engagement thus far, to take up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) to conduct a full root-and-branch investigation into the workings of RBH? Does he agree with me that, when the director is claiming £157,000 in earnings, he must bear full responsibility for what has happened?
Michael Gove
Again, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his work. I know that he has been extraordinarily diligent in following up the cases of poor housing that have been brought to his attention. He is absolutely right that the leadership of RBH has presided over a terrible situation in his constituency. Action does need to be taken. He is absolutely right that we need to make sure that all of the tools at our disposal are used to investigate what went on and to hold those responsible to account. He is also right to say that individuals who earn well in excess of what our Prime Minister earns and who have responsibility for 12,500 homes should take the consequences of those actions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the aims that the Secretary of State has set out in his statement? I think they will be supported across the House.
I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the Select Committee’s report, “The Regulation of Social Housing”, published in July—I gently remind him that the Department has not yet replied to it. In the report, we identified some social housing that was unfit for human habitation, and causing the sorts of health problems that tragically have been seen in this case. We identified problems with repair reporting, complaints handling, and a lack of proactive inspection of properties by housing providers and the social housing regulator. We put that in context and said
“some blame must attach to successive Governments for not investing enough in new homes, which has increased the sector’s reliance on outdated stock, and for not providing funding specifically for regeneration.”
Some of those are not individual repairs; there are failures of whole blocks and whole estates. I say to the Secretary of State: let us share the common objectives, and let us work together to get the money to ensure that those objectives can be realised.
Michael Gove
Of course, when the hon. Gentleman and his Committee published their report, I think I had just beforehand left office, and only relatively recently have I returned to office. But it is a powerful report, and the points he makes are fair and necessary. The concerns he raised about the state of repair and complaints handling have been articulated for many years, and the report brings very much to the front of mind the need to tackle those concerns urgently. His broader point about the need for investment in our housing stock, and our social housing stock overall, is very much a mission of my Department, not least in ensuring that Homes England, and others, can work with registered social landlords to ensure the regeneration of estates—including in Sheffield—that have been neglected for too long.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and strong response, and I join colleagues across the House in our heartbreak for Awaab and his family. Sadly, the conditions that have been brought to light are replicated across the country. Indeed, a good deal of my casework, from when I was elected in December 2019 right through to today, is about poor housing conditions. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will take action to improve housing quality for private as well as social tenants?
Michael Gove
Absolutely, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that issue. Although Guildford is an absolutely beautiful city, there are some parts that she represents where the state of housing, in both the social and private rented sectors, is simply not good enough. We have discussed that in private in the past, and she is right. We will be bringing forward measures to ensure that her constituents get the support they deserve.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s sincerity, but I suspect from my own caseload that this problem is far more widespread than has hitherto been acknowledged. What guarantee can he give today that there will be concerted action, and that we will not see a flurry of activity from landlords and housing associations, rushing round to properties, slapping on a bit of anti-mould paint, and leaving parents in the same predicament as Awaab’s parents, of worrying for their children’s future because nothing is really being done to address the problem?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman articulates a fair concern, and it is striking that Awaab’s parents were told that paint in itself would be an answer to the mould problem. In some circumstances anti-mould paint can help to alleviate the problem, but it does not tackle it at root. On the broader issue of whether we will see a flurry of performative activity rather than fundamental change, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why the new powers for the regulator are so important, and why it is my commitment to ensure that we review those powers, review the decent homes standard and, if for any reason there is backsliding, take further action.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making a statement so quickly after the tragic events that took place. Awaab’s death was preventable and a tragedy, but I am afraid that the advice given to his parents is the normal advice given up and down the country when people inspect damp and mould: “It’s your lifestyle, not the condition of the building.” Will my right hon. Friend look closely at appropriate amendments to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, and consider what we can do to strengthen it and ensure that this tragedy leads to a sea change, so that we do not see it repeated time and again up and down the country?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—few people in this House have done more to shine a light on poor housing conditions and introduce legislation to improve the conditions of tenants. He is absolutely right: the housing ombudsman made clear in its October 2021 report that damp and mould could never be considered a lifestyle issue. That is both an abdication of responsibility on the part of landlords and, as we have heard, sometimes a mask for prejudice, which we need to call out. He is also right that we need to look at our legislation to ensure that appropriate lessons are learned. I look forward to working with him and other colleagues to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose in every respect.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
We have a significant lack of social housing, and as we have heard so tragically today, where houses are available the conditions are often inadequate. One elderly couple in my constituency have been dealing with mould for over two years. What support will be given to local councils that want to do the right thing to address the availability and quality of social housing?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady is right to raise that point, and we will be working with local authorities, registered social landlords and the wider housing sector to ensure that we continue to provide resource for the upgrading of existing stock and the provision of new stock.
I should say—I did not respond fully to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) earlier—that one other important pressure on registered social landlords is ensuring that we deal with effective energy efficiency and insulation measures. We must make those resources available, even at a time of straitened circumstances.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I pass on my condolences to the family concerned.
The standard of housing in the social housing sector, run by both housing associations and local authorities, has been shown to suffer from ongoing issues across the UK, including inefficient repairs and maintenance contracts and services. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of whether the regulatory enforcement framework needs improving urgently, including the inspections regime? Does the ombudsman need to be given more resources, so that tenants can expect a full and quick resolution to their complaints?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned on these questions for some time. He is right: we must ensure that the ombudsman and regulator are appropriately resourced, and we will keep both under review. It may be that we need to provide additional resource to the ombudsman, given that we actively want to promote more tenants using that service in order to secure redress.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I join those paying tribute to the Manchester Evening News for its excellent reporting and the campaign it is starting on this matter. The Secretary of State has called this case “unacceptable”, but what is so tragic, as we are hearing across the House, is that the experience of Awaab’s family in having their concerns ignored is shared by so many across the country, including in my constituency. My office receives upwards of 40 cases a year from constituents who are worried sick about persistent mould and damp in their social housing. Many children and babies are living in those damp and mouldy homes, often for years, which affects their health badly. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that there is sufficient investment in enforcement, and sufficient legal help available, to hold housing providers to account?
Michael Gove
The consistent theme from Members across the House is the need to ensure that appropriate resources are there, and one commitment I give to the House is that I will seek to ensure that appropriate resource is in place for the ombudsman, registered social landlords and local authorities. The hon. Lady’s question gives me the opportunity to add that the housing ombudsman’s report, which I mentioned earlier, also contains examples of very good practice among the many excellent RSLs, because as well as focusing on failure, it is also important to look at where good practice exists and ensure that the resource is there to ensure that that becomes more widespread.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. It is shocking that a two-year-old child should lose his life from lung and heart failure due to mould and damp conditions in his flat. Unfortunately, we know that the default position from landlords has often been that that is about lifestyle. Will the Secretary of State send a clear message that that should no longer be the default position when such issues arise? It is clear that this is not just rogue landlords; this goes across the sector. Will he ensure that any measures he brings forward will address the issue across all sectors?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, this is a subject that we have discussed outside the House in the past. The existence of damp and mould is a persistent and avoidable issue. It is in no way due to the lifestyle of tenants. As the housing ombudsman’s report makes crystal clear, there should not be any sense of fatalism on the part of registered social landlords or others in dealing with the issue. It is avoidable, it can be dealt with, and it is urgent that we do so.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
According to the English housing survey, 839,000 homes across the country have damp problems, including 409,000 private rented properties and 198,000 social housing properties. However, across the House, we all know that the figures are far higher. For every constituent who contacts me in Vauxhall or any other Member of the House, there are so many other constituents suffering in silence, not knowing who to turn to, living in poor conditions that are affecting their health. I welcome the Secretary of State saying that resources will be available, but the sad truth is that cuts over the last 12 years to our local councils have borne human consequences. This boy’s sad death should not have happened. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Government have an urgent duty to do better so that more tragedies such as this do not happen?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who on the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and elsewhere has been a clear and consistent voice calling for the better treatment of tenants in a variety of different tenures. The cases that she has brought to my attention and others’ make a compelling case for change. She is right that we in government must ensure that we provide an appropriate level of resource. I do believe that ensuring that more people are aware of how to contact the ombudsman and ensuring that the regulator has additional teeth will contribute to change. But, of course, all of us need to ensure that we keep the situation under review. Her question gives me the opportunity again to praise the work of Dan Hewitt of ITN and, of course, Kwajo Tweneboa, the housing campaigner, who have worked with her to highlight the problems that we both want to see resolved.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his compassionate and thorough statement. Does he agree that if we are to prevent another death such as Awaab’s and ensure that people have the right to decent, damp-free homes, the responsibility must stop with the chief executives of housing providers? Does he also agree that the only way in which they will remain accountable and responsible for the housing they provide is by ensuring that they can be fined or even face legal cases and that, in acute cases such as this, corporate manslaughter charges may be considered?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, in her previous role as leader of an outstanding local authority, did an enormous amount to champion the rights of tenants. I cannot comment further than I have on this case, but, yes, she is right that all of us have to take responsibility for improving the situation.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This is an awfully tragic case, but I think we all agree that it is not an isolated one. Numerous constituents of all tenures—council, housing association and private rented—have been told that they have mould in their property because of lifestyle reasons. Will the Secretary of State commit to a timetable to bring forward the work in the Green Paper on the private rented sector and tell us the timescale for it? In that work, will there be a basic standard for ventilation? One of the big problems is that there is no national standard for what we expect of ventilation in properties, and that is causing much of the condensation problem.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of ventilation, which was a particular factor that the coroner raised in this tragic case. More broadly, his point about the need to expedite legislation to improve conditions in the private rented sector is right, and we will make an announcement shortly about the timetable for legislation.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments, his statement and the compassion with which he is dealing with this very sad case. All the steps being taken on social housing providers and, where appropriate, councils can only be a good thing as a reminder to us all. What does my right hon. Friend think could be done on private rented accommodation? In my constituency quite a large number of people rent from private providers, and they may not be at all aware of what their rights are and what the standards should be.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is important to stress that the overwhelming majority of landlords in the private rented sector provide a high-quality service, care for their tenants and want their properties to be kept up to the highest standards. However, a small minority, which often includes individuals or organisations based overseas who own property here, neglect the appropriate standards to which the property should be kept. The legislation that we will bring forward in due course will help to tackle those abuses.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and send my deepest condolences to Awaab’s loved ones. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that an overall chronic shortage of social housing is contributing to the problem of tenants living in dangerous or unsuitable conditions because there are no other options available? A less serious case, but an example from my constituency, is that of a family of six living in a two-bedroom property, whose son is falling behind at school because he cannot sleep at night. Will the Secretary of State commit to allowing councils and housing associations to keep 100% of the proceeds of homes sold under the right to buy scheme so that, at the very least, they can hope to maintain their current level of social housing stock?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a fair point about ensuring that we do everything possible to support local authorities to increase social housing stock. Of course, we do need to keep that under review and, again, we will be saying more about that in due course.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is no longer in his place, spoke for all of us when he described how our constituents are often told that they are somehow to blame for damp, condensation and mould. I very much welcome the clear statement the Secretary of State just made that that will no longer be acceptable from any landlord. Given that he has said that, we can tell our tenants that from today. Will he consider putting a time limit on the period in which the housing provider must fix a problem from when it is first raised? I do believe that that would concentrate the mind. In many cases—we will all be familiar with this—the problem goes back and forth and still does not get sorted out.
Michael Gove
I very much take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s point. One thing that I will look at and discuss with the regulator and the ombudsman is how we can ensure that there is a best practice timescale for responses to complaints so that we do not have the back and forth that he described.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the family first raised the issue a year before their little boy died. That, in my view, points to the extreme culpability of the Rochdale Boroughwide housing association. It is my view not that its head should be fined but that, if he had any conscience, he would resign. Tens of thousands of people up and down the country are in properties that are riddled with damp and mould. I have the issue myself in Hackney, and one estate, Evelyn Court, is campaigning to try to get its landlord to do something about it. It is difficult to imagine anything sadder than watching your child literally cough to death because people who were supposed to act did not. The family are of the opinion that they were treated in this way because they were migrants and because they were black. We all know all sorts of tenants have this issue, but does the Secretary of State agree that some of us believe these tenants were treated like this because they were black?
Michael Gove
I am really grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising that question and for the way in which she raised it. It does seem to me, on the basis of the facts as we know them, that this family were victims of prejudice, whether unwitting or otherwise. There are other examples, and there have been other examples, of individuals in both the private rented sector and the social rented sector who have been treated with significantly less respect than they deserve because of attitudes that are rooted in prejudice. We all have a responsibility across this House to call that out when it occurs and to ensure that people, whatever their background, are treated with the dignity they deserve as human beings.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Let this be the point where no one is ever told again, “Open your windows and the problem will be solved.” May I caution the Secretary of State against relying solely on the housing ombudsman as the best mechanism for our constituents to seek redress? RSLs such as Clarion and London and Quadrant have, when doing repairs, left residents in hotels miles away from where they live. Residents are getting heavily into debt and languishing because the RSLs are not doing the repairs properly. Residents do not have the weeks and months it takes to secure redress. The companies will use their insurance policies to cover the cost of doing the repairs on those properties. Will he give tenants a right to access that money, so we can concentrate the minds of those social landlords to treat those people with the dignity they deserve?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is certainly the case that the two RSLs she mentions have failed tenants in the past and she is right to call that out. Her broader point on whether we can give tenants the additional rights she mentions is an interesting one. I commit to working with her to see what more can be done.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on this awful tragedy and for the way he made it. I hope this will lead to a step change in attitudes and policy towards the housing needs of people across the whole country. I totally agree with him when he says that everyone should have a decent, safe, secure, dry, warm place to live in—absolutely right. It is not happening in my constituency, or in many others, where I come across people living in overcrowded accommodation with damp and all the other issues that go with it. In the now very large private rented sector, tenants are often afraid to complain—they fear eviction if they complain—they have no certainty of a long-term residence. We need tough legislation on the private rented sector, we need more council housing built and we need an attitude from public health inspectors that goes down like a tonne of bricks on any landlord, whoever they are, who fails in their duties to maintain a safe, dry, warm and clean environment.
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman and I have disagreed on many things in this House, but I have to say that I agree with every single word he just said.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Our thoughts are absolutely with the family. May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to social housing providers? In my constituency, one has raised concerns about the 14% rise in maintenance costs in the last year, a cost that has not been recognised in the Government’s consultation on rent caps. I think he might have alluded to some future compromise, but could he give us some assurance that the Government will consider the rise in maintenance costs at this time when they are looking at future rents?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. We have a number of very different things that are operating in tension and that we need to review. First, we need to ensure, at a time of rising prices everywhere, that tenants in social housing are not faced with increases in rents that further add to the difficulties they face. At the same time, however, registered social landlords and housing associations need money to provide new stock, to pay for repairs when materials are costing more, and to undertake some of the work on insulation and energy efficiency alluded to earlier, as well as, in some cases, the building safety work required in the wake of Grenfell. I appreciate the pressures under which they are operating and my commitment is to work with them constructively to try to ensure we can support them.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Like every other Member here, I get weekly concerns from constituents about mould in properties. Sometimes we are able to help them and we get there. It takes a long time and unfortunately problems often come back. Sometimes people come to see me who I helped when I was a councillor almost a decade ago and the problems have re-emerged, so there is something far deeper going on here—it is not just about trying to put these things right. The issue is across the whole sector. Every housing association in my constituency has these problems. There are issues of capacity, funding and accountability. I do not think these associations are accountable to the communities they represent. Can the Secretary of State say something about what he can do about that?
Michael Gove
The hon. Member raises at least three very important questions. First, in fairness to everyone, many RSLs have inherited housing stock—particularly that built in the ’60s and ’70s—that was simply not fit for purpose when it was constructed and is well beyond its natural life span as anything approaching decent accommodation. He is absolutely right that they have inherited significant problems. Secondly, we need to make sure that housing associations and RSLs are more accountable generally. One thing that our reforms seek to do is to ensure that the tenant voice is louder and more clearly heard. However, there can be an open debate into the future about how we improve stock overall and ensure better democratic accountability.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The death of Awaab Ishak was a tragedy that shone a light on the issues in the sector. A family in my constituency contacted me as they had been living in temporary accommodation for more than four years. The property was absolutely full of mould; when it was inspected, it was so bad that there were mushrooms growing in the bathroom. It was ridiculous. The Government’s consultation on the decent homes standard has closed. Will the Secretary of State commit to bringing in new legally enforceable standards to ensure that everyone has a decent place to live? How will that be monitored?
Michael Gove
I know that the hon. Lady, with her background as an NHS professional, will have come across the consequences of poor housing throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service. She is right: we need to make sure that there is effective monitoring of improvements by RSLs. That is what the new regulator is supposed to ensure and achieve. If, for any reason, we need to provide it with more teeth or do more, I look forward to working with her in that regard.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Last month, a 52-year-old gentleman contacted me, crying down the phone. He said that, in his previous accommodation, he had developed breathing problems due to the damp, rot and mould in that home, that there was no heating in his present home and that he was worried and scared. What will the Secretary of State’s Department do to invest in social housing, enforce capacity and provide legal aid to help to end this scandal once and for all?
Michael Gove
I am very sorry to hear about that individual case. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady let me and my office know about that and the landlord responsible, and we will seek to follow it up. On her broader point, I hope that the regulator and the ombudsman together can help to ensure that individuals like her constituent have their concerns addressed. However, if more needs to be done, my Department will do what we can to review that.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
When the Government backed my Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, I knew that the law would not be enough. That will prove to be the case again. We have heard about enforcement against social landlords and against private landlords—who are twice as bad—as well as commissioned temporary accommodation and exempt accommodation, which is often the worst. We know that we need more enforcement capacity. Will the Minister and the Government commission a study of local authorities’ enforcement capacity—particularly the use of environmental health officers—to enable councils to identify the problems in accommodation? Will he also commission a study of the use of the legal powers already available to local authorities, which varies so much between providers? Will that inform the urgent introduction of further legislation to protect renters?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The Bill that she introduced became an Act in 2018, and it is landmark legislation. She is right to say, as she warned at the time, that legislation on its own is not enough and enforcement is required. The number of people who have used her legislation for the purpose for which it was intended has been fewer than any of us would have wanted, given the scale of the problem. I commit to looking at the recommendations that she just made to see whether that is genuinely the best way, and I hope that we can come to an appropriate conclusion to ensure that appropriate enforcement is in place.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Like many hon. Members, I find that by far the biggest issue that constituents raise with me is housing, including the appalling standards that we have all seen in social housing and, critically, in the private rented sector. I would like to press the Secretary of State a bit more on what his plans are for the private rented sector. Leicester City Council, like many councils, is introducing a licensing scheme in parts of the city to crack down on rogue landlords and improve standards. We know what the problems are: we have to find the landlords in the first place, and if we can find them, we do not have the powers we need to make changes. Promises are given, but it all takes too long. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, we need timescales. May I press the Secretary of State on what he will do on those issues specifically: finding the landlords, having the right powers and implementing those powers swiftly?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady raises a number of important issues. First, local authorities such as Leicester can use selective licensing, which can be a powerful tool. Local authority leaders were recently in front of the Select Committee to discuss the appropriateness of using selective licensing; some regard it as a useful tool and others do not, but I believe it has an important role to play.
The hon. Lady’s second point is about tracking down the ultimate owner, which is a big problem. On coming into the Department, I was surprised by the way in which ultimate owners of property hide behind myriad opaque structures. Through the Land Registry and elsewhere, we need to find means of determining the ultimate beneficial owners of property so that we can take appropriate enforcement action. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on the issue.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
The Government spend more on housing benefit and its equivalents than on policing and transport combined. How much of that £20 billion of public money is paying for substandard, mould-ridden private rented accommodation? Will the Secretary of State accept the invitation from the housing ombudsman to extend its remit to the private rented sector?
Michael Gove
We know that there are at least 2.3 million homes that fail the decent homes standard, broadly. We know that a higher proportion of homes fail it in the private rented sector than in the social rented sector. I am always open to all proposals that can ensure that tenants live in decent homes, irrespective of tenure. I will consider that proposal.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and others have mentioned supported exempt accommodation, and on Friday the House will debate the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I am afraid that I am no stranger to deaths because of poor housing. In Birmingham, to the best of my knowledge, there have been three or four deaths—some violent, some because of the terrible conditions for people living in dreadful and unregulated supported exempt accommodation. Will the Secretary of State agree to put some regulation in place? Will he follow every recommendation of the Select Committee’s report on the matter? The taxpayer is currently spending billions, but people are being put in danger.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point; I am grateful for her support for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and his legislation. There is a big problem in supported housing. As she knows, additional funds are provided to landlords to ensure that they provide the additional support required by individuals who are living with a variety of challenges. There is a subset of landlords who pocket the cash in those circumstances and then leave vulnerable individuals in conditions that put them at risk and lead to problems for their neighbours. We need to deal with this scam; legislation is part of that, although not all of it. I look forward to working with her to tackle it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
While we are waiting for the improvements that the Secretary of State has promised in the regulation and resourcing of social landlords, many tenants are relying on legal aid solicitors and law centres to pursue disrepair claims. Thanks to legal aid cuts, they are already a vanishing part of the legal system, but from next year, housing claims will be subject to fixed recoverable costs, which will make it unaffordable for small firms and not-for-profits to take on housing cases. Will the Secretary of State talk to his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about how representation can be maintained for victims of the neglect, incompetence and discrimination so tragically highlighted in Awaab’s case?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. The housing and planning Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), is a former Justice Minister; I know that she and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), appreciate the importance of the issue. I hope that we will be able to make progress.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This must be a moment of epiphany. The scale of the problem—damp, cold, overcrowded housing or no housing at all for my constituents and constituents across the country— needs to be addressed by an action plan from every housing provider with a timeline for when the necessary reparation will be made, but there also needs to be a deep dive into the skills available to perform this reparation, because that too is a challenge.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady has made an important point, which gives me the opportunity to say two things. First, we do need professionalism within the sector overall, and that is one of the matters that will be considered in the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. Secondly, as the hon. Lady rightly said and as so many other Members have pointed out, this individual tragedy is reflective of a broader set of problems in the housing sector. Those problems, as we have discussed, have been exacerbated by the nature of the housing stock that we have in this country—its age and its condition—but that is no excuse for not taking action.
I think—and I hope this reflects the mood of the House—that we have reached a point at which we all recognise that, thanks to this tragedy and thanks to the campaigning of Members on both sides of the House, as well as the campaigning of individuals outside such as Kwajo Tweneboa, Daniel Hewitt and Vicky Spratt, we now know that we need to tackle these questions with a greater degree of urgency than ever before.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I send my deepest condolences to Awaab’s family. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who has been campaigning on the issue of decent homes for many years and is a powerful voice for his constituents.
I want to raise an issue raised earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Awaab’s family believe that racism played a significant part in the way they were treated and the way their complaint was handled. May I ask the Secretary of State whether he is taking that point seriously, and whether he will commit himself to an investigation?
Michael Gove
As I mentioned briefly earlier, it does seem to me on the basis of the facts as they stand—and this has certainly been articulated very effectively by Awaab’s family’s solicitor—that the family were on the receiving end of prejudice. Whether it was unwitting or not, I cannot judge. Linked to that, as the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington mentioned, there is a significant problem with people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds not being treated, as they should be, with respect, and we do need to take that issue seriously. I am reassured that those who lead the social housing sector completely understand the need for the highest professional standards in this area.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for responding to questions for over an hour.
Bills Presented
Planning Application Fees Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Daisy Cooper, supported by Helen Morgan, presented a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable local authorities [in England] to determine the fees to be paid in respect of applications and deemed applications for planning permission; to require local authorities to set the scale of fees with a view to ensuring that the costs of determining applications can be wholly funded by application fees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 193).
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) (Parliamentary Approval) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Green presented a Bill to provide for the implementation of the United Kingdom’s free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand to be subject to approval by resolution by each House of Parliament; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 194).
Points of Order
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on ensuring that the Home Office provides a high-quality and timely service to MPs.
Since 1 January my office has been approached for help with more than 260 cases of asylum and immigration, all requiring updates from the Home Office. My office established a system of monthly calls with the Home Office, which in fact has been running at about every six weeks. Moreover, four of the 10 consultations scheduled this year have been cancelled. Yesterday I was informed that today’s call had been cancelled because of staff members being “out of office”. No revised date was offered, and I was advised that the next call would take place as agreed on 21 December. That is five weeks from now, and it means that there will have been three months between consultations.
These calls are crucial, as constituents find the prolonged waits distressing. When we do receive updates, they are often of a very poor quality, stating only that the claim is in progress and there is no timeframe for a decision, or that people will be contacted in due course. The members of the Hull Seahawks ice hockey club are currently waiting for an update on a visa for one of their players; they have been waiting for more than two months, and are now halfway through the season without a much-needed player. That is one of the cases that my office was going to raise with the Home Office in the call today.
MPs have been offered an unacceptably poor service by the Home Office, and I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you can use your power and influence to put pressure on the Prime Minister to improve it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and also for giving me notice of it. She raises a serious issue that affects how all of us can assist our constituents, and the service she describes from the Home Office is not acceptable. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard her comments and I expect them to be conveyed to the Home Office. I expect the Home Office to address the issues that she has raised urgently, and if improvements are not made, I know that the Speaker will be sympathetic to attempts by the hon. Lady to pursue the matter, perhaps in an Adjournment debate or through an urgent question.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are about to debate the National Security Bill. In the Second Reading debate, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), asked the then Minister, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for a commitment that there would be a Committee of the whole House to discuss a number of important matters in the Bill. The Minister responded by saying:
“I hear the request from my right hon. Friend…I can assure him that I have heard colleagues—him and others—on the importance of having time for scrutiny.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 639.]
Since then, 130 or so amendments and new clauses have been tabled in the last week, more than half from the Government, and we have 100 or so to debate today. There will be barely two hours before we are required to vote, and then presumably a near non- existent Third Reading. May I ask whether you have had any information from the Leader of the House about the intention of the Government to find more time to debate this matter, or indeed to have the important parts of this Bill debated fully on the Floor of the House?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I raise one specific issue that is directly linked with this? I discovered one day ago—overnight, almost—that the Government had tabled amendment 60, which will add certain offences to the list of offences that are not eligible for statutory defence for victims of modern-day slavery. Whether or not this amendment improves the Bill, the truth is that we have had no chance to scrutinise it at all, and it will be done today and gone. My concern is that this is a delicate area, often dealing with people who have very great problems, and I simply want to ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it is feasible for us to raise a complaint that this is becoming an abuse of the House.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In addition, it is notable that a large chunk of the Bill has been added. It is an important chunk of the Bill, which I know that the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), supported because he was on the Foreign Affairs Committee when we called for the registration of foreign agents. That has now been put in the Bill, but it was added only in Committee and not given much time to be debated there. We have not had a full opportunity to analyse the clauses that have been added. We have significant numbers of Government amendments today and we are not even going to have two hours in which to debate them. Surely it would be possible for the Minister to stand up now and say, “This is national security and it is a matter that we need to get right. We cannot just expect another place to consider these matters. We are going to do our job of scrutiny properly and we will allow additional time to debate them on another day.”
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not making any comment about the current Minister, but during the Committee stage, we had four separate Ministers handling the Bill. This made scrutiny very difficult because Ministers were coming and going so fast that they could not have even read the Bill between when they arrived and when they left. That has been a cause of significant frustration for members of the Committee, and now to have only two hours makes a mockery of the idea that we are scrutinising this important legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I would like to thank all four hon. Members for their points of order. They will know that the Chair has limited powers in this regard, but I have every sympathy with the points of order that have just been raised. Perhaps those on the Treasury Bench will have heard this and will pass it on to the Leader of the House. Also, when we get on to the Bill, maybe the Minister himself will comment, as he is the appropriate person to do so. I am extremely grateful for all four points of order.
Teenagers (Safety and Wellbeing)
Wednesday 16th November 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Teenagers (Safety and Wellbeing) Bill 2022-23 View all Teenagers (Safety and Wellbeing) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the safety and wellbeing of teenagers; to make provision to prevent crime against teenagers; and for connected purposes.
There is nothing more important than ensuring that our young people have the best opportunities to thrive and that all are able to access such opportunities. Every instance where we fail to do this, we let those young people down and often start a spiral of wasted potential and greater societal need down the road.
Recent reports warn that social care, education, family support and children’s mental health services are not working for thousands of vulnerable teenagers, diminishing their life chances, putting some teenagers at risk of grooming, exploitation and serious violence, and costing taxpayers billions. For the young people we fail the most, the implications are stark.
Government statistics reveal that, in 2021-22, more than 16,000 cases of child sexual exploitation were identified in social care assessments, as were 11,600 cases involving gangs and more than 10,000 cases of child criminal exploitation. Sadly, these numbers are likely to be the tip of the iceberg, because those involved in gang activity and criminal exploitation are disproportionately young, vulnerable and, crucially, unknown to services. This leads to estimates that as many as 200,000 children in England aged 11 to 17 could be vulnerable to serious violence.
Let us be clear that the blame for this lies at the feet of those cowards who seek to exploit children for their own individual gain, but the responsibility for tackling and preventing it is with us in this place, with our devolved Assemblies, with our elected Mayors and combined authorities and with our town halls. We must collectively find the answer.
There is significant concern that the pressures on overstretched services and on the public purse due to a lack of early intervention and a combination of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis are increasing the risks to teenagers. It has been reported that many of these problems have become more extreme since the pandemic, including the ages of those running gangs becoming even younger. This creates a great challenge for the system, one mirrored in slavery cases more broadly, where the boundary between the exploiter and the exploited is blurred and, in many cases, exists in the same person.
We must recognise that what we are talking about in many cases is slavery. The Government were right to introduce anti-slavery legislation, but we must make sure it keeps pace with the challenges we face. According to the Children’s Society, 22,000 children have entered the national referral mechanism since the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was introduced. That is a staggering scale, but it has led to just 186 prosecutions where children were the victims, and only half of those led to a conviction.
This is part of an overwhelming body of evidence, including the final report of the Commission on Young Lives, published earlier this month and from which I drew earlier in my speech. Just last Friday, the National Audit Office added the stark findings that the number of nine to 17-year-olds in care has jumped by more than a quarter since 2014, that there has been a 142% increase in referrals to secondary mental health services over the last five years and that 81% of children who are cautioned or sentenced have been persistently absent from school. We know what creates vulnerability but, at the moment, we are not doing enough to tackle that vulnerability.
The impact on young people is not only borne out by the crime statistics. It also affects how safe our young people feel, and not feeling safe has an impact on them and the decisions they make. Girlguiding does the largest survey of girls and young women, and the most recent iteration of its annual girls’ attitudes survey found that more than half of 11 to 21-year-old girls and young women do not feel safe when they are outside on their own, that nearly one in five does not feel safe at school, and that more than a quarter do not feel safe online.
The Government-funded organisation that identifies what works in tackling violence, the Youth Endowment Fund, published its first annual report on children, violence and vulnerability this week, and it showed that 39% of 13 to 17-year-olds have been a victim or a witness of violence, increasing to 46% of those in receipt of free school meals and to 60% of those with a social worker. We are failing our young people if we allow such a situation to persist unchecked. Behind each of those statistics is a young person, their family, their hopes and dreams, and a huge societal failing.
Unfortunately, the Government’s response on the safety and wellbeing of teenagers is often unfocused and lacks co-ordination. No Department has a lead responsibility for promoting the safety and wellbeing of teenagers, and although several Departments have welcome funded programmes of activity that relate to teenagers, they are not co-ordinated and do not tackle the needs of vulnerable teenagers in a holistic and systemic way. This lack of focus and co-ordination nationally is reflected locally, with many teenagers falling through the gaps between school, children’s services, the NHS and the police. We know that there is a paucity of preventive help in most communities, meaning that teenagers will often need to fall into crisis before they can access help.
So the system is not working as it ought to, it needs fixing and this Bill is an attempt to kick-start that process. A Bill such as this could do that in four areas: by identifying a lead Department for vulnerable teenagers with clear accountability; by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the safety of teenagers across government; by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent crime against teenagers; and by placing a duty to promote wellbeing. The Bill would therefore ensure that there is clear responsibility and accountability in government for the welfare, safety and wellbeing of teenagers, rather than the unco-ordinated approach that has characterised the response so far. This need for national-level strategic intervention is called for by the National Audit Office and the Children’s Society. It really ought to be a fundamental requirement of government, but it currently is not. So let us put that right and ensure that, in future, essential action is being taken.
I am pleased to say that this Bill has the support of the former Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield. Anne is a relentless campaigner for young people and I know she is widely respected across this House. She is chairing the Commission on Young Lives, which is seeking to find solutions for our system to protect and support young people at risk of violence, exploitation and crime, and it has been a privilege to work with her closely on this. I urge the Government to take heed of the provisions in this Bill and the spirit in which I raise them today. When the system is not working, we must fix it and deliver better outcomes for our young people. I believe we can achieve that with this Bill and finally bring to our public policy a clear, laser-like focus on the safety of teenagers and the prevention of crime against them.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alex Norris, Karen Bradley, Ms Lyn Brown, Vicky Foxcroft, Sarah Owen, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Jim Shannon, Cat Smith and Nadia Whittome present the Bill.
Alex Norris accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 192).
National Security Bill
Wednesday 16th November 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 16 November 2022 - large print - (16 Nov 2022)
17:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 56 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 275 / Noes: 209 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
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 1—Offence of failing to declare participation in arrangement required to be registered.—
“(1) A person who carries out an activity, or arranges for an activity to be carried out, in the United Kingdom pursuant to—
(a) a foreign activity arrangement required to be registered under section 61(1), or
(b) a foreign influence arrangement required to be registered under section 64(1)
must declare that they are party to the arrangement, when making a communication to those in section 65(2)(a)(i) to (vi).
(2) A person who breaches the requirement in subsection (1) commits an offence.”
This new clause makes it an offence for a person to engage in activity pursuant to a foreign activity or foreign influence arrangement which is required to be registered, if the person does not declare that they are party to the arrangement when communicating with those in section 65(2)(a)(i) to (vi).
New clause 2—ffence of carrying out activities under a foreign activity arrangements: Disqualification from Parliament—
“(1) A person who is a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords commits an offence if—
(a) the person carries out an activity, or arranges for an activity to be carried out, in the United Kingdom pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement, and
(b) the persons knows, or ought reasonably to know, that they are acting under the direction of a specified person.
(2) A person who is found guilty of an offence under subsection (1), and is a Member of the House of Commons, is disqualified from membership of the House of Commons.
(3) A person who is found guilty of an offence under subsection (1), and is a Member of the House of Lords, is disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords, and sitting or voting in a committee of the House of Lords or a joint committee of both Houses.
(4) In this section, “foreign activity arrangement” has the same meaning as in section 61(2).”
This new clause would automatically disbar Members of the House of Commons and Lords who are found guilty of engaging in an activity pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement, where the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that they are acting under the direction of a specified person.
New clause 3—Reviews of Parts 1, 4 and 5—
‘(1) The operation of Parts 1, 4 and 5 of this Act must be reviewed by a person, or people, appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The operation of Part 4 must be reviewed by the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006.
(3) The operation of Parts 1 and 5 must be reviewed by either—
(a) the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006, or
(b) a different person appointed by the Secretary of State.
(4) Reviews under this section must be carried out in respect of—
(a) the 12-month period beginning with the day on which any section in this Part comes into force, and
(b) each subsequent 12-month period.
(5) Each review under subsection (1) must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the period to which it relates.
(6) The person or people mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review carried out under subsection (1) as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.
(7) On receiving a report under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.
(8) Section 36(6) of the Terrorism Act 2006 shall be read such that the “expenses” and “allowances” mentioned therein may include the discharge by the person or people of their functions under this section.’
New clause 4—Reporting on disinformation originating from foreign powers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person or body to review the extent of disinformation originating from foreign powers which presents a threat, or potential threat, to national security.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the extent of foreign interference in elections.
(3) A review under subsection (1) may include—
(a) examining the number and scale of offences committed, and estimating the number and scale of instances where an offence is suspected to have been committed, under—
(i) section 13, where Condition C is met, and
(ii) section 14,
and,
(b) any other matters the person or body considers relevant to the matters mentioned in subsections (1) and (2).
(4) The person or body appointed under subsection (1) may be the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, or another person or body the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) A review must be carried out under this section in respect of—
(a) the 12-month period beginning with the day on which section 13 comes into force, and
(b) each subsequent 12-month period.
(6) Each review under this section must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the period to which it relates.
(7) The person or body must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review carried out under this section as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.
(8) On receiving a report under subsection (7), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.
(9) The Secretary of State may pay to the person or body—
(a) expenses incurred in carrying out the functions of the reviewer under this section, and
(b) such allowances as the Secretary of State determines, except where financial provision is already made to the person or body for the discharge of the person or body’s functions, of which this section may form part.”
New clause 5—Proceedings relating to safety or interests of the United Kingdom—
“(1) This section applies where a court is considering proceedings under Part 1 of this Act, where the proceedings involve the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
(2) In proceedings to which this section applies, the court must take account of how the interests of the Secretary of State or of the Government of the United Kingdom may differ from the interests of the United Kingdom, in order to satisfy itself that the interests of the United Kingdom have been appropriately identified and considered.”
New clause 6—Ministerial conduct—
“(1) This section applies in relation to any Minister of the Crown who engages with, or intends to engage with, or ought reasonably to know that they are about to engage with, a person who is a part of a foreign intelligence service.
(2) A Minister of the Crown may only engage with such a person if either of the following conditions are met—
(a) a senior civil servant is formally present at or party to the engagement, and a formal record of the engagement has been made by the senior civil servant; or
(b) a senior civil servant is not formally present at or party to the engagement, and a formal record of the engagement has not been made by a senior civil servant, but the written consent of the Prime Minister has been sought by the Minister of the Crown, and has been granted and formally recorded in writing.
(3) In this section “engagement” includes meeting in person or via electronic means, and corresponding in writing or via electronic means.”
New clause 7—Requirement to inform public of prohibited places—
“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision so as to ensure that the public are given sufficient notice—
(a) that a location is a prohibited place within the meaning of section 7;
(b) of the circumstances in which an offence may be committed under sections 4 to 6 in respect of that prohibited place.”
This new clause would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the public to be given notice of prohibited places and the conduct which would amount to a criminal offence in relation to them.
New clause 11—Home Office review of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa scheme—
“Within two weeks of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish any findings of the Home Office review of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa scheme which relate to foreign influence activity.”
New clause 12—Report on actions taken in response to the ISC report on Russia—
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the effect of the action taken by the Government in response to the recommendations of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament on Russia (HC 632 of Session 2019–21).”
New clause 13—Ministerial appointments: official advice—
“(1) The Cabinet Secretary must publish a memorandum in respect of any ministerial appointments made by the Prime Minister, where advice or concerns were communicated to the Prime Minister by civil servants that the appointment may be counter to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
(2) A memorandum under this section must set out that advice or concerns were communicated to the Prime Minister by civil servants, and in respect of which ministerial appointments.
(3) A memorandum under this section may not include details of the advice or concerns, where the Cabinet Secretary considers that inclusion of those details may be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.”
New clause 14—Report requirement: Protecting democratic institutions and processes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report, as soon as practicable after the end of—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) every subsequent 12-month period,
on his assessment of the impact sections 13 and 14 of this Act have had on protecting the integrity of the UK’s democratic processes.
(2) In this section “democratic processes” includes local democracy.”
Amendment 116, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “safety or” insert “critical”.
This amendment seeks to clarify the tests to be met before the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information is committed.
Amendment 17, page 1, line 15, after “article” insert “with a Government Security Classification of Secret or Top Secret”.
This amendment would confine the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information to information that has been classified as secret or top secret (rather than to all information access to which is restricted in any way).
Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert “(ca) the person’s conduct is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and”.
This amendment would narrow the scope of the offence of obtaining or disclosing trade secrets so that it applies only to trade secrets that would prejudice the safety or interests of the UK.
Amendment 117, page 3, line 1 , after “national” insert “, a UK resident, or a person in the employment of a UK person as defined in paragraphs (b) or (c)”.
Government amendments 40 to 42.
Amendment 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, after “Kingdom” insert “which are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
This amendment would narrow the scope of the offence of assisting a foreign intelligence service in respect of activities within the UK so that it applies only to assistance that would prejudice the safety or interests of the UK (rather than to assistance of any kind).
Government amendment 43.
Amendment 119, page 4, line 7, at end insert—
“(aa) with the knowledge and consent of the UK security and intelligence services,”.
This amendment would clarify that activities undertaken with the knowledge and consent of the UK security and intelligence services would not constitute a criminal offence under this clause alone.
Amendment 120, in clause 4, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
“(7) No offence is committed under (1) if the conduct is for the purposes of protest, unless the conduct is prejudicial to the safety of the United Kingdom.”.
This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which access to a prohibited place for the purposes of protest would amount to an offence under this clause.
Amendment 20, in clause 5, page 5, line 25, at end insert—
“(ba) the conduct is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom,”.
This amendment would confine the offence of unauthorised entry etc to a prohibited place so that it applies only to entry etc that is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK.
Amendment 133, page 5, line 33, leave out “includes” and insert “may, depending on the circumstances, include”.
This amendment would mean taking a photograph or other recording of a prohibited place was not automatically a criminal offence of inspecting that place, but would depend on the circumstances.
Amendment 21, in clause 6, page 6, line 17, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would remove the power of the police to order a person to leave an area “adjacent to” a prohibited place.
Amendment 22, page 6, line 28, after “(2)” insert “, (a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 23.
Amendment 23, page 6, line 30, after “Kingdom” insert “, and (b) without prior authorisation by an officer of at least the rank of Inspector, unless obtaining that authorisation is not reasonably practicable”.
This amendment would impose a requirement that a police officer obtains authorisation from a more senior officer before exercising powers under clause 6.
Amendment 24, page 6, line 32 at end insert “which was necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom and proportionate to that aim.”
This amendment would narrow the offence of failing to comply with an order made by a police constable in relation to a prohibited place so that it applies only to an order that was necessary and proportionate to protecting the safety or interests of the UK.
Amendment 25, in clause 7, page 6, line 37, after “means” insert “a place, entry to which could pose a risk to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and which is”
This amendment would narrow the definition of prohibited place so that it applies only to locations relevant to the safety and interests of the United Kingdom (rather than any Ministry of Defence land).
Government amendments 44 and 45.
Amendment 121, in clause 8, page 8, line 21, leave out “or interests”.
This amendment would restrict the power to designate additional prohibited places by regulation to where it was necessary to protect the safety of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 10, line 8, leave out paragraph (c).
Government amendments 46 and 47.
Amendment 14, page 20, line 35, leave out clause 27
Government amendments 48 and 49.
Amendment 124, in clause 28, page 21, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) However, the conduct in question, or a course of conduct of which it forms part, is not to be treated as carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power if financial or other assistance of a foreign power under (2)(c) is provided otherwise than specifically for the conduct or course of conduct.”
This amendment ensures that organisations that receive funding from foreign powers are not guilty of offences under this act if that funding was not for the conduct or course of conduct that would otherwise amount to the offence.
Amendment 30, in clause 30, page 22, line 40, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would narrow the definition of foreign power threat activity to remove giving support and assistance (including that unrelated to espionage activity) to a person known or believed to be involved in offences under the Bill (but would retain conduct which facilitates or is intended to facilitate such offending).
Government amendment 50.
Amendment 118, in clause 31, page 23, line 25, at end insert—
““critical interests of the United Kingdom” include security and intelligence, defence, international relations, law and order, public health and economic interests;”.
This amendment seeks to clarify the tests to be met before the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information is committed.
Amendment 125, in clause 37, page 26, line 25, leave out “reasonably believes” and insert “believes on the balance of probabilities”.
This amendment would apply the usual civil standard of proof in relation to decision to impose Prevention and Investigation Measures.
Amendment 126, in clause 38, page 27, line 35, leave out “four” and insert “two”.
This amendment would mean the Secretary of State could seek to extend a part 2 notice on two occasions rather than four.
Amendment 31, in clause 43, page 30, line 21, leave out from beginning to “before” in line 22 and insert “The chief officer of the appropriate police force must confirm to the Secretary of State that the condition in subsection (2) is satisfied before”.
This amendment, together with amendments 16 to 18, would require the Secretary of State to receive confirmation from the police that prosecution is not realistic before imposing a PIM, rather than requiring only a consultation on the subject.
Amendment 33, page 30, line 28, leave out “The matter is whether there is” and insert “The condition is that there is not”.
Amendment 34, page 31, line 14, leave out “responding to consultation” and insert “providing confirmation”.
Amendment 32, page 31, line 26, leave out “(1) or”.
Amendment 35, in clause 53, page 38, line 13, leave out “this Part” and insert “Part 1 and Part 2”.
This amendment would extend the review function of the Independent Reviewer to cover Part 1 of the Bill in addition to Part 2.
Amendment 3, in clause 58, page 41, line 8, at end insert—
“(2) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out how the Secretary of State intends to exercise the power under this section. The statement must include a list of illustrative examples of the kinds of contracts or other arrangements this power relates to.”
Government amendments 61 and 62.
Amendment 130, in clause 61, page 43, line 19, after “P” insert “, whether directly or through intermediaries”.
This amendment would make clear that those making a foreign activity arrangement via intermediaries, would be required to register the arrangement.
Government motion to transfer subsection (2) of clause 61.
Government amendments 63 to 65.
Government motion to divide clause 61.
Government amendments 66 to 74.
Government motion to transfer subsection (2) of clause 64.
Government amendments 75 to 83.
Government motion to divide clause 64.
Government amendments 84 to 94.
Amendment 15, in clause 68, page 48, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment 16, page 48, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
Government amendments 95 to 101.
Amendment 131, in clause 70, page 51, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) The information required of the person to whom an information notice is given must be limited to information the Secretary of State deems reasonably necessary to ensure the person is complying with the requirements of this Part.”
This amendment would place restrictions on the type of information the Secretary of State can require under clause 70.
Government amendments 102 to 108.
Amendment 1, in clause 75, page 53, line 39, at end insert—
“(h) an offence under section [Offence of failing to declare participation in arrangement required to be registered] committed in relation to a foreign activity arrangement required to be registered under section 61(1).”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Government amendment 109.
Amendment 2, page 54, line 23, at end insert—
“(h) an offence under section [Offence of failing to declare participation in arrangement required to be registered] committed in relation to a foreign influence arrangement required to be registered under section 64(1) .”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Government amendments 110 to 112.
Amendment 8, Page 56, line 4, leave out Clause 79.
Amendment 9, Page 56, line 26, leave out Clause 80.
Amendment 36, in clause 80, page 56, line 31, at end insert—
“(ba) the court is satisfied that any damages awarded to the claimant in those proceedings are likely to be used for the purposes of terrorism,”.
This amendment would remove the duty on the court to consider reducing damages in clause 58, unless the court considered the damages were likely to be used for the purposes of terrorism.
Government amendments 51 to 53.
Amendment 37, page 57, line 18, at end insert “or which it would award under section 8 of that Act had the claim been brought under it.”.
This amendment would prevent the reduction of damages in claims that could have been brought as a human rights claim under the HRA 1998 but were in fact brought on other grounds.
Amendment 10, page 57, line 30, leave out clause 81.
Amendment 11, page 58, line 5, leave out clause 82.
Amendment 12, Page 59, line 10, leave out clause 83.
Amendment 38, Page 59, line 14, leave out clause 84.
This amendment, together with Amendment 39, would remove the proposed limits on access to legal aid for persons with a conviction for a terrorism offence and the consequential power to make information requests related to those limits.
Amendment 5, in clause 84, page 59, line 29, leave out “F” and insert “G”.
Amendment 6, page 60, line 11, at end insert—
“(7A) Condition G is met where the offender is seeking legal aid for the purposes of—
(a) pursuing a civil order, where the purpose of the order is to protect a victim of domestic abuse, or
(b) participating in family court proceedings, and where the offender is a victim of domestic abuse.”.
Amendment 7, page 61, line 6, at end insert—
“”domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;”
Amendment 39, page 61, line 15, leave out clause 85.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 38.
Government amendment 113.
Government new schedule 1—Control of a person by a foreign power.
Government new schedule 2—Exemptions.
Amendment 128, schedule 3, page 88, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
This amendment would prevent a disclosure order from having effect where disclosure is protected by an enactment.
Amendment 129, schedule 4, page 94, line 29, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (b), and insert—
“(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that information which may be provided in compliance with a requirement imposed under the order is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or with other information, to the investigation; and
(c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the information to be provided, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the information is obtained.”
This amendment would require the court to be satisfied of the same tests for customer information notices as set out in relation to disclosure orders in Schedule 3.
Government amendment 54.
Amendment 4, schedule 6, page 100, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) A place designated by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1) must be subject to an independent inspection by—
(a) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, or
(b) a different person or body appointed by the Secretary of State.”.
Government amendment 55.
Amendment 27, page 104, line 12, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
This amendment would prevent it being permissible to delay informing a named person of an individual’s detention under clause 21, or that individual consulting a solicitor, for the purposes of asset recovery.
Amendment 123, page 112, line 13, leave out from “if” to the end of line 20, and insert “the person has previously been convicted of an offence under this Act.”
This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which fingerprints and samples from someone detained under clause 25 could be retained indefinitely, instead of the usual 3 years under paragraph 20(5) of Schedule 2.
Government amendments 56 and 57.
Amendment 28, page 124, line 13, leave out sub-sub-paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment would prevent it being permissible to postpone reviews of detention without warrant on the basis that the review officer is unavailable or, for any other reason, the review is not practicable.
Amendment 127, schedule 7, page 144, line 17, leave out paragraph 12.
This amendment would remove the power for the Secretary of State to impose participation in polygraph sessions as part of provisions in relation to Prevention and Investigation Measures.
Government amendments 58 and 59.
Amendment 13, page 175, line 1, leave out Schedule 13.
Amendment 132, schedule 13, page 176, line 29, leave out “there is a real risk that”.
This amendment would ensure the court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that damages were to be used for terrorism purposes before frozen funds could be forfeited entirely.
Government amendment 60.
Tom Tugendhat
It is a pleasure to stand before the House today to introduce not just new clause 9, but many other new clauses that I and many others in this House have argued for at different times and in different places.
Tom Tugendhat
Plus a few others. So it is a great pleasure to be here today.
May I also place on record my enormous thanks to two right hon. Members—the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) will smile as I say this—who have done so much to get us to this position today? I refer to my right hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who have been extremely generous with their time and thoughts, including in private with me as well, in making sure that I am able to answer as many of her questions as I can, although somehow she has exceeded even their magisterial intellect. I am grateful that they have got us to this place, because this Bill is essential for the future defence of our nation.
The reason for that is because, of course, the world has changed. The reality is that national security in this country has changed and evolved in recent years, and the Darwinian challenge between the hunter and the hunted has led us to a position where we need to update not just our techniques, which can be done in private, but sadly our laws, which rightly must be debated in public.
I think we all agree with the core aims of the Bill. The first is to give our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they need to tackle harmful activities in the United Kingdom carried out by, or on behalf of, foreign powers. However, to do that we also need to increase the transparency around those who seek to influence the politics and institutions of the United Kingdom through the foreign influence registration scheme. That is a very welcome addition. I know that many Members here, including those who have been on the Foreign Affairs Committee for the past five years, have called for it at various different points. The Bill has, at its heart, the protection of the national security of this great country that we all serve.
Tom Tugendhat
On that, I will give way—not for the last time, I am sure—to the right hon. Member.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister talks about Darwinian change, but evolution takes a long time. Many things in the Bill have been kicking around for at least six or seven years, and that includes the issue around the foreign influence registration scheme, which was only put in the Bill at Committee stage after it was omitted on Second Reading; even now, there are amendments to it. Is the Minister satisfied that the Bill—in terms of the major changes that it will achieve—will fulfil its purpose and that it has been properly scrutinised in this House?
Tom Tugendhat
What I am so pleased about with this Bill is that it introduces so many ideas that the right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed in private over many years when I was in a similar position to him—scrutinising a Government. The Bill introduces some of those ideas that, yes, he is right to say, seem to have been introduced quickly, but the reality, as he knows very well, is that they have been discussed slowly. Many aspects of the Bill not only date six or seven years into the past, but update aspects that date a lot further back. Sadly, some of our national security legislation is better placed to hunt those who would send secret notes on pigeons back to Germany than to hunt those sending secret messages through the internet. This is updating quite a lot of laws that date all the way back to the first world war. I am very glad that we are doing it, and I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman’s scrutiny in the Bill Committee has been so rigorous and so onerous.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right that this is an important step. In particular, he is right about the foreign influence registration scheme, which has long been called for, including by the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member. He will also know that, because we have yet to discuss that in any detail, there may be confusion about the primary and secondary tiers—in other words, those things that are designated as being of more profound importance than these other things. Would it be helpful if he were to write to the ISC, setting out how he thinks they would work in practice, given that we understand that the secondary tier will be introduced by secondary legislation?
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend is right. I would be very happy to write to him. I can summarise it now by saying that the primary tier is that connected to political activity. Anybody from any foreign country who wishes to influence this House, this Parliament, any Members here, or indeed any political outcome, would be looking at the primary tier. That is the basic level, and it involves a registration on a website so that we can all know who has taken payment for what—which piper has been paid and by whom.
The enhanced registration is different and requires registration for a wider range of activities, but those depend on the specific foreign power and, indeed, the entity or operation within it. That is a different matter, and that will be down to the Secretary of State looking at what is reasonably necessary in order to protect the safety and interests of the United Kingdom—that is the enhanced tier, as we are calling it. That is the summary, but I will be happy to write to the ISC.
Chris Bryant
The Minister said that once somebody has registered on a website, we will all be able to see it. That may be true if we knew that that was where we had to look to check whether somebody coming in through the door, sending us a letter or inviting us to dinner as an MP was actually somebody who was working for a foreign power. Would it not be far more sensible, once somebody has registered, to require them to declare to any Minister, MP or Member of the House of Lords that that is what they were doing, so that there is a degree of protection for this House?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member makes a very good point: there are many areas in which the individual concerned should certainly be doing the responsible thing and advertising it. The basis of this has to be a balance, so requiring people to register is, I think, a very good start. We need to take forward some of the recommendations that the hon. Member has made and the thoughts he has expressed, because he is absolutely right that transparency in all things is important.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Minister has accurately described what the two different tiers of the FIRS scheme will do, but it is difficult to understand why the registration of harmful activity outside of political influencing, such as covertly acting as an intelligence officer, only applies to a foreign power that is set out in secondary legislation. Surely, if that activity is wrong, it is wrong whether the country is on an as-yet-undefined list or not.
Tom Tugendhat
I think the right hon. Member will find that espionage is illegal in the United Kingdom, whoever is carrying it out.
Dr Lewis
The Minister is very forbearing, and I am glad of the opportunity to warmly congratulate him on his appointment and thank him for the positive way in which he has been reaching out to the ISC.
On the question of the second tier, there appears to be some sort of discrimination between countries that are friendly and those that are hostile, and—unless I misunderstand the Bill—only the hostile ones are going to appear in the secondary designation. If that is the case, could it not lead to some anomalous situations when diplomatic relations improve with a country, so we take it off the second tier, or they worsen and we put it on? There is bound to be a time lag in that sort of thing, so how practical is the second tier scheme as it is currently constituted?
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. The challenge that we have, as he knows very well, is how we balance the responsibility to inform and how wide we go. I have spoken about this issue with my right hon. Friend in the past, and his judgment on this is something I have always valued, so it has always been very important to me that we share a view on it. However, I think we all agree that where a foreign power is seeking to influence our political life in the broadest sense, we should know about it, whoever is exercising that influence.
I take my right hon. Friend’s point about enhanced registration. Sadly, there is inherently a delay between the way that life changes and the response of Government —that is the reality of existence—but it is important for us to recognise that some countries and entities do require enhanced awareness. That is why it is important for us to have an extra tier.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Maria Eagle
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has talked about the challenges and the enhanced part of the scheme. Will it not be a challenge to use the scheme in practice, because he has to put the country concerned into secondary legislation? Is that not going to be diplomatically very difficult to do? Is the reality not that the complex way in which the Government have set out the scheme, with little scrutiny possible from either this Chamber or Committees, means that in practice it is not going to be used at all?
Tom Tugendhat
I think the hon. Lady knows me well enough to know that, having been sanctioned by three countries now, it is unlikely that I will be reticent in identifying those that I think are threats to the United Kingdom.
Tom Tugendhat
I am very confident that others will also be bold on His Majesty’s behalf. Whoever is fortunate enough to be representing His Majesty in the Home Office will be able to conduct those offices in the good fashion that people expect. [Interruption.] I will move on.
The core of the Bill is, of course, national security and our intelligence services, building on the work they have done to enable us to grow in confidence and prosperity. They have provided the security apparatus that allows freedom beneath and around it. That is an extraordinary luxury and a blessing that this country has been able to enjoy for many years and generations because of the courage and intellect of so many people. They require tools to conduct those tasks, and I am delighted that the Bill will sharpen some of those tools.
Mr Kevan Jones
As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said, we had four Ministers in the Bill Committee. Yes, the Minister has listened, but nothing in the Bill has changed. It is still a mess, and that goes back to the fundamental point about not including the Security Service Act 1989 in the reform that is needed. Let me tell the Minister now: the lack of scrutiny in this House means that the Bill will be absolutely torn to shreds in the other place.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that we disagree on that element, but it has been a great pleasure to work on the Bill with him and with many others in the Chamber, and to hear their comments and criticisms. There are many other supplementary areas that I would like to work on in different places at different times, but the Bill answers the essential need that we have now, which is to update our national security legislation to keep the country safe and defend our people, and to ensure that those who have the courage, integrity and wisdom to keep us all safe have the tools at their disposal to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We have already had four points of order, and we have limited time, so I ask Members to please be mindful of the length of their contributions so that we can get as many people in as we possibly can.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber at the Report stage of this hugely important piece of legislation. Bill Committee colleagues will join me in saying that it was not straightforward, for all the reasons that were highlighted in the multiple points of order. The Committee had no less than four Ministers and three Government Whips, and was forced to adjourn twice. Since Second Reading, the Bill has been the responsibility of three different Home Secretaries in—remarkably—the Governments of three different Prime Ministers.
We got off to a shaky start on the first day of the Bill Committee when the Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who I am pleased has joined us this afternoon, was asked to act up as a Minister only minutes before the start. On one day, the Committee had to be adjourned because the second Minister was missing in action—the circumstances are still a mystery to this day. It was something of a relief, then, when the current Minister took office and we could turn to the serious detail of scrutinising and delivering long overdue and incredibly necessary national security legislation.
As we have said before, many of the new measures in the Bill have been born out of recommendations in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 Russia report and in the Law Commission’s “Protection of Official Data” report. With those solid foundations, we have been keen to work with Government to move the legislation forward and close the gaps in our defences. That could not be more timely in the light of stark warnings given by the director general of MI5 today, including about the fact that there have been at least 10 attempts to kidnap or even kill UK-based critics of the Iranian regime since January of this year.
That is not to say that we do not have some outstanding concerns about the detail of the provisions. In speaking to all the amendments grouped with new clause 9, I turn first to amendment 14, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I will spend some time discussing the detail of this amendment, because it is so important.
The original clause 23—now clause 27—was a big focus for hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading. Crucially, it did not have the support of Opposition members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has statutory responsibility for oversight of the UK intelligence community. We will always look to work with the intelligence services to find solutions to any barriers they face in undertaking their invaluable work to keep the UK safe. As things stand, however, we have been unable to get an operational understanding of why the clause is necessary.
The security services have told me directly why they believe that they need clause 27. They say that schedule 4 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 allows for a risk of liability to individuals conducting their proper functions on behalf of the UK intelligence community, and that an offence can arise when support—for example, intelligence shared in good faith—later makes a small or indirect contribution to unlawful activity by an international partner. The security services are keen to convey that their caution in this regard is having an operational impact, which requires resolution. We are sympathetic to that view; we recognise that for perhaps quite junior members of staff to face that burden of potential liability when carrying out their proper functions under instruction does not feel quite right. However, we have sought throughout the process to find a way through that does not involve what feels like gold-plating of exemptions for the security services, which could erode entirely appropriate safeguards and due diligence when considering the risks and consequences of sharing information with partners.
As the Minister knows, there is a reasonableness defence under section 50 of the Serious Crime Act, which recognises that there may be occasions when it can be shown that an individual’s actions were justified in the circumstances. Of course, a prosecution would also have to be deemed to be in the public interest. On further probing of these defences, it seems that it is not the case that the reasonableness defence is not strong enough; rather, it is untested, as no such case has been brought. We do not believe that the fact that an apparently robust defence is untested makes a strong enough case for the proposals in clause 27. We hope that properly authorised activity to protect national security should and would be interpreted as reasonable.
We have sought legal advice, including from a King’s counsel who undertakes a great deal of work in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and engaged with a range of stakeholders who feel genuinely involved in this space. Given that we already have section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which allows the Secretary of State to give immunity from civil or criminal liability for pre-authorised crimes abroad, why do we need the changes proposed in clause 27? Crucially, the existing scheme requires the UK intelligence community to secure permission in advance from the Secretary of State, requiring the Secretary of State’s personal approval, with safeguards in the decision-making process and oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is a senior judge. None of those safeguards are present in clause 27; it simply removes the relevant criminal liability. There would be no need to go to a Minister for approval; there would be no warrant for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to consider.
Thirdly—the Minister and I have debated this—the Bill as drafted diminishes the role of a Minister in decision-making and accountability structures. Ministers will no longer need to make the difficult judgement, reviewed by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, of whether to grant an authorisation under section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act. The Government have been keen to stress their commitment to the Fulford principles—“The Principles relating to the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas and the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees”, making it clear that:
“The UK Government does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone unlawful killing, the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment…or extraordinary rendition. In no circumstance will UK personnel ever take action amounting to torture, unlawful killing, extraordinary rendition, or CIDT.”
However, those commitments are not on the face of the Bill.
With the understanding that there will be operational elements to these provisions, the details of which have not been and cannot be shared, we have pushed for engagement with the ISC, which is entirely the right place for those operational examples to be considered further. Were ISC members to be convinced of the case for clause 27, we might be in a different place. On that basis, we cannot support clause 27 and will vote for it to be deleted by amendment 14.
On a similar point, although we welcome much of the Bill, it is right that any provisions that include new and substantial powers are constantly evaluated for their efficacy and proportionality. Clause 53 recognises that.
Sir John Hayes
Efficacy and proportionality are the twin guarantees that underpin all security legislation and activity, as the hon. Lady is aware, but if anything, clause 13, for example, should go further than it currently does. She will know that that clause is built on the idea of intention—that people must intend to do harm—but people should know that they are likely to do harm if they act recklessly, and the Bill could be expanded in that direction. There is an unholy trinity of anarchists, liberals and Bolsheviks who oppose all legislation of this kind, but if anything, this legislation should be warmly welcomed and go further than it does.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful for the intervention. The points that I am about to make about the value and role of an independent reviewer of this legislation relate to how, if some of the thresholds are not in the right place, such a reviewer can not only be both a check and a balance on the powers but make recommendations for going further in the legislation if we find that there is an operational case for doing so. That is the sensible and constructive point that the right hon. Gentleman knows I am making.
Clause 53 recognises the need for evaluation but deems only part 2 of the Bill to be necessary for review by an independent reviewer and fails to be explicit about who that independent reviewer will be. The Minister has been unable to confirm who will perform this oversight function, which we believe is integral to finding the appropriate balance of powers and freedoms. The scrutiny of terrorism legislation provided by Jonathan Hall KC has been invaluable. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation function has identified weaknesses in terrorism legislation and highlighted areas where stronger safeguards are needed, as well as providing crucial and checks and balances on the powers.
When he gave evidence to the Bill Committee, I asked Jonathan Hall whether there is a logic to his office taking on the additional responsibilities and whether he had the capacity to undertake that work. He said:
“My answer is that I think it actually is quite a good fit for the reviewer’s job, and I think it probably is right that the person who does the independent review of terrorism legislation should also do the state threats legislation.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 6, Q4.].
With the highest regard for Jonathan Hall, we recognise the merit in adding to his remit the responsibilities created by clause 53. We can see the benefit of a coherent, joined-up approach to assessing both counter-terrorism and state threat legislation.
That said, were the Minister to make a case for the creation of a brand-new position, exclusively for the independent review of laws concerning state threats, we would certainly be open to that. We are, though, now reaching the Bill’s final Commons stages, and we are very much overdue an agreement that the role will begin immediately once the Bill is enacted, clarity on who will undertake the work, and a commitment that all the new provisions in the Bill will be considered in an annual review. Successive Ministers have understood the point and committed to sorting the situation out, but here we are with no progress and nothing to show for it on the face of the Bill, so we are keen to push new clause 3 to a vote.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made a powerful case for the provisions in amendment 6, which sits alongside paving amendments 5 and 7. We made clear our concerns about part 4 of the Bill in the Committee. The restrictions on access to civil legal aid stand to do more harm than good if we do not recognise the problems in such an approach.
Let us consider the types of civil cases that legal aid might be needed for. People find themselves in civil and family court proceedings and in need of legal aid support for a multitude of reasons, including housing issues, debt problems and domestic abuse. For example, a victim of domestic abuse might need legal aid to help her to seek an injunction against her abuser. Non-molestation orders protect a victim or their child from being harmed or threatened by their abuser, while occupation orders decide who can live in a family home or enter the surrounding area. Such injunctions protect victims and children in particular. They save women’s lives. They are legal measures that protect women from violence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made the powerful point in Committee, based on her years of working in the sector, that it is easy to say that someone who has engaged in that type of criminality is not deserving of legal aid, but what if a woman’s abuser is a terrorist? The nature of terrorist offenders means that that is too often the case.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend is right that we discussed the issue in detail in Committee. Clearly, the only reason is seen to be that someone has been involved in terrorism. Does she agree, however, that there are many other people, such as rapists, paedophiles and murderers, of whom we also have a low opinion? The logical conclusion is surely that, if we restrict it in one area, we should restrict it for everyone.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that powerful point. He is absolutely right that there is a distinct lack of consistency. If we are singling out specific criminal offences that we do not like, there is more that we could do to ensure that there is some consistency in that approach. There will be vulnerable people here who we want to check are not falling through the gaps, which would make the situation worse for us all.
What if a woman’s abuser is a terrorist? As I said, the nature of terrorist offenders means that that is often the case. For some of the lower-level offences covered by clauses 84 to 85—for example, that someone made a phone call on behalf of an abuser—it is easy for somebody to say, “I wouldn’t do that, because I’m not a terrorist,” but we all might if we were living in a household where we were terrorised. The danger is that more women in such cases will end up stuck with a terrorist making them be a terrorist, rather than being able to escape them. That is why we feel strongly that the Government should adopt amendment 6.
On some other changes that we would like to see, we have tabled new clauses 5 and 6. They were drafted in the wake of the revelations that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), when he was the Foreign Secretary, met former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev without officials or security at the height of the Salisbury poisoning case in 2018. That was immediately after the then Foreign Secretary had attended a meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels to discuss the collective response to Russia’s use of Novichok on UK soil. We still have a series of questions about that encounter, not least who his guest was at that party and why we have not taken steps to sanction Alexander Lebedev, given the assessment of our Five Eyes partner Canada, which has sanctioned him.
Having made the case in Committee for new clauses 5 and 6, which both seek to put safeguards in place to prevent that type of security breach ever happening again, the Minister was keen to stress that he was not going to seek to defend the Administration of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, as if that time had passed and there was no need for any further changes to the law in this regard. When that exchange happened on the Tuesday, little did the Minister or I know that by the Thursday, remarkably, the right hon. Gentleman would be launching his campaign to come back as Prime Minister. None of us could have foreseen that, which is one more reason why I stress that the clauses would complement the Bill.
I appreciate that new clause 8, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), has been deemed to be out of scope of today’s debate, but I remind the Minister of the remarks of the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), on Second Reading:
“We are not shy of the issue and are certainly not ignoring it, but it is important that we focus on ensuring that individuals can make disclosures safely, which means protecting them through safeguards and proper routes. That work is still under way, and we need to go through it in the right way.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 571.]
We understand that the Home Office has engaged with trusted partners on what options look like in this space. Once again, we are all waiting for further detail on that front.
I now turn to the plethora of Government amendments. Frankly, late in the day additions to the Bill have plagued its scrutiny and Report stage is no different, as many right hon. and hon. Members have already said. I am pleased that the Government heard our concerns about places of detention and have clarified that only places
“owned or controlled by a police force”
can be used as places of detention, which ensures that they will be subject to proper inspection regimes. We are satisfied that the Government have listened, so our amendment 4 is no longer necessary; Government amendment 54 brings those places within the scope of an existing inspection regime.
As the Minister knows, there are still outstanding concerns about the broad nature of clauses 79 to 83 in part 4. We welcome Government amendment 51, however, which seeks to tighten the definition of those in scope of clauses 79 to 83 to those involved in “terrorist wrongdoing”, but that will warrant further exploration in the other place.
On Government amendment 60, like a number of modern slavery charities—the point has already been made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—we are really concerned about the lateness of this addition to the Bill and the scrutiny that has been avoided by adding it to the Bill at the final Commons stages. Justice and Care, which does outstanding work in placing victim navigators within police forces up and down the country, was keen to stress that there has not been any consultation with modern slavery charities concerned that they, like us, have had insufficient time to fully consider the possible impact on modern slavery victims. I could have asked the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner for their views, except there isn’t one. The Government have failed to appoint a new commissioner since Dame Sara left office in April, so I take this opportunity to suggest that the Government address that now as an urgent priority. I have to ask the Minister to outline the rationale for this move, and I want to be clear just how unhappy we are with this provision at such a late stage.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is so often my partner in crime fighting, for his amendments. I know he has a great deal of understanding in this area that has shaped the detail of his amendments, so I hope the Government are reflecting carefully on those.
Once again, we have sought at every stage and with every Minister to engage on the Bill constructively. We know that our police forces and security services need the provisions in the Bill to be able to keep us safe from the hostile state threats that are increasingly testing the UK’s resilience. I hope the Minister, who to his credit had to pick up the Bill in the final stages of the Bill Committee, hears our outstanding concerns today, recognises the spirit in which we strive to find solutions and continues to work with us towards a robust and proportionate Bill we can all have confidence in.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his post. He is very much a round peg in a round hole—despite my historic critique of the Home Office, that is meant as a compliment. I thank him for seeing me and my colleague, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), on the amendment the other day. He will be unsurprised that he did not persuade me, but I thank him for the time in any event. In view of the short time, I will focus mostly on amendment 14, which I hope we will press to a vote. It is in my name and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley—not Bromley, but Barnsley Central; not quite Bromley. That amendment strikes out clause 27.
A decade and a half ago, the British public were shocked to hear stories of British complicity in American and other countries’ acts of kidnap, rendition, torture and assassination, typically but not always by drone strikes, with the collateral damage that that entailed. Collateral damage in this context is a euphemism for the deaths of innocent women and children who happen to be standing near the original target. I use this stark language to make plain the potential consequences of what might seem like bland legalistic language in the Bill.
The legal basis of those actions—I almost said atrocities, but of those actions—was the Intelligence Services Act 1994, when we first recognised the operation of the Secret Intelligence Service. Most notably, it inserted the melodramatically named “007 clause”—section 7—which empowered Ministers to authorise criminal behaviour overseas. I was one of the Ministers who took that Bill through the House. We Ministers were briefed very firmly that, in practice, that section would authorise bugging, burglary and blackmail—the normal behaviour of intelligence agencies seeking to penetrate enemy states and organisations—not kidnap, not torture and most certainly not a licence to kill.
We the Ministers on that Bill gave our word to the House that that was what it was for, but a decade later section 7 was used to authorise the enabling of rendition, torture and quite possibly assassination as well. We know the names of several victims of UK complicity: Binyam Mohamed, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, Fatima Boudchar, his wife, and Rangzieb Ahmed, to name just a few.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is worth reflecting and placing back on the record that we know the names of Belhaj and Boudchar only because somebody happened to find the papers unattended after the fall of Gaddafi. That was the only way that the truth about their cases came into the public domain.
Mr Davis
The right hon. Gentleman is right, and it is also true that we found out about Binyam Mohamed only because of extended legal cases in the courts, which were resisted by the agencies at every turn. We know about Rangzieb Ahmed only because I got access to the in-camera papers. So this is a general problem and I will come back to that. A most recent example is Jagtar Singh Johal, who alleges that he was tortured by Indian authorities and was detained, we believe, as a result of British intelligence. Again, we know about that only because we could spot the case inside one of the commissioner’s reports. Accordingly, exactly because of that, this is literally the tip of the iceberg.
The Intelligence and Security Committee report on detainee mistreatment found 232 cases where UK personnel
“continued to supply questions or intelligence”
to other intelligence services, after they
“knew or suspected that the detainee had been or was being mistreated.”
As I said, I have seen in-camera evidence that showed quite how deliberate some of those decisions were—absolutely in the knowledge that they would be used in the process of torture. That was done rather more broadly, even when the intelligence services did not know at all where the detainee was being held, or even whether they were being held legally or not. Those are the consequences of vague legislation that awarded too much power to the authorities.
We might therefore expect clause 27 to tighten up over-loose legislation to make Ministers, officials and agents more conscious of their responsibilities, not less. Instead, it does the exact opposite. Clause 27 would provide an exemption to schedule 4 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Schedule 4 sets out the circumstances in which assisting and encouraging a crime that occurs overseas is still a criminal offence. Clause 27 means that it would no longer be an offence to assist a crime overseas where someone’s behaviour is necessary for
“the proper exercise of any function of the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ or...the armed forces.”
In plain English, that would effectively insulate Ministers and officials from responsibility for assisting or encouraging heinous overseas crimes.
To see the potential impact of that, consider the case of Abdel Hakim Belhaj. Mr Belhaj, a Libyan dissident living in exile, was detained and subsequently tortured in both Thailand and Libya. It later emerged that UK information sharing had contributed to his detention and rendition. After years of litigation and wrangling, the Prime Minister wrote a letter of apology to Mr Belhaj, and the Government admitted responsibility for the role that UK intelligence played in his rendition. That was a civil rather than a criminal case, but if officials are certain that they will not face any criminal liability for assisting torture and other serious crimes abroad, reckless information sharing of the kind seen in Mr Belhaj’s case will occur more frequently and with more impunity.
I understand that one reason for the change in the clause is apparently to allow the easier transfer of bulk data. That is an especially risky activity to which to give legal cover. The transfer of bulk data is a euphemism for saying that we give the Americans—principally—so much data that we do not have time to check it all. That is it in a nutshell. As Edward Snowden revealed, that has historically amounted to unimaginably vast quantities of data, of course about suspects, but also about innocent people. Because of the high level of secrecy that applies to current bulk data issues, I have no current UK example to hand, but I can exemplify this by outlining the behaviour of our closest ally, and the principal recipient of bulk data, the United States.
The greatly respected President of the USA, Mr Barack Obama, used to go to the White House Situation Room on a Tuesday once a month to authorise a kill list—20 people who were going to be assassinated by the United States and who were perceived to be its enemies; typically, al-Qaeda officials and the like. President Obama talked proudly of how the best technology—artificial intelligence, algorithms and, crucially, bulk data—was being used to identify targets.
However, that comes with enormous risks, most plainly shown by the case of Ahmad Zaidan, who was selected for targeting by the US National Security Agency based on algorithms using bulk data. Fortunately, he was not assassinated. I say “fortunately” because there had been analysis of his telephone contacts and he had talked to Osama bin Laden and all the al-Qaeda high command, but, before the drone strike was organised, it was suddenly realised that he was the Pakistan office head of Al Jazeera. The analysis had thrown up an innocent man who could have been assassinated.
That is why we must be careful about what is handed over without knowledge of the bulk data. If we give greater legal cover to officials sending bulk data to other countries, cases of bulk data being used in the commission of serious crimes abroad—even against innocent people—will happen more frequently.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I will now announce the results of the ballot held today for the election of the Chairs of the Education Committee and the Transport Committee. Due to the compressed time in this Report stage, I will not take any points of order until just before the Adjournment at the end of business today. I hope everybody will be happy with that.
In the Education Committee Chair election, 452 votes were cast, one of which was invalid. The counting went to two rounds. There were 436 active votes in the second round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 219 votes. Mr Robin Walker was elected Chair with 228 votes.
In the Transport Committee Chair election, 448 votes were cast, none of which were invalid. The counting went to five rounds. There were 369 active votes in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 185 votes. Iain Stewart was elected Chair with 192 votes.
Both Chairs will take up their posts immediately. I congratulate Mr Robin Walker and Iain Stewart on their election. The results of both counts under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet. Congratulations once again.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). He has our full support, both in relation to amendment 14 and to what he said about clause 83.
A Bill of this nature is absolutely necessary and overdue, but I share the concerns of colleagues about the amount of time provided for debate and scrutiny. So short of time do we appear to be that the Minister, much as I respect and like him, did not actually even seem to speak about any of the amendments he has tabled today, including Government amendment 60, which is, frankly, absolutely outrageous, but I will come on to that shortly. It is essential, yes, that we update our espionage laws, but it is also essential that we update them correctly. If we do not do it correctly then: first, we risk severely criminalising behaviour that was not intended to be criminalised; secondly, we leave loopholes to be exploited by those who mean us harm; and thirdly, we confer powers way beyond what is reasonable or required. Our amendments seek to address all three dangers.
First, we have concerns about behaviour that should not be caught in the provisions. We have concerns about the impact of the legislation on protesters, journalists, non-governmental organisations, whistleblowers, those acting in the public interest and, now, victims of trafficking. In some cases, that is because of how some of the specific offences have been framed. For example, by catching someone who might
“approach or be in the vicinity of”
a prohibited place, clause 4 risks seriously criminalising protesters at Faslane for example, assuming the Government still consider nuclear weapons as essential to the
“safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
Similarly, the National Union of Journalists is concerned that clause 5 risks a chilling effect on its photographers by criminalising any photo of a prohibited place as “inspecting” it. We tabled amendment 120 to protect protesters who are simply in the vicinity of a prohibited place, and amendment 133 to ensure that taking a photograph of a prohibited place is not automatically considered an inspection of it and therefore an offence.
Other groups risk being caught in the Bill, because some of the overarching terms and the framework for deciding when there is foreign influence is perhaps not as tightly drafted as it should be. For example, the very important notion of the
“interests of the United Kingdom”
is central to quite a few offences, yet that is a nebulous concept and appears to be whatever the Government of the day choose it to be. Depending on which day of the week it is and which Prime Minister is in office, fracking might be something the Government think is in the
“interests of the United Kingdom”.
That is an unsatisfactory way to describe a criminal offence, so we have offered a way to try to fix it. Amendments 116 and 118 list specific critical interests, above day-to-day political agendas of the Government, which need protecting. The Minister complained in Committee that the list was not long enough, so we added the ones he complained were missing. It is important to say again that the reason why we included those particular interests is that we are mirroring a scheme under the Official Secrets Act 1989, where specific interests requiring protection are set out: security and intelligence, defence, international relations and crime. The key point is that
“interests of the United Kingdom”
is too broad and too wishy-washy.
We also have concerns about the “foreign power condition”, which is pivotal to deciding whether behaviour is caught by some of the new offences. In particular, as we have heard, there are many NGOs and other institutions with financial links to other Governments. That is why we tabled what is now amendment 124 in Committee to propose that the condition is made out only where the finance was specifically for the act that will be criminalised. However, we welcome Government amendments 48 and 49, which aim to address a similar problem.
Ultimately, like others, I think that the best answer to all these questions is not to make various tweaks here and there. If anything, our scrutiny of the Bill has convinced us more than ever of the need for an overarching public interest defence. We share the regret that we will not have that chance today.
Finally on this group of amendments, we also need to worry about trafficking victims who could be prosecuted as spies or foreign agents. I agree that it is outrageous for the Government to have introduced amendment 60 less than one week before the final stages of the Bill without explanation or evidence. Frankly, I dread the modern slavery legislation that seems to be coming down the track if this is a foretaste of it. People trafficked, enslaved and coerced into activities under this Bill, such as photographing a prohibited site or stealing information, could be punished as though they are guilty of espionage.
I alerted various trafficking charities and experts to the amendment on Monday. They were all completely and utterly unaware of it and certainly had not been consulted on it, despite some of those organisations being on Home Office working groups and the like. They have a million questions to ask about it. Frankly, I am so irritated about how the amendment has been sprung on us that I am absolutely determined that we have the chance to vote on it this evening.
Turning to the loopholes for those who would seek to harm us, I will mention a couple of amendments. On clause 2, on the theft of intellectual property and so on, we queried why that should be an offence only outside the UK in very limited circumstances, even though UK trade secrets were being protected and stolen under the offence. We tabled amendment 117 to ensure that there is also an offence not just when a UK citizen is a victim, but when a UK resident or person in the employment of a UK person is. Government amendment 40 addresses that point insofar as people who live in the UK, but it does not cover employees.
Most significantly, we worry about the rules on registration in relation to the foreign influence registration scheme. If a specified Government seek to direct activities directly in the UK, the operation of the foreign activity regime seems clear. However, it is hard to imagine that that is how things will generally operate. Surely intermediaries will be used much more often. If that intermediary is in the UK, again, the scheme should work, but what if the intermediary is still in a specified country? In theory, it seems as though the intermediary will be under an obligation to register the agreement, but that will not happen. Meanwhile, those doing the activities in the UK seem to have no obligation to register anything, as they have no direct agreement with the specified Government. That seems a possibly significant loophole, so we tabled amendment 130 to flag up the issue of how we deal with intermediaries.
Thirdly and lastly, let me turn to amendments that seem to grant excessive powers to the Government. Amendment 121 places restrictions on the additional sites that the Home Secretary can deign to be prohibited. Prohibited places have always previously related to security, so we think that new sites should also relate to security and that the nebulous concept of “interest” should not be enough to justify allowing a Home Secretary to add extensively to that list.
Clause 70, which is part of the registration scheme, creates ludicrously broadly drafted powers for the Secretary of State to ask for pretty much any information that she wants from any body or organisation that is or should be registering a scheme. That will be a huge number of bodies. However, if we look at clause 70, we see that there is no limit on the type of information that can be requested or the purpose of the request. There is no means to challenge or appeal against a notice. In Committee, the Minister said that the clause’s purpose was to allow the Home Secretary to seek such information as is necessary to make sure that people comply with the registration requirement. None of that is in the Bill, however, so amendment 131 would put that restriction in it. It is the bare minimum protection that we require.
The major overreach has been described by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden: clause 27’s carve-out for the security services in relation to the Serious Crime Act. I echo what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), said. We approached this with an open mind. Officials and staff have been successful in persuading us of the need for many parts of the Bill, but not here. As was remarked on Second Reading, other protections are in place. I have not heard any suggestion that members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have been persuaded by the services, so we, too, remain concerned that the proposal provides an enormous and unwarranted protection from prosecution, even where Ministers or officials provide information that leads to torture overseas.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has also addressed the powers provided to courts in relation to the award of damages, which rather stink of Ministry of Justice virtue signalling and politics. There are already powers to deal with those dangers, as the Minister sort of accepted today in his letter to members of the Bill Committee. Amendment 132, which is directly informed by the comments of Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, would at least mean that there has to be proof on the balance of probabilities before damages can be permanently confiscated—a modest proposal, and one that the right hon. Member has advocated. We are also sympathetic to the right hon. Member’s amendments to take the relevant provisions out altogether.
The Bill’s legal aid provisions are, frankly, utterly farcical. It is the criminal justice system that should be used to punish people, not the civil justice system. Our amendments 125 to 127 would clip the wings of the state threat prevention and investigation measures by ensuring that the normal civil test applies before they can be imposed, by reducing the number of times they can be extended, and by taking out provision for polygraph testing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As hon. Members can see, there is quite a bit of interest in the debate. I am introducing an initial six-minute speaking limit, which I am sure will be reduced to accommodate everybody.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not take that long.
Before I speak to the amendments in my name and those of other hon. Members, which are quite narrow, I want to address Government amendment 60, which I am quite surprised to find in the Bill. Peculiarly, it sets out a series of offences to which it is no longer a defence to claim modern slavery. I am surprised that many of them are not already captured elsewhere. Some of them are very general, such as “entering a prohibited place” and “foreign interference: general”. I always get worried when I see the Government tabling amendments that say things like “in general”, because it really means that they want to do something else that we do not know about. I accept that the amendment will make it into the Bill today, but I want to see what comes back from the other place once the Lords have managed to probe it and find out about it. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government suddenly needed to put it in the Bill.
My amendments would strike out subsections (1)(b) and (2)(b) of clause 68. The Government seem almost to have cut and pasted some of the US legislation and possibly the Australian legislation. I know that the exemption for legal services appears in that legislation, but I am concerned. My amendment is a tightening-up exercise. I really wonder why we think it necessary to provide such a general exemption for legal services. I am sorry if there are practising lawyers present in the House, but if I know anything at all about how lawyers work, they will find ways to exercise the process of lobbying on behalf of organisations and individuals with no right to be here. They will not call it lobbying; they will find some term that is covered by “legal services” and then get on with it. That will also be a way of getting around the Crown prerogative.
I would be grateful if the Minister looks at the issue carefully and understands that there is a problem. I have talked to a lot of lawyers, and most of them believe that the exemption for legal services is not necessary. There is no reason why they should be exempted; the rules should apply directly to them. Either the definition of what constitutes legal services needs to be tightened up very carefully, or the exemptions should be struck out as the amendments require. I would like some indication from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that the Government will look seriously at the matter in the Lords and act on it. An exemption for legal services is unnecessary and will lead to lobbying by the back door; I am sure that all sorts of terms will be found that are covered by “legal services”.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. After the next speaker, the speaking time limit will be five minutes. I call Dan Jarvis.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and everyone else who has spoken, and a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I agreed with all the points that he made. He has done the House a great service in explaining the context of the amendment that we tabled, and I am very grateful for it.
I say that mindful of the fact that we live in a world that continues to create new threats to our safety and way of life from a wide range of hostile states and actors. While their methods and origins vary, their intent is clear: to undermine our national security. Like others—like everyone who is in the Chamber at the moment, I am sure—I personally take these issues very seriously, and I also appreciate the complexities of the issues that we are debating today. None of this is easy, and I know very well the challenges that our security and intelligence services face every single day. I also know very well that our response to terrorism must always be unequivocal, but must always be legal.
I do not doubt the intentions that underpin the Bill. I have known the Minister for a long time, and I absolutely believe that he wants to do the right thing. This is the prism through which I view the Bill: I view it as someone who cares deeply for our country and wants to scrutinise the Bill in order to make it better, and to make our country both stronger and safer. It was in precisely that spirit that I tabled amendment 14, along with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, with whom I have worked for some time on these issues.
I acknowledge that the Government’s intent in tabling clause 27—as I understand it—is to protect UK personnel in the intelligence services and the armed forces if they are found, in the course of their duties, to have committed a crime. However, I consider that the scope of the clause is too wide, and I fear that it would instead end up protecting Ministers and senior officials. As we heard earlier from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act already allows Ministers and senior officials to authorise some potentially unlawful activities, carried out by UK personnel overseas in the course of their duties. Clause 27, however, would provide protection for Ministers and senior officials who “encourage or assist crimes overseas”, such as giving a tip-off that leads to someone’s torture, as opposed to the direct commission of the crime itself. In that sense, it is, as drafted, unlikely to help UK personnel overseas who receive separate legal protections under the Intelligence Services Act. To that end, it is only right for the decision to prosecute, or not, to rest with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and not to be legislated away.
If clause 27 remains in the Bill, it will mean there is little chance of seeking justice in a criminal court for any crimes and human rights abuses abroad that have been enabled by UK Ministers and senior officials. The reality is that this will send a message that the UK Government are above the law, with near-guaranteed immunity for human rights abuses overseas. Clause 27 will undermine the UK’s position as a leader in promoting human rights, and prevent criminal sanctions against those who have enabled torture.
When providing evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2018, a senior security services official apparently described existing protections as “belt and braces”. Clause 27 would add a suit of armour, shielding the Government further from what I consider to be entirely legitimate scrutiny and accountability. It is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and that is not how we should be doing things. Stronger national security should not mean weaker human rights.
I oppose clause 27 because I believe that the Government’s intentions do not align with its consequences. I ask the Minister to listen carefully—as I am sure he will—to the concerns that are being raised this afternoon and have been raised with him previously, and to work with us to ensure that the Bill is improved and our country is kept safe, while also ensuring that human rights are protected. That is all I ask.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I have miscalculated—this is one of the reasons I was never made a Treasury Minister—and I want to give the Minister an opportunity to respond at the end. Sir Robert Buckland, you can have five minutes, but then we will go to four minutes.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not be able to emulate the admirable record of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), but I will do my best to be as succinct as possible. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is right when he says that we have to strike a balance here: we need to protect our way of life but not protect ourselves out of the very values that we seek to defend—or, in other words, diminish the very rights that we want to protect. That is at the heart of all the national security legislation that I and others in this House have dealt with over the years. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security for our conversations about these issues.
I cannot conceal my disappointment at the non-selection of new clause 8, in the name of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which was signed by me and others. It is inevitable that this issue will be revisited in the other place. There are two issues that arise from it that are of general application to the Bill and to the future reform of the Official Secrets Act, which has to come. The first is the potential creation of a public interest defence, which in my view is an essential substitute to the rather random guessing game that we have at the moment, with jury trials—however well directed the juries might be—ending up with verdicts that, to many of us, seem perverse.
The second relates to the recommendation to create a statutory commission to allow people to raise their concerns—to whistleblow, if you like—through an approved process. The Law Commission’s report of September 2020 made those very clear and cogent recommendations and I commend them strongly to my right hon. Friend the Minister. I think they go hand in hand. The time is here for the Government to start addressing these issues and to adopt those recommendations. To quote my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne in another context: if not now, when?
Mr Kevan Jones
There are many things in the Bill that I support, but I think it is a missed opportunity. It has been a messy process in Committee, as has been said, as a result of the number of Ministers we have had dealing with it, the late inclusion of things like the foreign agents registration scheme and the completely missed opportunity to reform the Official Secrets Act 1989. The new Minister is very good, but he is a bit like a friendly old bank manager: he listens to you, he agrees with you and he is sympathetic, but you do not get the loan at the end of the day. The point is, however, that this Bill will be changed radically in the other place, because we have not had the proper amount of time to do it.
I want to refer to clause 27, which has been spoken to by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I was on the Intelligence and Security Committee when we were discussing detention and rendition, and some of the things that went on then did not make for pretty reading. We do not want to go back to those days. Things were changed in the consolidated guidance and the principles were brought forward. One of the sops for the Committee—a phrase that everyone kept using—was that there could be a chilling effect on the security services. Everyone kept asking what the chilling effect would be.
A commitment was given to allow the ISC to have classified information on this, and the Chairman of the ISC wanted that before today because it would have given us an opportunity to say whether we were satisfied. Unfortunately, that was turned down, but we have had the initial information and I and other members of the Committee are not yet satisfied that there is justification for this. We have asked for more information, which we are going to receive, but it would have been handy to have it before today. Unless there is good cause, frankly I think it will be interesting to see how this can be justified.
Referring to something that the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) said, I am disappointed that my new clause 8 was not selected. This is one of those things in the Bill that will come back. The equivalent new clause was selected in Committee only because the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) in the Chair agreed to it, so I was not surprised that the Clerks knocked it out of selection, but it will not go away. My fear is that a great opportunity to modernise our national security landscape is being completely missed. I do not think we will see a Bill on public interest or reforming the 1989 Act, but it desperately needs to be done.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
In view of the time, I will only briefly say something about three areas of the Bill. First, amendment 14, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) seeks to remove clause 27, which excludes liability for assisting an offence overseas if the relevant behaviour is necessary for the proper function of the intelligence agencies or the armed forces. The key question being: how is that materially different from the defence to encouraging or assisting crime in section 50 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 of acting reasonably?
I am a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, as is the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). As he said, we are due to receive further evidence on clause 27 and we are, therefore, not yet in a position to provide a view on it. It is probably right that I reserve my final judgment until I have considered that further evidence but, speaking personally, I am not persuaded that, within the parameters of the reassurance and protection it is reasonable to offer those acting on behalf of the intelligence agencies or the armed forces, clause 27 achieves anything that the current section 50 defence does not. The Minister will have to explain the difference between acting reasonably and acting in the proper exercise of a function, as this clause requires.
Mr David Davis
My right hon. and learned Friend will remember that, when the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 was first brought before the House, the International Criminal Court told the Government, “If you go too far with this and nobody can be prosecuted, we will prosecute.” Is there not the same risk with clause 27?
Sir Jeremy Wright
I hope my right hon. Friend is wrong, but the Government have to consider it for exactly those reasons. It would be not only wrong but profoundly embarrassing if the United Kingdom were to find itself in that position.
I hope the Minister can clearly explain the difference I outlined, because the only difference I can see is that it could be argued that “acting reasonably” may be applicable to more circumstances and, therefore, offer arguably broader protection than “acting in the proper exercise of a function.” We have heard it argued that the current defence is not sufficiently legally certain but, from experience, legal certainty is an elusive quarry. The concept of reasonableness is very familiar to the courts in a variety of contexts. Anyone looking for absolute certainty in every case will not find it, because all cases are different and must be considered on their merits.
The second area I want to mention is amendments 8 to 12, in my right hon. Friend’s name, dealing with the potential reduction of damages in national security proceedings where a successful claimant has committed wrongdoing related to terrorism. It is worth noting in passing that such wrongdoing is not limited to convictions for criminal offences, and we need to understand from the Minister what level of wrongdoing in this context would suffice to put someone’s damages in jeopardy.
The operative measure is clause 58(3), which says
“the court must decide whether, in light of its consideration of the national security factors, it is appropriate for it to reduce the amount of damages”.
So we need to know what “appropriate” means—or should mean. Surely it should mean appropriate in all the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice overall—it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that—and that there is no presumption in favour of reduction, nor is there an instruction to reduce damages where the factors set out are present. That is how I understand the clause, but I would be grateful if he could confirm it.
Lastly, I wish to discuss amendment 38, which would remove clause 84 and stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). That clause provides that, save for in very limited circumstances, civil legal aid would not be available in any case where it otherwise would be to those previously convicted of terrorism offences. My concern is that this is a very significant shift in the principles applicable to legal aid. At the moment, we award legal aid on the basis of the merits of the case and the financial circumstances of the individual applying, never before doing so on the basis of their previous character. This change would be very significant and it would need significant discussion, which, by definition, given the clock in front of me, it is not going to get today.
We need to be clear about what we would be saying if we made that change. We would be saying that whatever happens to that individual—however blatantly their rights may be infringed, in cases wholly unrelated to their previous conduct—the state will not assist them to defend their rights as it otherwise would, because of a previous criminal conviction. I am not sure that would be right and I am not sure that if it is, it makes any sense to specify only terrorism offences, rather than any other serious criminal offending. But whether it is right or wrong, we need to discuss it properly and not have it tacked on to this Bill, which is about something completely different, with very limited time to discuss it.
Mr Carmichael
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who did the House a great service in bringing to us in four minutes what could have been the subject matter of a whole afternoon’s debate in itself, thus highlighting the total inadequacy of today’s proceedings for proper scrutiny of this Bill. I fear it will be filleted when it goes to the other place, and it deserves to be.
I added my name to new clause 8, but it is not available to debate and discuss. So much of what is in the Bill risks offering protection to people who do the wrong thing in the service of our country, while those who seek to expose that wrongdoing are to be left completely unprotected. Others have said it before, and I say it again now: this was the perfect opportunity to provide protection of that sort. If not now, when are going to see it?
It is a matter of significant regret that in an area of public policy where there is a substantial and natural consensus across the political parties, we have come to this stage in the proceedings of the Bill with so much division and disagreement, albeit a disagreement between those on the Treasury Bench and the Government Back Benches, not just between the parties. I do not think anybody in this House would not want to promote the security of our nation, and we all understand the complex and difficult situations in which pursuing that work often places people.
We also know, because it is human nature as much as anything else, that in these difficult and complex situations it is often possible to persuade oneself of just about anything. When that happens, it is necessary that somebody, somewhere, can be held accountable for it, because we are a country that believes, still, in the rule of law, and these things matter. That is why my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and I are so concerned about the content of clause 27 and clauses 79 to 83.
As I mentioned in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the cases about which we know and are rightly shocked, we know about only because these matters came into the public domain by mere happenstance. It is eminently possible that the circumstances of Belhaj and Boudchar would not be known to us today but for the fact somebody who happened to be walking around Gaddafi’s palace during the fall of his Government found the papers that revealed the extent to which rights had been deliberately traduced. It is surely wrong that there should be protection for people who behave far outside British standards, notwithstanding Government policy and indeed the law.
The same is true in relation to clauses 79 to 83, which remain the subject of massive controversy. I am certain that they will be revisited, hopefully with more detail and vigour than we have been able to give them today, because they do not belong in a Bill of this sort. I hope that, when the Bill eventually comes back to this House, it comes back without them.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and to see so many members of the Bill Committee in the House on Report. It was a very constructive Committee, and I am pleased that we are all still vaguely getting on.
As the Minister said in his opening remarks, a number of clauses in the Bill update espionage legislation that goes back to world war one. Obviously we do not have time to go through all of them, but after putting the Bill into context, I will spend some time talking about clauses 13, 14, 20 and 21. The context is important. In my lifetime, and since the end of the cold war, we have lived through an era of what could be considered unprecedented global peace. In many ways, in the ‘90s, we took our eye off the ball. Once the Berlin wall came down, we took our eye off the ball on state-based threats. When things got hot in 2001, after 9/11, our national security legislation and our activity were focused much more on counter-terrorism, so now is the time to update our espionage legislation to counter state-based threats as well as counter-terrorist threats.
It is clear that state-based threats have not gone away. There are more Russian spies in London now than there ever were at the height of the cold war.
Ben Everitt
Because I have read it. [Interruption.] I will give sources to the House of Commons Library if I have to.
Those hostile threats are a real and present danger. Russia in particular is a danger. We know that the Skripal poisonings were the work of the GRU. We know that Russia continues to implement a range of hybrid techniques that undermine what it sees as its adversaries—to make it clear, that includes us. The use of disinformation, particularly through bot accounts on Twitter, has been used to foster division and political instability in countries.
The head of MI5 has declared that China, not Russia, is the biggest long-term threat to Britain’s national security. It is said that if Russia is a tropical storm, then China is climate change. This new threat requires new measures to protect us. We need to create new offences to tackle state-based sabotage. I refer to clause 13, in particular. I would argue to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is not in his place, that we do go far enough.
Part 2 of the Bill covers prevention and investigation measures, which update our legislation to mirror the counter-terrorism legislation that we learned so hard in the noughties. In many ways, that reflects the new foreign intelligence threat that we face, which is much more like the threat of terrorism from the past 20 years. Espionage has never been the gentleman’s game that is portrayed in books and films, but now, in particular, we face some pretty gruesome threats. Clause 21, on arrest and detention, is also incredibly necessary in this day and age.
In summary, I support the Bill. We must bring our espionage laws up to date and into the 21st century.
Chris Bryant
I, too, support the Bill, but I think part 3 is a complete mess. I do not think it will survive long in the House of Lords—I hope they do a proper job of scrutinising it, because we are certainly not able to do a proper job of scrutiny this afternoon. The Minister is a lovely chap, but if he were on the Back Benches, he would be saying exactly what I am saying now. We know that Ministers do that, because only days ago, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told the whole House that the one thing he had been proclaiming to the world—that the UK deals with Australia and New Zealand were wonderful—was not what he really believed.
Of course, we need to tackle political interference by hostile states in the United Kingdom. Some of us have been arguing that point for a very long time, which is one of the reasons why I would like to see the tier 1 visa report published—I see the Minister nodding, so let us hope that he will have produced it by the end of the week. Secondly, I would like us to have the full Russia report, so that we know exactly what the Government knew about interference in British politics.
Some interference is overt, but much of it is covert, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) has just referred to. Some of it comes not from embassies, but from all sorts of different people who approach MPs and Ministers and seek to influence the British political system. Some of it is online targeting through bots and trolls, which may be done from St Petersburg, Tehran or wherever, but some of it happens on our own streets. Sometimes, it happens in Parliament through all-party parliamentary groups that receive support, whether secretariat or financial, that comes directly or indirectly from a foreign power. We need to be careful about that. We on the Standards Committee have had direct advice from Parliament’s director of security that this is the Achilles heel of the British political system at the moment.
MPs and peers, of course, do not have the resources to be able to personally check whether the person who is coming through the door has legitimate bona fides; we simply do not have that intelligence resource. That is why one of the amendments I have tabled seeks to establish that, once somebody has registered that they are working for a foreign power, they should declare that when they come to see a Member of Parliament or Government Minister. In Parliament, we do not just register: we declare. That is a simple thing and I am bewildered that the Government are not prepared to accept it.
My new clause 2 would, very simply, make it a new criminal offence for an MP or peer to work for a foreign power that has been specified by the Government to be a danger to the country. Why would anybody vote against such a measure? I have no understanding of why the Government would oppose it. Without my new clause, the Government might decide that, for instance, Iran or Belarus was to be one of the countries on the list and introduce that by regulation, but an MP or Member of the House of Lords would be free to work for that foreign power—all they would have to do is register the fact that they are doing so. I am sorry, but I think that should be a criminal offence. People have talked too easily of treachery and traitors in the political domain over the last few years, but this is an open door to treachery and treason, and I think we should close it.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) has said. I am incredibly supportive of the Bill overall, but I do have questions that it would be helpful to get clarity on in this debate, or—what I think is more likely—when the Bill goes to the other place. I say that because the questions and issues we want clarity on are so substantial that we cannot do them justice in the limited time we have today.
For me, those issues revolve around the foreign influence registration scheme and the exemptions to that scheme. I am mindful that the scheme was introduced into the legislation after we had taken evidence in Committee, so we did not get the chance to question some of the experts on what it would look like. I will address my remarks to clause 68 and Government new schedule 2, and to amendments 15 and 16, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I am particularly concerned about the legal services exemption. I do not understand why such a broad exemption is required. As my right hon. Friend said, it might be that we are just copying the US legislation, but we need a level of explanation. Removing the legal exemption is not about restricting access to legal services—we still fundamentally believe in natural justice and the rule of law—but we need transparency to prevent exactly the kind of lobbying that we have spoken about. I know that we are unlikely to vote on the amendments today, but we need that kind of transparency.
If we are trying to copy or mirror some of what the US has done, I would question the lack of any kind of exemption for academia, which the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoke about. I have spoken to Universities UK, which is concerned about the enhanced tier proposed in FIRS and the impact it could have on UK R&D and on our competitiveness. The US registration scheme clearly has an exemption for
“religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits”
provided that no political activities are included.
I am saying not that there should be an exemption for academic services but that we in this House need to debate properly what exemptions, if any, should apply to the scheme. Should there be an exemption for legal services? Should there be an exemption for academic work? I do not think we have the opportunity to consider that properly today, but I look forward to following the debate in the other place. I ask the Minister to think about some of those exemptions and, if we are to proceed with them, to give a proper explanation to the House about why they might be necessary.
Stewart Hosie
The Minister said in relation to the foreign influence registration scheme that other countries have had similar provisions for some years, and of course, that is absolutely true. It is also true that the ISC is very much in favour of introducing a foreign influence registration scheme. We are concerned, however, that the scheme as proposed is more complex than the ones in the US and Australia but that it simultaneously does not go far enough, which is a problem.
Unlike the US and Australian schemes, the proposal is for the one here to be two-tiered. I welcome Government amendments 63 to 94 to restructure clauses 61 and 64, which at least makes some of this a little more comprehensible. However, that still leaves us with a primary tier that will capture all arrangements and activity undertaken on behalf of any foreign power for the purpose of influencing a political event or decision—that is welcome at face value—and a secondary tier designed to capture all other activity beyond political influence, including, for example, acting as a foreign intelligence officer. For arrangements or activity to require registration, however, they have to be undertaken on behalf of a country set out in secondary legislation, so the provision does not necessarily apply automatically to every country.
As I said earlier, it is difficult to understand why acting covertly as an intelligence officer outwith the political influencing sphere, for example, applies only where the foreign power is set out in secondary legislation. It is perfectly possible that intelligence operations will be undertaken by countries that are not named in the regulations and so will not require registration. That is self-evidently an omission and a weakness. Requiring all countries to register such activity would be a stronger deterrent.
As the scheme does not yet name a particular country that may be registered under the second tier, it is not clear which countries the Government intend to name when the Bill becomes law. It is also not clear what criteria will be used when deciding which countries to add to the list. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, these things can take some time. I do not know how swiftly the Government might react to add a new country threat, and I am certainly not at all convinced that when that threat is lifted, the Government will act swiftly to remove a country from the list in the secondary tier.
This is a bit of a dog’s dinner. The real risk is that the secondary tier, which could be valuable tool and which I want to see work, might end up not being used. As the Security Minister recognised in Committee, use of the enhanced registration requirement will be “limited”. We do not want this to be limited; we want it to be comprehensive, to be able to capture the majority of the risks. It would surely be far more effective to have one tier which applies to all countries and a broad range of covert activity.
John McDonnell
For the record and as a message to the other House, I wish to say that I believe that the Government forcing through such a serious Bill in so limited a period of time today is a matter of contempt of this House and the parliamentary process.
I rise to speak because over a decade ago I gave an undertaking to one of my constituents that I would seek to ensure that no other person would go through what he had gone through. It worries me that sometimes this House’s collective memory is lost, so it is worth reminding people of what was happening in that period. There was a culture of unaccountability—almost of impunity—among some of our services, and the way they liaised with other nation states and their intelligence services resulted in the torture of our constituents.
My constituent was a young Asian doctor, who had just finished his training. He went on an altruistic, charitable expedition to Pakistan to work in hospitals there. He was picked up and for six weeks he was tortured. At the end of each torture session, which consisted of thorough beatings, he was interrogated by what could only be MI6. It was clear to us. I saw Ministers; alongside the Ministers were civil servants, and alongside them were, I believe, intelligence officers. I got the same response as has been given today, with the same phrasing: “We do not condone or support or participate in torture.” Well, they did on that occasion, and scarred my constituent for life. Even though he is now a successful consultant, he lives in fear still.
What was happening is that decisions were taken here about the arrest of my constituent and the questions that would be put to him at the end of the torture, as though at the end of the exercise we could have clean hands. It was unacceptable. I support amendment 14 because I fear that, if we try to lift some of the protections that our constituents have, we will recreate that culture of unaccountability and impunity and others will suffer like my constituent suffered. That is why it is important not to lessen the accountability of decision makers at every level, whether they are on the frontline or in ministerial offices here.
My second point can be stated briefly. I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. What this Bill has successfully done—I have never seen it before—is unite the Society of Editors with the NUJ and various campaigning bodies. They say the provisions will
“strip away longstanding safeguards that are in place to prevent the wrongful access of journalistic material and are a risk to sources and investigative journalism more widely.”
They also say the legislation may “criminalise” some investigative journalism and “chill” whistleblowing.
It is not right to criticise Mr Speaker’s selection of amendments, but we were hoping that an amendment that was in order would be crafted at this stage to provide at least some protection—the public interest protection. That is why I support amendment 3, tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team. If the other place does not insert a public interest protection, a review of the legislation at an early stage will be critical and may result in such a provision. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for the litany of amendments they have tabled trying to ensure at least some protection in the detail of the legislation for journalists, whistleblowers and others. I regret that it looks as though their amendments will not be made today.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I was here to speak to new clause 7 and amendments 17 to 28 and 30 to 39, but there is not enough time for me to do so. That is most regrettable, given the importance of the Bill.
I am here not in my personal capacity but as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Our duty is to scrutinise legislation to check its human rights compliance, and we have done that. I remind Members that the Joint Committee is a cross-party Committee with half its members from the House of Commons and half from the House of Lords. That is just as well, because it will be in the House of Lords that our amendments get the attention that I believe they deserve. Although I am not really a fan of the House of Lords as an unelected Chamber, I am very much a fan of second Chambers. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that such a small amount of time has been afforded to us today to debate this important Bill, which we believe has significant human rights implications. Given the short time available to me, I shall make some general comments; as I say, I hope that our detailed amendments will get the attention they deserve in the House of Lords.
We broadly welcome the attempt to modernise espionage offences, but we have some concerns about the Bill’s provisions. The Bill is a step forward and many of its provisions are broadly in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission’s recent review, but there are risks that some of the provisions are drawn far too widely and could criminalise behaviour that does not constitute a threat to national security. We think that other provisions would interfere unnecessarily and disproportionately with rights to freedom of expression and association and the right to protest, and that they may regrettably have a disproportionate impact on certain communities in the United Kingdom, particularly if new police powers are not exercised with restraint.
The provisions on prevention and investigation measures, which were not included in the Law Commission’s review, also engage the right to a fair trial, the right to liberty and security and the right to a private and family life in a way that gives the Joint Committee cause for concern. We are also very concerned about the restrictions on the grant of legal aid and on the awarding of damages to those who have been involved in terrorism. They risk impeding access to basic rights and legal protections, as other Members have elaborated on. We have therefore suggested that the Bill be amended in a number of ways but, as I say, there is not sufficient time for me to address any of the amendments in any meaningful way.
Let me say one other thing before I sit down. The Bill does not address issues relating to the unauthorised disclosure of information—sometimes known as leaks—despite it being a significant part of the Law Commission’s review. The commission set out clearly the ways in which the existing law engages and potentially breaches the UK’s human rights commitments under the European convention on human rights, and suggested ways in which law might be changed to overcome such issues. Although the Joint Committee appreciates that this is in many ways a complex and controversial area of law, we hope that that is not going to result in inaction, and encourage the Government to consult on legislative provisions as soon as possible.
We believe that reform of the Official Secrets Act 1989 is needed to ensure adequate respect for free speech. That is why I added my name to new clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which I very much regret we are not able to debate today. Put shortly, we need a public interest defence in this country.
Tom Tugendhat
This has been a very full discussion involving many people. Although I sympathise with those who have quite rightly made the point that we could always have more time for these debates, the truth is that we had a lot of time in the Bill Committee and we are going to have to do much more work on this subject as its various elements evolve with the technology and the challenge. The truth is that if we had had this debate five, 10 or 15 years ago, we would have been debating different subjects, different nations and different elements of technology that have evolved into the threat that we sadly face today. Although I recognise that many hon. Members have understandably raised the number of hours and days that we have had today and in the past few weeks, the Government have listened and adapted the Bill to many aspects that have been raised in different ways.
Chris Bryant
One thing that the Government have certainly had plenty of time to get ready is the tier 1 visa report, as promised by five Home Secretaries. When will the Minister publish it?
Tom Tugendhat
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that one of the first things I did on arrival at the Home Office was to ask for it to be prepared for publication. I will come back to him with it, I hope, urgently—I will let him know.
Many different points have been raised. I pay enormous tribute to my many right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken and to those who have approached the Bill with the diligence and seriousness that the subject demands, particularly the hon. Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who have been extremely supportive critics and have been challenging in the right spirit. I am glad to say that those discussions have resulted in most of the Bill going through in the way that was intended, and that those challenges and changes have improved it.
I accept that there are some differences of opinion. On areas such as the Serious Crime Act and the changes to statutory requirements, I believe that the Government are right because the exercise of the functions of an officer of the state are exactly what should be the limiting functions of their powers. That is why this reform makes sense, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) raised some important points and challenges that we will have to look at.
My right hon. and learned Friend also asked about damages and whether they followed in the way that he described, and I agree that they do. The point is that we should neither make it harder or more applicable to have damages, nor prevent it where judges seek the discretion to do so. Where they have that discretion, they may continue to do it, but we are asking them to look and consider the situation in which those damages arose to make sure that they are truly applicable. It is merely a review policy, rather than a block. That is an important element of the Bill; judges may already have that power but this measure merely puts it on the statute book.
Much of the debate has focused on whistleblowers and the public interest defence, and the way in which various people could argue that they are acting in the interests of the wider polity in raising different objections. This is a hugely important area and I understand that many hon. Members have raised different points. The head of MI5, the heads of various agencies and many others who have engaged on it have been absolutely clear on this point, however, because we need to make sure that we are not introducing any defence that forces the Government to reveal the damage that has been done in order to provide a defence.
The reality is that forcing the publication of damages may indeed be further damaging to the initial offence. That is why although I take the point about the public interest defence, which is a wider question for the whole of Government and the whole country, and I take the point about whistleblowers, which is again a wider question and not specific to the Bill, I am afraid that I hold with the head of MI5 and others who have been extremely clear on this point.
Mr Kevan Jones
With the greatest respect, that is a weak argument, because there can always be closed hearings on national security grounds. I say to the Minister that this issue will not go away—the courts are deciding it anyway. I would sooner state a protection in law than leave it to the whims of a jury, which is what we have now.
Tom Tugendhat
I have a great trust in our jury system, and I know the right hon. Member does, too.
Tom Tugendhat
Oh, he does not. I do have trust in our jury system and I do have trust in the Great British people to make decisions appropriately. One of the decisions sometimes made by juries is to strike out a case because they disagree with it. I am afraid that is simply one of those—
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The public interest defence has been mentioned on several occasions throughout this debate. Notwithstanding the strictures of national security and of this Bill, it is important that people have a reliable route that they can take when they want to expose wrongdoing. Does my right hon. Friend consider that an office of the whistleblower might be such a route? I know the public interest defence is very likely to come forward again.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. It is not specific to this Bill, but it is something that many of us have been considering for a while. I certainly agree that wider consideration is important in ensuring that those who have legitimate grievances and objections to what they may have been asked to do have a valid route for raising such questions.
I will go through a few of the other points very quickly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) raised the point about legal services, and they were absolutely right to do so. Let me be quite clear that this is about privileged legal co-operation. Therefore, that privilege should be exempt—it should absolutely be exempt—so that those who have access to legal rights should be able to exercise them without the state’s intervention. That is essential to the rule of law and, indeed, to the protection of human rights in our country.
I should also make it quite clear that the Government have heard very clearly the points made about civil legal aid. These will be receiving very serious consideration in the coming days, and I look forward to updating the House in due course on where that goes to.
I briefly thank for their insights my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on the Government side, and of course my very dear friend, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). Although we disagree, again, he remains a very close friend, and I look forward to discussing more of these issues with him in the future. I shall leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 9 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 3
Reviews of Parts 1, 4 and 5
‘(1) The operation of Parts 1, 4 and 5 of this Act must be reviewed by a person, or people, appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The operation of Part 4 must be reviewed by the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006.
(3) The operation of Parts 1 and 5 must be reviewed by either—
(a) the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006, or
(b) a different person appointed by the Secretary of State.
(4) Reviews under this section must be carried out in respect of—
(a) the 12-month period beginning with the day on which any section in this Part comes into force, and
(b) each subsequent 12-month period.
(5) Each review under subsection (1) must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the period to which it relates.
(6) The person or people mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review carried out under subsection (1) as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.
(7) On receiving a report under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.
(8) Section 36(6) of the Terrorism Act 2006 shall be read such that the “expenses” and “allowances” mentioned therein may include the discharge by the person or people of their functions under this section.’—(Holly Lynch.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It remains for me to thank enormously my right hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who did so much to get the Bill to the right place; my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has very graciously left me to get on with this; and all the Members who have been so helpful.
My great thanks go to the intelligence and law enforcement agencies in particular. Their extraordinary courage and skill have earned more than my admiration, respect and gratitude for many, many years, but never more so than in the last few weeks, in which I have been privileged to serve them.
It is worth pointing out very quickly one or two elements of the Bill that I have not yet had the chance to touch on. Let me make it absolutely clear that there is no possibility—no way, no desire, no intent—that any area in this Bill, or in any other that this Government would pass, would in any way diminish the unqualified right not to be tortured. That is an absolute right that this Government and, I know, other Governments, would all hold to. I should be absolutely clear that not only is there is no desire in this House for that to change, but there is no such desire in any of the services and agencies with which I have had the privilege of discussing it.
What our Government, our agencies and those who hold office in our name all know very well is that they are defending our rights and freedoms when they defend the rule of law. They are absolutely championing the values and liberties that matter to us. In the Bill, we are evolving from trying to stop spectaculars such as the tragedies that hit on 9/11 to employing spectrometers—finer points of detection—to try to ensure that we eliminate risks that come in different ways. That is why I am so grateful to them all for the advice and help they have offered to ensure that the Bill is structured as it is.
I should make it quite clear that the Bill has opened up an area in which we will need to go further and in which I am glad the Prime Minister has asked me to go further: the defence of democracy. Our democracy in this country has sadly been under attack for too long. We are not alone; we know that our friends in other parts of the country and other parts of the world have faced similar attacks and similar areas of influence. I am delighted that the taskforce that the Prime Minister has asked me to lead will get on with its work very shortly, updating the integrated review and helping to ensure that this country is ready for the changes in the threats that we face so that the ultimate sovereignty of our people—the right to choose—is guaranteed and defended long into the future. That means that we have to set up not just powers to empower those agents who work in our name, but the guardrails to defend that right.
I am very glad that the Bill includes such provisions as the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent—the Advocate General’s in certain cases—to make sure that none of the powers is abused in any way. I am delighted that we have got that in the right place, because we know, sadly, that abuse is always possible.
I will end with the words of Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, who today was very supportive of not only the Bill but many of the measures that his service has been carrying out. He has been inspirational in his leadership of his service and his defence of the United Kingdom, so I am delighted by his welcome for the foreign influence registration scheme, describing it as
“a modern power designed to tackle a modern threat”.
He is absolutely right, and the scheme is essential. For those reasons, I am grateful for the support we have had from the hon. Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), and other Members across the House.
Holly Lynch
I rise to confirm that the Labour party supports the Third Reading of this Bill.
It is the first job of every Government to defend our national security from hostile states that wish to do our country harm, and from malign actors and extremists who want to undermine our democracy and everything we stand for. That is not a principle that divides us along party lines; it unites every Member of this House. It is why throughout the Bill’s passage we have worked with the Government to get the detail right and to defend our shared interests, and why we will continue to do so.
Our world-leading intelligence and security agencies do incredible and unseen work, day in, day out, to keep us safe. We pay tribute to them and thank our brave officers and staff for their service. I also thank those in policing, the Home Office and the intelligence community for the way they have engaged with me and other hon. and right hon. Members involved in scrutiny of the Bill.
The threat posed by hostile states is on the rise. The annual threat update given today by Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, was a daunting assessment of the breadth and nature of the threats facing the UK. However, we remain concerned about clause 27 in particular and some of the details of the Bill, and we will continue to work with the Government and all those in the other place to find resolutions to those outstanding issues.
Labour supports the Bill because we could not take national security more seriously. We know that our democracy can be defended only when our agencies are equipped with the powers and tools they need, and when we can all have confidence in the procedures and oversight that accompany them.
Stuart C. McDonald
I, too, thank all colleagues for their involvement and engagement in the Bill, even if we could have done with a little more time for that today. I also thank all the officers and staff of the Home Office and the agencies for their engagement. They have persuaded us of the merits of large parts of the Bill, if not quite all of it. I want personally to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) for keeping me right on lots of these issues, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for her detailed work with the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
We do need a Bill of this nature—in fact, a Bill of this nature is long overdue. There are still dangers—as I said on Report, we have to make sure that we do not criminalise people the Bill is not intended to criminalise or leave loopholes for people who should be criminalised, and that we rein in some of the more excessive powers—but the Government have listened to some of our concerns and responded positively to some of the amendments. I just encourage them to listen more as the Bill proceeds.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to the announcement from the Chair on the result of the Education Committee elections, I would like to put on the record my thanks to the Clerks who organised today’s elections and to all colleagues who voted in them. I recognise that a number of excellent candidates ran for the post of Chair of the Committee, and I pay tribute to all of them for the respectful and constructive tone of their campaigns.
Nothing can be more important for the future of our country than how we educate and support our children. I pay tribute to the excellent work of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), in holding Ministers to account for that. I am grateful for the support of esteemed colleagues in all parts of the House in allowing me to follow in his footsteps.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I also put on the record my grateful thanks to the staff of the House for the conduct of the Transport Select Committee election earlier today? I am very grateful to have won the support of colleagues throughout the House. I pay tribute to the other candidates. I think the election somewhat taxed the arithmetical skills of the counters a little more than the election for the Education Select Committee, as it went through all the rounds of the contest. We had a good-natured and humorous campaign. I should mention in passing my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) and his innovative and tuneful campaigning style.
I very much look forward to chairing the Committee. Transport affects all our lives and all our constituents. I look forward to digging deep into the many issues and challenges that are coming forward. In the two hours or so since the result was announced, I think I have received about 20 different requests for the Committee that I look forward to fielding. Again, I offer my grateful thanks to all colleagues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the new Chairs of the Education Committee and Transport Committee for their points of order. I am sure that everyone in the House will have appreciated their kind words, not least those about the other candidates in the elections. I congratulate both hon. Gentlemen. I am sure they will have an enjoyable and interesting time carrying out the very important job of scrutinising the Departments, which I know everyone in the House appreciates—Ministers particularly appreciate that work. Many congratulations, and thank you also for your kind words about the staff of the House and their facilitation of the elections.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you might be able to advise me on a slightly more sombre subject. In a question earlier today, the Immigration Minister responded to a concern raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith)—I have been trying to find him to say that I was going to raise this issue—regarding the absconsion of a gentleman who it subsequently transpires from press reports has been accused of a very serious assault of a young refugee child in my constituency. The Minister said he would investigate the matter and come back to the hon. Member. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can ensure that, given that the matter took place in my constituency—we were not aware at the time—I get an update on the issue as well?
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reports of the case are very serious and raise some questions about how the Home Office has handled this case. We do not know the full circumstances at the moment, but could you use your good offices to ensure that the Immigration Minister updates us and fully investigates this case?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady and the right hon. Lady for their points of order. Obviously I do not know the background to this case, but I can see that it is a very serious issue. Government Ministers are present and I think the Minister for Security may wish to intervene.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that I speak for the Immigration Minister and the Policing Minister when I say that they will both look into it very carefully. I am sure they will return to answer these questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister; that is extremely helpful. I know that it will be fed back that this has been raised, that it is a serious issue and that the House would like some further information about what has happened since.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Police
That the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.
Representation of the People
That the draft Assistance with Voting for Persons with Disabilities (Amendments) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 24 October, be approved.
Pensions
That the draft Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Education)
That the draft European University Institute (EU Exit) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.
Algeria: 60th Anniversary of Diplomatic Relations
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Algeria, I feel privileged to have the honour of sponsoring this debate to mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of ties between the United Kingdom and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. The past 60 years since Algeria’s independence have been marked by close and cordial ties between our two countries, which, although very different on the surface, are in fact bound together by common history and shared objectives. As chair of the all-party group, I have engaged with Algerian businesses, British companies in Algeria, trade groups, the British ambassador in Algeria and, frequently, the two Algerian ambassadors in London. As a result, I have built close ties with the country, although—alas—I have not yet visited.
Throughout my time working on Algeria, I have chosen to characterise Anglo-Algerian relations as being composed of four main pillars of mutual co-operation and interest: energy, trade, security and culture, which encompasses history, tourism and heritage. Algeria aligns with a number of diverse issues that are of great relevance to me. Hon. Members will be aware that energy, business and history have long been my interests, alongside promoting British expertise in those areas globally. The UK’s position as a finance hub, a tech hub, a home to world-class universities and a leader in many economic sectors puts us in a unique position to share our technologies and expertise with Algeria and help it to unlock its huge potential. Our recent presidency of COP26 and our green-tech capabilities will enable us to help Algeria to pursue its energy transformation.
Why is now the perfect time for a debate on British-Algerian relations? As the title of the debate indicates, 60 years of warm diplomatic ties are worth celebrating, but there is more to it than that.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for calling this important debate. Last month, I had the pleasant privilege of visiting Algeria in my role as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance—the first such visit of the alliance. I was genuinely pleased at the welcome that I received at meetings in the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Ministry of Interior, both of which confirmed that they were willing to continue such dialogue, to which I look forward. Does he agree that it is important to continue such conversations wherever opportunities are made available?
Alexander Stafford
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I am glad that she had such a successful and fruitful visit to Algeria. I hope that one day in the not-too-distant future, I, too, will visit that beautiful country. I completely agree that now more than ever, there is a huge appetite on both sides for a deeper and closer relationship, catalysed by Britain’s post-Brexit freedom to trade with whomever we wish, and by Algeria’s concerted effort to put its colonial legacy in the past once and for all and to control its own destiny and relevance to the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the debate. Although it is important to provide high levels of support to British nationals in Algeria and to maintain good relations with the Algerian Government, there are—I say this respectfully—ongoing concerns about the treatment of minority religions in Algeria, one of which is Christianity, as I know he understands well. Christians are vulnerable to prosecution for blasphemy and there has been a systematic closing of 13 Protestant churches. Does he therefore agree that to maintain our diplomatic relations, the Algerian Government need to make religious persecution a priority and allow people to practise their faith in freedom and peace? Let us welcome the good things, but do more.
Alexander Stafford
It is an honour to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman. This is my seventh or eighth Adjournment debate and he has never intervened in one, so it is a pleasure to be intervened on today. On his point about Christianity and the freedom of religion, it is important that everyone can practise their religion wherever and whenever they choose. In fact, I had a conversation with the previous Algerian ambassador to London about that very matter not long ago. I will touch on Christianity later in my speech.
It is important to recognise that we cannot understand Algeria or become its close partner without looking at its history and how it was formed as a country. Many Britons may be aware of Algeria only as a north African Arab nation with a recent French influence. That is undoubtedly true, but it boasts a heritage dating back thousands of years. In antiquity, it was the home of the famed Numidians, who were succeeded by the great Phoenicians, who founded nearby Carthage, as we all know. After a slow decline marked by the Punic wars among other things, Algeria fell under the control of the Romans after they defeated the Numidian king, Jugurtha.
In my potted history of the great country of Algeria, I will emphasise its great Roman heritage, which formed Algeria as the country that it is today. In 46 BC, Julius Caesar annexed Algeria to the Roman empire and the regional capital was chosen to be Cherchell. Emperor Trajan’s strategy of reinforcing Rome’s Algerian territories resulted in the great fortress at Lambaesis and the development of towns such as Timgad and Djémila. Timgad is upheld as a marvel of Roman town planning, with a beautifully preserved UNESCO world heritage site often described as Africa’s Pompeii. The city was a home for retired soldiers, with the inscription in the forum reading “Lavare, Venari, Ludere”, translated as “Hunting, bathing and playing”, which surely sums up the good life for everyone, especially those who had given service to the empire.
As a result of Roman development, Algeria was regarded as a particularly productive part of the empire, becoming a main provider of agricultural surpluses to other distant territories. Later, Emperor Caracalla represented why the Roman model was so successful: he was of Punic and Arab ancestry, with few actual ties to Rome, yet he was thoroughly Roman in citizenship, attitude and way of life.
At this juncture, Christianity enters the picture. The Christian faith has a long history in Algeria, and was present there long before Islam. By the 4th century, many Algerian Christians followed Donatism, a local church steeped in the ethnic and social values of the region and more popular in the inland, poorer towns. It was so named after its leader, the local Berber bishop, Donatus. St Augustine, the Berber Bishop of Hippo Regius, wrote a treatise against the Donatists. St Augustine’s legacy can still be seen today at Annaba.
Augustine’s importance as a Church father cannot be underestimated, given his huge impact on foundational Christian doctrine and theology, particularly in his seminal text “The City of God”, a philosophical treatise vindicating Christianity in the face of the sacking of Rome by the pagan Visigoths. It is widely regarded as a masterpiece of western culture, yet it is absolutely fascinating to me that Augustine is clearly a son of Algeria. So Algeria, even back in Roman times, helped shape the face of western Europe.
Obviously, St Augustine is not the only famous Roman name to be associated with Algeria. Constantine the Great gave his name to the city of Constantine, which exists today under the same name as Algeria’s third biggest city. It is one of the biggest cities in the world and known as the city of hanging bridges. Emperor Constantine reportedly said that it was the only place in the world where man is higher than an eagle.
Other Members will know that my historical muse is Justinian the Great, and I always find that in debates in Parliament there can never be enough Justinian. Justinian’s story itself is inextricably linked with Algeria, because in 533 AD Justinian sought to restore Roman control over all its territories and sent the general Belisarius from Constantinople to north Africa with 16,000 men. Within a year, the victorious Belisarius had destroyed the Vandal kingdom and restored Roman rule, using this as a launchpad to reconquer Italy and much of the western Roman empire. Justinian’s reconquest of the Roman west is clearly one of the greatest achievements of any empire, and this campaign was conducted by one of the most brilliant generals in history. It is incredible, once again, that Algeria was central to this seminal episode in history, and all that began in north Africa.
Algeria has had a diverse and varied list of rulers, however. The Arabs arrived in the mid-7th century, bringing Islam and Arabic to Algeria. The Arabs were without a doubt the most impactful of all of Algeria’s invaders, very much forming the character of the country as it is today. This Islamic cultural presence was continued by the Ottomans, who ruled Algeria from 1516 to the French arrival in 1830.
The 130-year period of French rule had a profound influence on Algeria, which can still be seen today in language, customs and ties. The traumatic events of Algeria’s war of independence live long, even now, in the memory of Algerians, and 1 million pieds-noirs fled to France amid the turmoil and horrors perpetrated by various groups on all sides, such as the OAS. The Évian accords in 1962 granted Algeria its independence, but meant that the French Republic shrunk greatly in area, population and importance.
Algeria then, unfortunately, fell victim to a repeat of the violence and brutality of the war of independence in the Algerian civil war of 1991 to 2002, in which the Algerian Government fought Islamist rebel groups. A hard-won victory by the Algerian Government has left ongoing insurgency fears in the country and an interventionist state security apparatus.
However, Algeria is looking to fashion modern, equal relationships that will be both mutually beneficial and respectful. Accordingly, the United Kingdom has only ever had positive relations with Algeria. Britain has been nothing but friendly to Algeria throughout history, building links based on friendship and equality, particularly in the past 60 years of Algerian independence. There is ample evidence of Anglo-Algerian harmony down the years. Official relations between Algeria and the United Kingdom date back to John Tipton’s appointment as first British consul in Algiers in 1580.
The 1682 treaty of peace and trade heralded a prosperous relationship built on commerce, and the British enjoyed privileged treatment in Algiers compared with other foreigners. After the French invasion of Algeria, the British consul served as intermediary in negotiations between the French and the Ottoman Algerian ruler, and in 1833 this very Parliament here in Westminster rejected the French claim to occupy Algeria—it was always on Algeria’s side. A number of British Army officers expressed admiration for Algerian resistance to French occupation, and Colonel James Scott even joined Algerian hero Emir Abdelkader. British travellers from the time published accounts praising Algeria as a good place to settle due to its climate and people. They were joined by visits from high-ranking British dignitaries, including King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, who made a private visit to Algiers in 1905.
After Algeria’s independence in 1962, relations between Algeria and the United Kingdom became deeper and stronger. The UK was Algeria’s first client to import liquefied natural gas in 1964, and British companies were crucial in supplying equipment, machinery, and technological expertise for Algeria’s industrial expansion. Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II visited Algeria in October 1980 on a historic visit, where she was received by the President and visited the Roman ruins at Tipaza. Likewise, in 2006 President Bouteflika made the first visit by an Algerian head of state to the UK since independence. In 2013, David Cameron was the first, although I hope not the last, British Prime Minister to visit Algeria.
Algeria and the United Kingdom share not only a deep history but impressive cultural ties. For example, the UK has been the second most popular destination, after France, for Algerian students wishing to go to university, and efforts are being made to expand that pathway father. British universities have also had successful study abroad exchange programmes with Algerian universities. Algeria has provided some of the world's best footballers to play in the English league, namely Riyad Mahrez and Saïd Benrahma. The books “The Praetorians” and “The Centurions” by Jean Lartéguy, which focus on Algeria, have proved hugely popular in translation in the Anglophone world. The film, “The Battle of Algiers” was critically acclaimed and ranked as one of the best films of all time, including in Britain. That shows the cultural impact Algeria is having. Even more excitingly, the ambassador has told me that preparations are well under way for an Anglo-Algerian film focusing on the life of Algerian hero, Emir Abdelkader, which I hope will introduce that most important historical figure to an Anglophone audience.
Against that encouraging backdrop, what is the future of British-Algerian relations? Currently, a consultation mechanism exists in the UK-Algeria joint committee on bilateral relations, which was established in 2006 to provide an appropriate framework for discussing political, economic, educational and cultural relations, and international issues of common interest. Furthermore, a strategic partnership in the area of security was launched in 2013.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Britain and Algeria go back a very long time and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. The United Nations recognises the Polisario Front as the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, and Algeria has a long history of supporting the Sahrawi people and the Polisario Front. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in placing on record our recognition of the work of Algeria when it comes to the issue of the Western Sahara and the Polisario Front?
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have a great link with Algeria. Obviously it is not up to Britain to decide who Algeria has diplomatic relations with, or not, but it is clear that in any process we must have lots of dialogue and talk to all sides.
Let me return to the four pillars of co-operation that I referred to at the beginning of my speech. Energy is currently by far and away the greatest area of British-Algerian co-operation. Several British companies are investing in Algeria in the energy field, and are considered among the most important foreign investors, including BP. Oil and gas are a critical part of Britain’s transition to net zero, and fossil fuel companies have a huge role to play in research and innovation for renewables. In the wake of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, it is more important than ever that we have a reliable supplier of energy and, with my renewables background, I see a mutual opportunity for Britain and Algeria in the green energy space.
Algeria will need to pivot towards renewables over the coming decades. Promising steps have already been taken in harnessing the solar power potential of the vast Sahara desert. I believe that there is a central role for the export of British skills, technology and expertise in renewable energy to Algeria, particularly in solar panels, wind turbines and hydrogen. We must seize that opportunity for the benefit of UK plc.
Simultaneously, Algeria will reap the rewards of its natural geographic advantage—it is the biggest country in Africa, with lots of space and sun—to ensure that its energy industry and wider economy is just as prosperous with renewables as it is with fossil fuels. In the build-up to COP26 in Glasgow, I was pleased to see the now Foreign Secretary visit Algiers in March 2020 and sign a declaration of intent of co-operation in the field of environmental protection, sustainable development and renewable energies.
Jim Shannon
There was a story in the press over the weekend about green energy in relation to Morocco, with the possibility of some of it being exported to the United Kingdom using a channel under the sea. Does the hon. Gentleman know about that? Is there a possibility of Algeria and Morocco doing a deal with the United Kingdom?
Alexander Stafford
I thank the hon. Member for intervening again in my debate; it is always a privilege to hear from him. That sounds like an interesting idea. As I said, in our post-Brexit world, we need to explore all options, especially when it comes to the decarbonisation of our energy fields.
Britain and British energy companies must work with Algeria to implement the Algerian renewable energy strategy, an investment of US $100 billion by 2030 that will result in the country producing a third of all its domestic energy from renewable sources. There is definitely room for more to be done beyond energy, however, with rich opportunities to deepen ties in agriculture, infrastructure, pharmaceutical, mining and rare earths, cyber and digital. The aforementioned 2020 declaration of intent of co-operation established an investment taskforce to allow businesses to continue operating freely after the end of the UK’s transition period with the EU, and committed to co-operating across a range of areas including political, economic, security and cultural relations.
It is hugely important that we have focused on education, too. That has led to an agreement for the first British school to open in Algeria and for the promotion of the English language. Likewise, I hope that many more high-skilled and talented Algerian students will come to study in British universities.
Security co-operation is critical in an ever more dangerous world, There are three elements to the partnership. The first is, of course, counter-terrorism, with Britain and Algeria continuing to fight Islamic terror wherever it may spring up. The second element is regional stability as Algeria acts as a vital bulwark against chaos in neighbouring Libya and across the Maghreb as well as in the Sahel to the south and the wider middle east. Similarly, a peaceful resolution to the deadlock in the Western Sahara requires Algeria’s leadership and collegiality. The third element is in stemming the flow of illegal migration and human trafficking to Europe’s shores. With small boats crossing the channel on a daily basis, Algeria has an important role to play in disrupting trafficking networks in north Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and the middle east.
Finally, and as I have spoken about at great length, there is great scope for increasing exchange in tourism, culture, history and heritage issues. Algeria boasts some of the richest history and the most impressive sights. I would like to see lots of Britons visiting Algeria in the manner that they happily and regularly visit neighbouring countries such as Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, especially for the ancient sites.
As I draw to a close, I reiterate that I firmly believe that the region is a vital new frontier for Britain as we leave the EU and look to build stronger, exciting new trade partnerships around the world. Algeria is the largest country in Africa by area, and it is highly developed, with a young, dynamic, educated populace. It stands at the gateway to Africa: a continent launching the Africa free trade zone and upgrading a road from Algiers to Lagos. Algeria is enjoying substantial GDP growth and provides free healthcare and education to its citizens, including free higher education.
Algeria is diversifying its economy by prioritising entrepreneurship, start-ups and renewable energy. I particularly welcome the new incentives being introduced and the new frameworks being set up by the Algerian Government to encourage foreign investment. Algeria is also looking for modern, equal relationships and wishes to build alliances in Europe to navigate a way forward through a volatile petrochemicals market. It also desires to lift opportunities for the Algerian people to new heights.
Of course, there are challenges, just as there are in any relationship, but on the 60th anniversary of the establishment of ties between the United Kingdom and Algeria, the future has never looked brighter for our relationship on all fronts, and the hunger for a deeper and closer partnership from both sides is impossible to ignore. Thus, I ask the Minister to bear Algeria in mind as the United Kingdom uses its new, exciting status as a sovereign trading nation, because I am certain that a good friend and ally is on our doorstep, waiting to welcome a successful British-Algerian future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) on securing this debate and I commend him for his very considered words on the history between the UK and Algeria. I recognise the work he does as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Algeria. In his speech, he talked about masterpieces of culture. I congratulate him and reflect on his masterpiece of a speech, which was incredibly well crafted, going back some distance in history further than I will attempt to do today—I will stick to the last 60 years.
The UK has been a firm friend to the people of Algeria since it gained independence in 1962, and remains so. As with all friendships, our countries have shared successes and difficult times, but the strength of our diplomatic relationship has held true. Most recently, we appreciated the solidarity shown by Algerian Prime Minister Benabderrahmane in attending the state funeral of Her late Majesty the Queen.
It has been 60 years since Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and President Ben Bella exchanged messages, establishing diplomatic relations between the UK and the newly independent Algeria. Prime Minister Macmillan shared hopes of reconstruction there, following a long and difficult struggle for independence. That hope came to fruition just two years later, when British and Algerian business entered into a joint venture on energy. The UK purchased Algeria’s very first delivery of liquefied natural gas and assisted in building a key pipeline. We were impressed by Algeria’s economic and social development during the 1970s. We also appreciated its strength of purpose on diplomatic issues during the 1980s, when Algeria’s mediation was sought by many in the region and beyond in the resolution of disputes and conflicts. As my hon. Friend noted, Her Majesty the Queen visited Algeria in 1980, where she was received by the then President Bendjedid and visited victims of the Chlef earthquake in hospital.
As we all know, the 1990s was a challenging decade for Algeria, but it emerged from that period. Oil prices rose and a new President came to power. Our relations with Algeria entered into a period of reinvigorated engagement at the turn of the millennium, in particular on security issues, with the UK recognising Algeria’s counter-terrorism experience and expertise. When we left the European Union, Algeria welcomed the opportunity to deepen our trade relationship and today our countries co-operate on a range of projects. Algeria is one of the key players in Africa and the international community, a respected and trusted security partner and a committed multilateralist.
As we mark six decades of diplomatic relations between our countries, we want to further strengthen and deepen our co-operation and relationship. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Minister with responsibility for north Africa and the middle east, visited Algeria in June, where he met counterparts and discussed the importance of our partnership on education, trade and climate, in particular. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary looks forward to hosting Foreign Minister Lamamra for the next edition of our strategic dialogue. We hope to soon agree dates for the dialogue to take place early next year.
On security, Algeria plays an important role in the region. We welcome and look forward to strengthening our co-operation across shared interests, including defence, counter-terrorism and migration, and tackling the global challenges of human trafficking and organised crime.
On trade, we launched our developing countries trading scheme earlier this year, from which Algerian exporters can directly benefit, and we welcome Algeria’s new investment law aimed at improving the business environment for international partnerships. We hope to take forward our shared commitment for a UK-Algeria trade taskforce to further strengthen trade and investment ties. We also stand ready to share the UK’s expertise on finance, including reforms, infrastructure and green finance.
Human rights are a clear priority for the UK. We welcome Algeria’s interest in assuming a role on the United Nations Human Rights Council, and we hope to work constructively in that area. For example, during a recent visit that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made to Algeria as the Prime Minister’s hard-working special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, we welcomed the constructive dialogue about ensuring the rights of religious minorities to practise their beliefs. Like her, I look forward to continuing that important dialogue, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) urged in his contribution to this important debate.
The UK has much to offer on energy and renewable technology. We want to supercharge our partnership with Algeria, which has great potential for solar energy in particular.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley says, education is a growing part of our relationship and helps us to build links, particularly between young people. We were delighted when President Tebboune announced in July that English would be taught from primary school onwards. We are proud that the UK is a popular destination for young Algerians to pursue higher education overseas. It is clear that sharing a language will bring our countries closer and enhance our cultural and business links.
Algeria is clearly a land of potential for its people, for its partners and for the world. Not only is it the largest and most developed country in Africa, but it has huge political and diplomatic capital in Africa, Asia, Latin America and beyond, as well as playing a key role in multilateral institutions. For all those reasons, we look forward to continuing to build on our historic relationship with the Algerian Government and people, working together to realise an even brighter and better future for the next 60 years and beyond.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Cessation of EU Law Relating to Prohibitions on Grounds of Nationality and Free Movement of Persons Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Cessation of EU Law Relating to Prohibitions on Grounds of Nationality and Free Movement of Persons Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. The draft regulations will further the Government’s aim of ensuring that all UK law is right for the UK by disapplying certain retained EU provisions that have been redundant since the end of the transition period. Before the UK’s exit from the European Union, the retained provisions granted European Economic Area and Swiss citizens the right to access benefits, services and educational entitlements on the same basis as UK nationals if their presence in the UK was in the exercise of specific freedom of movement rights.
The UK voted to leave the EU and, as a result, freedom of movement between the UK and European countries came to an end on 31 December 2020. As the provisions the draft regulations disapply were based in EU freedom of movement arrangements, they became redundant on that date. The withdrawal agreement provides the necessary protections for EEA citizens and their family members who were resident in the UK before the end of the transition period. This statutory instrument disapplies the retained EU equal treatment provisions, so that they cease to be recognised and available in domestic law in relation to access to social security, statutory payments, social assistance, housing assistance, education and training, apprenticeships and childcare-related matters.
In line with our manifesto commitments, EEA nationals coming into the country via the points-based immigration system are treated equally to those coming from elsewhere in the world. They are protected from individual discrimination by equal treatment and non-discrimination provisions enshrined in UK law.
The regulations clarify the situation already in effect, which is that there is no longer distinct treatment of EEA nationals, compared with non-EEA nationals, with regards to immigration and access to benefits, services and entitlements. The exception to that is those EEA and Swiss nationals residing in the UK under the EU settlement scheme. They continue to be able to access benefits, services and entitlements on the same basis as they could before the UK left the EU, in accordance with the terms of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement and equivalent agreements with the EEA and Switzerland. Their ability to do so is protected by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, and will not be altered by the regulations.
In summary, the draft regulations do not introduce a change in policy for any group of EEA or Swiss nationals in the UK. They simply tidy up the UK statute book to ensure that it functions effectively and with legal clarity. I am satisfied that the regulations are compatible with the European convention on human rights. I commend them to the Committee.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out an explanation of the regulations. I do not intend to detain the Committee long, but I have a few questions. Regulation 3, “Cessation of free movement of persons”, refers to rights and powers that
“continue by virtue of section 4(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; and…are derived (directly or indirectly) from”
the relevant articles of the treaties and agreements. The phrase “directly or indirectly” does not occur in regulation 2, “Cessation of prohibitions on grounds of nationality”, which states merely that prohibitions “are derived from” the relevant provisions of the treaties and agreements. Can the Minister clarify why there is that difference in wording? Does it have any meaning, and what is the scope of “indirectly” derived rights, powers and so on?
The schedule goes into some detail on most of the matters relevant to the regulations, but for housing it offers little detail, other than mobile homes being included, but not railway carriages or tents. Can the Minister tell us why the schedule does not detail the relevant matters for housing, and what sorts of rights and powers are envisaged under that heading? What effect will the regulations have on housing rights, and on protections for EEA citizens who arrived after the transition period ended?
I understand—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that the intention of the regulations is to end the grounding of entitlements and rights in the treaty, and in the agreement’s provisions on freedom of movement and equal treatment. That makes sense, but a number of the “relevant matters” refer to rights and entitlements that we might expect to apply to all people, without any nationality conditions, once they have a right to live or work here, such as the right to statutory sick pay or the entitlement to child care vouchers. I assume that in many cases, the grounding may have changed, but the rights remain the same. For the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister confirm that it is not the intention that all the rights listed under “relevant matters” will cease to apply to EEA citizens who arrive after the transition period?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I understand why the Government are bringing in these regulations: they want to tidy up the statute book and put the final nail in the coffin of any rights that EU and EEA citizens might have had in this country. The problem with their policy approach is that it is a race to the bottom. Rather than raising the standards and rights of other nationals who are here, they are treating EEA nationals in the appalling way that non-EEA nationals have continued to be treated in this country.
Let me give an example of how non-EEA nationals are treated. One in my constituency is here on a spousal visa. He has fallen on hard times—he has lost his job—and his spouse is a care worker on minimum wage. Neither can apply for housing assistance, because if either of them did, they would immediately have their visa removed. He is a spouse, and so is likely to be here for the indefinite future, but as he has not yet been here for five years, he cannot apply for indefinite leave to remain. They have four months of rent arrears, and are facing eviction, but the council cannot help them.
It is now proposed that we give that same treatment to EEA nationals. That is abhorrent. We should be raising, not lowering, standards. I am dreadfully disappointed that the Government are taking this approach of a race to the bottom—a race to a nasty, brutish Britain. But that of course is what the Conservatives want, and what they are doing.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. As the Minister knows from his previous roles, my party fully regrets the end of free movement for a variety of reasons, but we have had that debate—and will probably have it again another day. If we do, regrettably, bring it to an end, we should be careful in how we go about it.
The measure is framed as being technical, but it has significant implications for those impacted by it. Even the title of the regulations is slightly misleading. What the regulations will cease is not prohibitions on grounds of nationality, but the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality. The regulations will entitle the Government to discriminate against EU nationals.
Furthermore, the Minister’s statement that equalities legislation is untouched by the regulations is questionable. Discrimination on the grounds of nationality is, of course, prohibited under the Equality Act 2010, section 9(1)(b) of which makes it clear that race includes nationality. Of course, there are exceptions relating to immigration status, but paragraph 17 of schedule 3 of that Act was amended by the Equality (Amendment and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, so that it now refers to
“anything which forms part of retained EU law by virtue of”
sections 2 to 4
“of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.
Basically, all I am saying is that despite ministerial assertions to the contrary, equalities legislation is impacted by the regulations, so Ministers should be a little more careful about their assertions on that subject.
My second and probably slightly more important point is on what the regulations say nothing about: the position of people who are within scope of the withdrawal agreement. The Minister touched on that in his description of the regulations. Currently, people who are protected by that agreement are left to rely on it, and on international law. The question is, why do we not have an equivalent set of domestic protections for them, along the lines of the 2019 regulations to which I have just referred? Currently, those people are left to rely directly on just the international treaty. Imagine how difficult it is to walk into a social security office or anywhere else and say, “Never mind these regulations that your Government are producing at an incredible rate; here is an international treaty, and I have rights under it.” We need an equivalent domestic protection for those people, so they can say, “Here the Government set out that I have those rights, as someone protected by the withdrawal treaty.” That is what I would like to see in the draft regulations, but they are silent on that point. By endlessly passing such regulations, we make life more difficult for people who should be protected.
Finally, I will mention another set of regulations to illustrate my conclusion. A lot of exceptions were set out in a piece of legislation called the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. In schedule 4 of those regulations, all sorts of exceptions are set out—rights that continue, notwithstanding other measures that brought free movement to an end. Again, the draft regulations are silent about that, and it is not absolutely clear to me how the sets of regulations relate to each other.
That brings me to my concluding point. It is becoming incredibly and hellishly difficult to work out where we are at. The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 was introduced a couple of years back; a lot of the provisions we are debating should have been in primary legislation, so that we could debate and scrutinise them properly, but instead we are trying to follow five, six, seven or eight pieces of delegated legislation at a time. It is becoming really hard to understand what is going on. On that note, I will listen carefully to what the Minister will say, but I am not attracted by the draft regulations.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to Members for their contributions to the debate. I repeat that the draft regulations are a technical rectification to ensure that UK law functions with legal clarity by disapplying retained EU law that is now redundant.
On the point made about discrimination, it is important to recognise that we have our own domestic equalities protection framework in place. We do not need to look to the European Union for that. On the philosophical argument made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, I think it is fair to say that he was covering old ground; the decision to leave the European Union was made by the British people back in 2016, and this Government got on with delivering on the mandate that we were given by the British people. Ending freedom of movement, and having a points-based system that treats people equally regardless of where they come from in the world, is the right thing to do. That is reflected in the system we have in place. If Opposition Members take a different view of the form that the immigration system should take, I wonder whether those views will be put forward in their manifestos at the next general election.
I reiterate that the draft instrument will not change the policy in place regarding the rights enjoyed by EEA nationals in the UK. It will, however, correct a deficiency arising from retained EU law and bring greater clarity to the UK statute book. That goes directly to the heart of the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Westminster North. This SI delivers absolutely no substantive policy change; it simply clarifies the situation that is already in effect.
Stuart C. McDonald
First, will we ever see something in domestic law that is designed to protect the rights of those who are protected by treaty? Secondly, on the list of exceptions in schedule 4 to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—quite a mouthful—a huge list of rights are retained under that SI. Are they affected by the draft regulations? Will the Minister answer that, now or later?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It reminds me of times gone by, when we regularly debated immigration-related matters in the House, and probably at times in this Committee Room. My clear understanding is that, given the protections in the withdrawal agreement, no rights are being taken away. However, I am happy to take away his substantive question, and to come back to him on it in writing. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Offensive Weapons Homicide Reviews) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Offensive Weapons Homicide Reviews) Regulations 2022.
It is, as always, a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Reducing homicide and tackling serious violence is a top Government priority. We must use every tool at our disposal to stop lives being lost to serious violence.
Offensive weapons homicide reviews were introduced by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to support local agencies to work together to identify lessons, thereby preventing future deaths. The Act places a duty on the relevant review partners, including the police, to conduct an offensive weapons homicide review in certain circumstances where a person aged over 18 has died and an offensive weapon was used in their murder.
We intend to pilot the new reviews for a period of 18 months, beginning early next year, in specified areas in London, the west midlands and Wales, to ensure that they have been properly designed before any national roll-out. In essence, the draft regulations set up the pilots and provide that the relevant review partners will be the local authority, the police and, in England, the integrated care board, or, in Wales, the local health board, from the area where the death occurs or, where the location of the death is not known, where the body is found. The regulations will provide them with the detail they need to establish when a review must be carried out.
The draft regulations clarify that not every homicide involving an offensive weapon will require a review. It will be necessary for one or more of the review partner agencies to have, or to be reasonably expected to have, relevant information about the circumstances or background to inform the review. It will be necessary for the body, or part of the body of the person who died, to have been located, and for the identity of the victim or a suspected perpetrator to be known. That will ensure that resources are directed at cases where lessons can genuinely be learned to help prevent future homicides.
The regulations will allow the Secretary of State to direct which partners are the relevant ones to conduct a review should there be any uncertainty. We do not expect the power to be used often, but it is important to ensure that there are no instances where no one is responsible for leading the review.
The draft regulations also make it clear that a review is not required where the death is a
“death or serious injury matter”
within the meaning of section 12(2A) of the Police Reform Act 2002, thereby excluding deaths caused by a police officer in the course of their duties, which are investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct as a matter of routine.
It is worth saying that a number of homicides are already subject to a review, including where a person under 18 dies, a vulnerable adult dies, a person dies due to domestic violence, or someone in receipt of mental health care commits homicide. Those homicides are already subject to review proceedings such as those we are establishing in the draft regulations, which also allow the review partners to delegate, where appropriate.
As I am sure the Committee will agree, homicide and serious violence cause terrible suffering. We are determined to do all we can to drive down such crimes. The draft regulations, in supporting the introduction and piloting of new offensive weapons homicide reviews, will deepen our understanding of what lies behind such homicides and, we hope, better inform measures to prevent them in future.
Finally, I assure the Committee that we are concerned not to impose an excessive administrative, regulatory or financial burden on the police and the other review partners. In designing the statutory guidance setting out how the reviews are to be conducted, we will therefore ensure that they are light-touch and impose the minimum of regulatory burden and that the reports do not turn into massive encyclopaedias, but are concise and brief, so that we do not create additional burdens on already quite heavily stretched public and emergency services. However, the reviews will add to our understanding of offensive weapon-related homicides, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Knife crime obviously rose significantly in recent years, peaking in 2017-18. We are now seeing a reduction in knife crime overall, but there is still a real problem with very serious knife crime and serious violence. Today’s proposals, which we supported during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, are one part of the picture of how we understand what is happening and what lessons we can learn. We welcomed the provisions in the Bill, and we welcome the pilots being rolled out.
It is incredibly important that the pathways that lead people to a homicide, whether as a victim or perpetrator, are understood. In my patch in Croydon a review of 60 cases of serious violence was incredibly insightful about the situations people found themselves in. Huge themes emerged around exclusion from school, domestic violence in the home, the addictions of parents and the absence of parents, from which we can learn lessons about prevention. I am grateful that the Government have set out the pilot scheme. In the Bill Committee, I asked for more information, and that is contained in the draft regulations, but we have some questions.
The Minister said that he wants things to be done in a way that is light-touch, concise and brief. I understand the constraints on funding, but I stress the importance of doing things properly; we cannot cut corners. I push back on the language that he used; we have to do this properly, which will cost money, and we have some questions about the funding.
The explanatory memorandum says that an estimated 72 homicide reviews will take place across the pilot areas throughout the 18-month pilot. I am interested to know how that figure has been arrived at. The Home Office estimates that the cost per review will be
“£1,222 to each of the three relevant review partners (totalling £3,666) and £8,688 for an independent chair.”
Again, I am interested in how those figures have been calculated, and how this will be funded. Is the assumption that the review partners will cover the costs, including the staffing costs, or will extra funding be forthcoming? Do the Government plan on looking to local government or policing to increase the funding?
I am also interested to know how we will collectively learn lessons once the review has happened and the various recommendations that might come from it have been made. Will there be a unit in the Home Office that looks at the reviews and learns the lessons from a national perspective? I am interested to know what the membership of the oversight board is likely to be. The Minister said that there are already homicide reviews for a range of other situations—under-18-year-olds, domestic violence and the like. Do we know how we will decide which homicide review will be picked if there is a crossover? What is the order of priority in terms of whether it would be an offensive weapons review or a domestic homicide review? How will we decide?
Finally, I stress the budget issue. The local safeguarding partners that will have to fund this—whether it is local government or local police—will have to find the funding somewhere, and we know that there is great pressure on budgets. Anything the Minister can say about that, bearing in mind the need to protect the integrity of the reviews, would be helpful. We are, however, happy to support the draft regulations.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his remarks, and the Home Office for providing leadership in this area. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, and I will pick up on some of her points as I make some brief remarks about domestic homicide.
The Minister will know that a large proportion of homicides committed with an offensive weapon take place in the context of a domestic incident—they are domestic homicides. His Department is leading a review, working through evidence about the factors surrounding domestic homicide and looking to learn lessons. It is important that all of us in this place remember that homicides are not just a fact of life. We can, as a Government, and as agencies and local authorities, take steps to prevent some of these tragic incidents from occurring and spare some families the pain and grief of facing the horrific loss of a loved one in the most appalling circumstances. That is why that work is so important and welcome. Will the Minister therefore look at the work that is going on and see what progress has been made on the review of domestic homicides, particularly picking up the issue of victim suicides? He will be aware that the patterns of such crimes can sometimes be disguised as some kind of suicide pact, and the victims and their families do not get the justice they should get.
On a related issue, will the Minister please update us on the progress made by the Ministry of Justice on the domestic homicide sentencing review? I am sure he will be aware of that review, because he worked in the Ministry of Justice previously. That review is looking at the factors flowing out of the tragic case of Sally Challen and cases where coercive control is a factor. The Ministry of Justice is undertaking that review, but I am sure he will be sighted on it, because it relates directly to the work he is doing with his agencies and partners in policing.
Thank you for allowing me to make my comments, Mr Robertson. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument. I welcome the fact that these are pilot regulations, because new regulations over the last 20 or 30 years have often made changes across the board that have had poor consequences. The pilot approach is therefore to be welcomed in terms of both monitoring outcomes and checking that we have plugged the gap appropriately.
I have three observations. First, the Minister said that local partners may choose to delegate further, or to sub-delegate their responsibilities, for the homicide review. To whom does he imagine they may delegate those responsibilities?
Secondly, we all want to learn lessons, particularly around domestic violence cases, but also around any homicide. We will all have among our constituents surviving family members who are desperate to work out what happened to their loved one, even—it sounds rather grotesque—in the absence of the entire body at the time of discovery. Will the Minister give us an idea about what lessons have been learned from past reviews and what he is hoping will come from these pilots that the other reviews have not necessarily uncovered?
Thirdly, the statutory instrument is clearly designed to plug a gap in terms of where reviews may be required but are not necessarily called for at the moment. Will the Minister reassure us that it will mean there are no longer gaps in homicide reviews in other areas of the criminal justice system?
Chris Philp
There are a few points to respond to there. I start with those raised by the hon. Member for Croydon Central, who is the shadow Minister and my constituency neighbour. She made some observations about violent crime in general. As she said, knife crime has been on a declining trajectory for the past few years, which is welcome. We are focused on the most serious forms of violent crime, and there have been reductions there as well, compared with 2019—the last pre-pandemic year. We are investing heavily in the policing response through the Grip investment, which aims to heavily police hotspot areas. We are also trying to address the causes of violent crime, particularly knife crime, via violence reduction units and violence reduction partnerships, which have been successful in many parts of the country. The Metropolitan police have been well funded in that area.
I take the shadow Minister’s point about needing to make sure the reviews are done properly. I was not suggesting that we would sacrifice quality; my point was that sometimes reports and reviews conducted by public bodies turn into sprawling, bureaucratic monsters. They go way beyond the point of adding actual value and impose a lot of costs, time and everything else on those organisations. We will make the reviews as concise as they can be, while drawing proper conclusions. I do not want them to turn into a bureaucratic Hydra that consumes money and resources beyond the point where it adds value. My observation as a Minister for the last few years is that, when we launch reviews or investigations, they sometimes grow to the point where they consume huge amounts of money and time without adding value. I do not want that to happen here, given how constrained budgets are in local authorities, the police and local health organisations. That is a really important point.
Speaking of money, the shadow Minister asked whether the funding for the pilot is additional or whether we will ask the review partners to absorb it from an existing budget. I can confirm that the £2.1 million is additional; it is extra money that is being provided specifically for this purpose. It will not detract from existing operational budgets. The extra money is still taxpayer funded; it is still money that our constituents are having to fund.
The shadow Minister asked where the estimate of 72 reviews comes from. It derives from taking the limited geographic areas in which the pilots are being conducted and applying them to the expected national numbers—we will scale those numbers down to give us the numbers for just those areas. Nationally, there are around 700 homicides per year. In 2021, there were 692. Some 235 of those met the criteria for the existing homicide reviews that we discussed earlier—for example, domestic homicide or the homicide of someone under the age of 18. There are 457 homicides nationally that do not meet the existing criteria. Of those, 222 involve an offensive weapon and will therefore be in the scope of these reviews. Looking at that over an 18-month period and scaling it down for the pilot areas, we get to the numbers that the shadow Minister outlined.
That point also answers a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. These reviews will not cover every single homicide. However, between them and the existing reviews, based on the numbers I just gave, reviews will apply to 457 or so homicides—around two thirds. There will still be some homicides for which reviews do not apply.
The shadow Minister also asked which review takes priority if, for example, a homicide is both domestic and involves an offensive weapon. The answer is that the existing homicide review mechanisms will take priority. If there is a domestic homicide involving an offensive weapon, a domestic homicide review will take place. I hope that that answers the shadow Minister’s questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch asked some further questions. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic work she did on many issues—particularly violence against women and girls and domestic violence—during her time as the Minister for Safeguarding at the Home Office. She has left a strong legacy for her successor. She asked about a review into domestic homicide reviews to see whether they can be further improved. That work is ongoing internally. A consultation will open in the early part of 2023 and will be completed by the end of 2023. I hope that that gives her the clarity she was asking for. On the domestic homicide sentencing review, that is, as my hon. Friend said, with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, so I am afraid I cannot provide an answer to the questions that she raised, but MOJ Ministers will be able to do so.
Turning finally to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), I think I have addressed one of his questions. He rightly drew attention to the fact that we are adopting a pilot approach rather than just going for a national roll-out. He made the good point that, all too often, Government and local authorities do things on a blanket basis without having tested them first. Where there are significant cost, public policy and resource implications, it is worth making sure that whatever measure is proposed—whether this or something else—actually works, is proportionate and has been carefully set up before pressing the button and making it national. That approach works here and in other contexts.
My hon. Friend asked about delegation. There is an ability to delegate to appropriate third parties. For example, if the relevant review body, such as the local police, wants, for resource reasons, to get somebody else to conduct the review, such as an expert of some kind, they have the ability to do that, but they are responsible for ensuring that that is a suitable person with the relevant expertise and capability.
It is also worth saying that the whole thing is overseen by an oversight board, as the shadow Minister referenced in her remarks. We are in the process of appointing a chair and possibly one additional member for the pilot—we do not need to appoint an entire board if it is just a pilot. We will appoint just those two people initially, and they will make sure that these reports are publicly published and are available to the Home Office and that lessons get learned, as appropriate.
Rachel Maclean
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister very much for responding in such detail to my comments, but I am a little concerned about the timeline he set out for the review of how the domestic homicide review process works—after all, the proportion of homicides that are domestic homicides is pretty large. I can see his officials in the box, and I distinctly remember having detailed discussions about this work when I had the privilege of serving in the Home Office. I am concerned to see how long this process will now take, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, like me, whenever he is presented with a timeline by his officials, will say, “Why can’t this be done quicker? What is the delay? Can we speed this up so that we can get justice for these victims?” I would be grateful if he agreed to meet me, so that we can discuss this in a bit more detail.
Chris Philp
Either I or the Minister for Safeguarding, as appropriate, would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue, particularly given her long-standing expertise and interest in it as both a Member of Parliament and a Minister.
I hope have covered the points that were raised in this short but insightful debate. I once again commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
The immigration skills charge was introduced in April 2017. Its aim is to incentivise businesses in the UK to take a long-term view of investment and training in the domestic workforce. It is designed to address historical under-investment in the training of domestic workers by UK employers, and to deter some from turning to immigration as a cheaper alternative.
The charge is paid by employers seeking to sponsor migrants on a skilled worker visa or a global business mobility visa as a senior or specialist worker. The charge is paid up front when the employer sponsors a worker’s visa, and is automatically calculated based on the dates provided by the employer. It applies at a rate of £1,000 per migrant per year for large businesses, with a reduced rate of £364 for small businesses and charities.
In the last fiscal year, the charge raised approximately £349 million. Although the income raised is not additional funding for skills, it helps to maintain the existing skills budgets across the United Kingdom, and is consistent with the Government’s view that immigration must not be seen as a silver bullet to deal with skills needs in our economy. As education and skills are devolved matters, the income raised also helps to maintain funding levels for each of the devolved nations. It is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland using the formula devised by Lord Barnett.
Let us turn to the purpose of these technical regulations. Although it remains important that the charge be applied to most employers who use labour from outside the UK to fill their skills needs, there are good reasons to make specific exceptions. For example, workers are exempt if they are entering the UK for under six months, because they are then unlikely to be filling a job arising from a skills shortage.
These regulations will make two new cohorts exempt from the charge. The first of these is scale-up workers. In August this year, we launched the new scale-up visa. This enables UK businesses experiencing sustained high growth to attract top international talent and enhance the wider skills ecosystem. That visa was never intended to be subject to the immigration skills charge, as it focused on facilitating rapid recruitment and reducing the burden for UK businesses undergoing sustained high growth. This route provides workers with highly flexible conditions, including access to the wider labour market without sponsorship after six months. Consequently, the initial sponsoring employer should not be subject to the charge. As things stand, however, the route falls within the scope of the charge due to the wording of the current legislation. Sponsors of scale-up workers currently benefit from a waiver of the charge, but these regulations will codify the position by formally exempting them.
Secondly, I shall deal with the EU intra-company worker exemption. The second cohort to be exempt from the charge is EU workers who are undertaking intra-company assignments under the terms of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. That agreement was ratified by Parliament on 30 December 2020. It secured preferential trading arrangements between the UK and the EU. One such accord was that neither party would apply taxes or charges, of a type such as the immigration skills charge, to workers undertaking intra-company assignments within the terms of the agreement. Both parties committed to dropping such taxes and charges no later than 1 January 2023. This is a legal requirement that is enforceable under international law. Accordingly, these regulations make the appropriate exemption for EU businesses sponsoring such workers.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Can the Minister assure us that the EU is complying with its obligations?
Miss Dines
I understand that there is regular discussion on the issue and we are being afforded the same treatment. It is quite right to look at that, because we must make sure that this agreement is enforced equally, and that the UK and the EU are in equal partnership.
In conclusion, the immigration skills charge plays a valuable role in our immigration system. It encourages UK businesses to use domestic labour where they can, and to invest in skills when they are in short supply, but it is important that we make exemptions to the charge when there are sufficiently good reasons to do so. The regulations will support UK scale-up businesses in competing in the global market for the skills needed to continue their rapid growth. They will ensure that we deliver on an important trade commitment to our partners in the EU, and thereby secure reciprocal treatment for British workers undertaking business assignments throughout Europe. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue.
We are somewhat surprised that the Government are introducing this statutory instrument, because it appears to utterly contradict the Home Secretary’s stated objective of reducing immigration. She seems to recognise that the public have been expecting net migration to decrease post Brexit, but as the latest migration figures indicate, this year’s net migration is set to pass 300,000, matching the highs seen in the year of the EU referendum. Today, however, we see attempts by the Government to increase migration even further by creating a further exemption from the immigration skills for sponsored workers on the scale-up route, as well as for EU national intra-corporate transferees who take the route of getting a global business mobility visa for senior or specialist workers.
We are not opposed, in principle, to recognising that in specific areas of our economy, removing the red tape involved in bringing in overseas workers can benefit Britain, but we are opposed to the Government lurching from one extreme to the other, using dog-whistle, anti-immigration rhetoric one day and throwing the doors wide open the next. The Labour party is taking a more balanced, nuanced approach by ensuring that immigration works for our economy and communities. We support the principle of a points-based system for migrant workers. It was, of course, the Labour Government of 2008 that introduced the points-based system for immigration from outside the European Union.
We are clear that there will be no return to the freedom of movement that there was when we were in the EU, but we will build on and make much-needed improvements to the points-based system that is in place. Our long-term ambition is to ensure that all businesses in every sector, and indeed our public services, recruit and train more home-grown talent to fill vacancies before looking overseas. For instance, we need to train up more home-grown doctors; hence our shadow Health Secretary’s commitment to doubling the number of clinical placements, and to setting out a five-to-10-year workforce plan for the NHS in due course.
We recognise that if we simply turn off the tap of migrant labour without putting in place appropriate workforce structures, training and recruitment strategies, our public services will deteriorate and our businesses will struggle to meet our wider economic ambition to make, buy and sell more in Britain. As a result, more jobs could well disappear overseas. There would be other consequences; we cannot continue with the situation in the farming sector. In the past year, 30,000 pigs have been slaughtered and £60 million of crops have been burned. We recognise that we need to attract talent to help us to drive growth, but we are clear that when businesses are supported in recruiting from abroad, that should come with a commitment to increasing UK-based recruitment and training, so that we reduce long-term dependency on overseas labour.
Five years ago, when the first set of regulations on the immigration skills charge were made, the Government were clear about its intended purposes. Introducing the charge would, we were told, incentivise employers to invest in training and upskilling the resident workforce, thus reducing reliance on migrant workers. The skills charge would essentially be a tax on the recruitment of foreign workers, and the proceeds would be reinvested in skills training via the Department for Education. There was a related change: the resident labour market test would make it necessary for employers recruiting from overseas to demonstrate that they had first tried to recruit from within the UK. That test was scrapped by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) when he was Prime Minister, and the skills charge, while still in place, does not appear to be delivering its intended results, as is illustrated by this statutory instrument.
The regulations would exempt some sponsoring employers from having to pay the skills charge for migrant workers under the scale-up route, as well as some intra-corporate transferees. That implies that the Government are aiming to make it easier to recruit overseas workers, which is the exact opposite of what Ministers claimed was the purpose of introducing the skills charge. Does the Minister recognise this contradiction? Perhaps she could say whether this is a deliberate policy U-turn or just the result of incompetence.
It would have been helpful if an impact assessment had been published alongside the regulations. The scale-up route exemption could have far-reaching consequences. To qualify for the scale-up licence, a business simply has to show that it has increased either its profits or staff headcount by 20% on average each year for the past three years, and that it had more than 10 staff working for it at the beginning of that first year. How many businesses is that expected to draw in? It could be a really large number, could it not?
Since no such impact assessment has been provided, will the Minister answer the following questions? What exactly is the purpose of providing those exemptions, and what are the Government hoping to achieve in their overall immigration policy and strategy? What was the rationale for providing exemptions under the scale-up and global mobility schemes, but not for other skills-based routes? The explanatory note states that the reason no impact assessment was made is that
“no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.”
How can that possibly be, given how low the threshold is that I mentioned earlier?
Given the Government’s previous commitment to using revenue from the skills charge to invest in skills training for the UK workforce, and their previous estimate that the charge would raise £100 million in its first year, what on earth leads the Minister to believe that reducing the number of employers who have to pay the charge will have no significant impact? Has the Department done any work at all to assess what losses in Government revenue might result from those changes? Can the Minister guarantee that any reductions in funding for skills training will be made up from elsewhere in the budget?
Finally, if the Government are trying to support the growth of UK businesses, that is certainly welcome, but what has happened to the commitment to invest in skills training, so that growing businesses do not have to recruit from overseas? Have the Government just given up on those objectives? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Miss Dines
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his submission. I remind him and the Committee that the UK economy is vibrant, and attracts lots of investment and, necessarily, business from abroad. There needs to be a careful balance. This is a very well thought-out change in regulations. On the money that has been raised, as I mentioned earlier, the skills charge has raised £349 million. That goes directly to supporting domestic training across the country, throughout the four nations.
It is welcome that the Opposition will not oppose these measures. The changes should not really come as a surprise, because one of the waivers granted is already being informally implemented. This is just carrying on with the status quo; there is no huge change. I am surprised that the Opposition might have wanted to oppose the regulations— and am grateful that they will not—because the second cohort is exempted to allow us to fulfil an international legal obligation; it must be right that the House does that.
We are asked, “What is the purpose of this?”. It is to stimulate Britain as a global magnet for international trade—that is quite a straightforward purpose. It is also to raise revenue, as I have said, and to support the United Kingdom in its international efforts to secure a strong growth economy. For all those reasons, I suggest that this is a relatively straightforward and technical change, and I ask the Committee to support it. There will continue to be a need for employers to recruit skilled workers from overseas where there are no such workers in the UK.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I will be brief. It would be remiss of me not to point out that we would not have labour and skills shortages, and would not have to be constantly tinkering with immigration rules, if we were still in the single market. I often hear Members on the Government Benches say, “Stop going on about it; you are living in the past.” Of course, that is not the case for Scotland: we plan to be back in the single market. [Interruption.] Is that a “Hear, hear”? I welcome the support.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Give them the euro. That will go down well.
Anne McLaughlin
I will try to be courteous. I will support the regulations, but I do not support the skills charge. As we discussed last week in Westminster Hall, there are massive shortages in heavy goods vehicle drivers, food processing workers, nurses and doctors. The health services of all four nations have significant problems, including bed-blocking: people who could go home are unable to, because of the shortage of social care workers. We have a shortage of workers in hospitals. I cannot support any barrier to getting people over here to fill those shortages, but I support a reduction in those barriers, as with the exemptions in the regulations. I would just like those exemptions to go a bit further.
There is one last thing, to which I would appreciate a positive response from the Minister. In this House, we constantly hear negatives about migrants in general and migrant workers: “There are too many of them; we need fewer of them.” Of course, I completely support putting more into training and upskilling people who are already here, but our health service would collapse without migrant workers. We cannot just dispense with them once we have trained everybody up. I invite the Minister to say something positive about migrant workers and the contribution that they make to the United Kingdom’s economy. I invite her to acknowledge—as I think she is doing by saying that we need to train people here—how necessary they are to our economy.
Shailesh Vara
I note the hon. Lady’s comments about migrants coming to this country. However, does she agree that we must deplore the way that thousands of them come to this country—by using people smugglers, who risk lives?
Anne McLaughlin
I did not know that we were allowed to go off on a tangent. This is getting into an argument about how people come to this country. We are talking about migrant workers; asylum seekers are not allowed to work.
Shailesh Vara
On a point of order, Ms Fovargue. I was simply taking up an issue that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East raised. If I am out of order, presumably she is as well.
The Chair
Order. We are moving slightly beyond the scope of the regulations. Perhaps you could both get back to the regulations.
Shailesh Vara
If the hon. Lady is afraid of answering the question, she should say so, rather than avoiding the issue.
Anne McLaughlin
I am in the governing party’s bad books today, somehow; I do not know what I have done. Would I say that vile people smugglers should be stopped from treating people in the way that they do? Absolutely. Will the Government’s plan to stop them work? Absolutely not. They are victimising people who are already victims of people smugglers. There is more to do on that, but we are talking about migrant workers. Asylum seekers, for some unknown reason, are not allowed to work. We need workers and they need work, but we do not let them work. I again invite the Minister to say something positive about migrant workers.
Miss Dines
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s speech, although it may not be on the point of this technical change. I try my best not to be negative. This country is a magnet for businesses from across the world, and those who come under the skills schemes have very high-level skills. It is only right that the company sponsoring them pays into the kitty to promote our home development and training, which is exactly what the schemes will do. It is positives all round.
I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East would not want to be seen to be playing party politics on this matter. On Scotland moving away from the United Kingdom and becoming independent, she knows that the Government are committed to the Union. Although I am impressed by her fortitude in trying to make independence relevant to almost any issue, this is a technical regulation change. None the less, I thank her for her support, in that she is not opposing the regulations.
Miss Dines
Of course, although we really must conclude, rather than having a wide-ranging debate on everything to do with immigration. The regulations are about two exemptions that allow us to fulfil our legal obligations under our treaty with the EU.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for giving way. My intervention is absolutely related to the regulations. I asked why there was no impact assessment. For the record, will she confirm that she does not think that there should be one, because she does not believe that the regulations could have a significant impact on the labour market? On cost, we are clearly reducing the number of employers that will pay the surcharge, so the changes will not increase revenue to the Exchequer as she says they will; they will do precisely the opposite. What will the cost to the Exchequer be? If there is to be no impact assessment, may I urge her to agree to keep the impact of this legislation under review, and will the Government make a statement on it within 12 months, so we can assess its impact on opportunities for our home-grown talent?
Miss Dines
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ingenuity in asking for impact assessments; he has asked for one on almost everything that I have heard him speak about. However, the immigration skills charge is a tax, so an impact assessment is not required. If we had all the impact assessments that he has asked for, there would not be time in government to do much else.
I will conclude; the hon. Gentleman is always at liberty to write to me. The immigration skills charge is a financial tax through which the Government provide employers with vital funding that supports them in recruiting and training domestically. The regulations will not fundamentally change the operation of the charge; they simply create additional limited exemptions for highly skilled international workers recruited by UK scale-ups, and allow us to fulfil our legal obligations under our trade agreement with the EU relating to EU workers undertaking intra-company assignments in the UK. The exemptions will support our country’s economic recovery by supporting high-growth business in the UK and strengthening trade and investment to and from Europe. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Shark Fins Bill
Wednesday 16th November 2022
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Shark Fins Act 2023 View all Shark Fins Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 November 2022 - (16 Nov 2022)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few announcements. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are allowed, apart from the water provided. Hansard would be immensely grateful if you could email your speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. I have selected one amendment tabled in the name of the Member in charge of the Bill, Christina Rees. The amendment will be considered alongside the existing content of the Bill in a single debate.
Clause 1
Prohibition on import and export of shark fins
Question proposed, That the clause stand part.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 1, in schedule, page 6, line 23, at end insert—
“(7) In this paragraph, references to the First-tier Tribunal, in relation to a decision of the Scottish Ministers, are to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland.”.
That the schedule be the Schedule to the Bill.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I thank hon. Members for joining me on the Committee to discuss this important Bill today.
I am pleased to bring forward a Bill that will advance this country’s standards for the long-term conservation of sharks. The Bill proposes to ban the import and export of detached shark fins, including the import into the United Kingdom and export from the United Kingdom of all products containing shark fins, as a result of their entry into or removal from Great Britain.
As we heard on Second Reading, sharks play a crucial and intricate role in the marine ecosystem, yet they are being killed in huge numbers around the world. Sharks desperately need our help and protection.
The international shark-fin trade is a significant driving force behind the overfishing of sharks. Shark finning is an extraordinarily wasteful and harmful practice in which only 2% to 5% of the shark is even used. This important and timely Bill will make it illegal to import and export detached shark fins, which will help end practices that are forcing sharks closer to the brink of extinction. The Bill will be a significant step in helping to restore the balance of our ocean.
The inclusion of the import and export of detached shark-fin products in the Bill, for example tinned shark-fin soup, will also address concern about the provenance of shark-fin products, as only domestically processed products from sharks landed with their fins naturally attached will be available for sale.
It is important to note that the Bill does not ban the sale or consumption of shark fins. If a shark fin is removed from a shark after it is dead and the shark is caught in line with existing legislation, I do not see why the fin should not be used. In fact, it would be wasteful not to use the whole carcase. Banning the sale or consumption of shark fins that have been obtained ethically would also disproportionately impact communities where shark-fin soup is considered a delicacy, which is not what I seek to do.
The Bill will showcase the UK as a best practice example to other countries, encouraging them to follow suit and adopt similar important measures for sharks.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. The Bill is targeted at the immensely cruel practice of taking a living shark, cutting its fin off and then throwing it overboard to die a long, slow, unpleasant death. That is the core of what the Bill drives at, rather than at the products.
Christina Rees
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that exceptional intervention. He puts what the Bill is about succinctly and clearly. It is a terrible practice. When it was first brought to my attention, I could not believe that it was happening. As a lifelong vegan, I find it absolutely abhorrent.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady, my friend, on introducing this important Bill, and of course congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on resuming her place at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Does the hon. Member for Neath agree that the trade in shark-fin products has a detrimental impact not just on the sharks, but on marine ecosystems and, eventually, the commercial fisheries and countries’ economies as well? This is not just about animal welfare but about protecting commercial fisheries, which this country, very importantly, relies on.
Christina Rees
I thank my friend and fellow sports-mad person for an excellent intervention and for her support throughout. Again, it is the whole balance of the ecosystem throughout the ocean that is affected. Sharks have been much maligned. If I sing, “Dur-duh, dur-duh, dur-duh,” you will get it. Ever since the film “Jaws” came out, people have been terrified of sharks, but they are really wonderful creatures.
Clause 1 sets out the prohibition on the import and export of detached shark fins. Subsection (1)(a) makes it an offence
“to import shark fins, or things containing shark fins, into the United Kingdom as a result of their entry into Great Britain”.
Subsection (1)(b) makes it an offence
“to export shark fins, or things containing shark fins, from the United Kingdom as a result of their removal from Great Britain.”
Subsection (2) refers specifically to where the prohibition does not apply to fins that have not been removed from the body of a shark. The prohibition does not apply if a shark fin is naturally attached to the body of a shark and the body is substantially intact. This means that the head and internal organs of a shark can be removed, and some damage may have occurred to the body in transit, but the body should still be substantially intact. This is to prevent the permitting of trade for fins that are attached to small parts of the shark body, while the rest of the body could have been discarded, which still poses ethical and sustainability concerns.
There is only one exception to the ban. Outlined in subsection (3) and the schedule, it is where imports or exports will support greater conservation of sharks—for example, through education and training. I had better mention at this stage that there is no exemption in this Bill for what was allowed previously, whereby individuals could import up to 20 kg of dried shark fin for personal use. The Bill closes that loophole.
Importantly, strict processes are in place to assess applications for exemption certificates, to ensure that they do not undermine the overall ban. The exemption process is clearly set out in the schedule to the Bill, which I will come to. A very strict application process is followed: the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers can issue an exemption certificate only if the shark fins will be used for purposes connected with the conservation of sharks. This will allow important conservation and educational activities, such as improving shark identification skills, to continue where needed.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Neath, a fellow Welsh MP, for introducing this important Bill. She mentions education, and this is a really important part of the Bill—shining a light on this absolutely dreadful practice. As many hon. Members know, I started my working life looking after dolphins, working for Terry Nutkins of “Animal Magic” fame, and part of that involved educating people about marine life and our ecosystems. I have also been a BSAC—British Sub-Aqua Club—diver for decades. And I pay tribute to all the marine work that Bangor University does. This important Bill shines a light on this dreadful practice, so I congratulate the hon. Member.
Christina Rees
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. The thing about this Bill is that I have learned all sorts of things about Members of Parliament that I could never have thought of. I know the great work that the hon. Member does on Ynys Môn. I always take every excuse to go there, because it is one of the most beautiful parts of Wales. Perhaps when I come up there next, she can show me all her good work. That would be brilliant.
The exemption process requires applicants to provide certain information to the appropriate authority to take a decision. The appropriate authority can revoke the exemption certificate if information supplied by the applicant is inaccurate or incomplete. Where someone has deliberately provided inaccurate or incomplete information for an exemption, the Secretary of State can impose a monetary penalty of up to £3,000. That will ensure that the exemption process is not abused. The Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to amend the upper limit of that penalty by regulations.
Subsection (4) defines shark fins as
“any fins or parts of fins of a shark”
except for pectoral fins, which are part of ray wings. “Shark” means
“any fish of the taxon Elasmobranchii.”
Taxonomically speaking, Batoidea is a super-order of cartilaginous fishes, commonly known as rays. Batoidea has four orders, including Rajiformes, which includes skates. That definition is consistent with definitions included in the UK’s “fins naturally attached” regulation, in which skates are also considered under the definition of rays. Therefore, their pectoral fins are not included in the definition of shark fins. I am glad I got through that bit of my speech! [Laughter.]
Clause 2 amends the existing shark fins regulation 1185/ 2003, which forms part of the retained EU law. The version of the regulation retained in UK law includes the subsequent amendments made by regulation 605/2013. As the retained EU law stands, the removal of shark fins, retention on board, transhipment and landing of shark fins could take place by another country’s vessel in UK waters. That was not the intention of the changes made by the EU exit amending regulations. The amendment to the Bill would rectify that position and its effect is twofold. First, it is to ensure that shark finning is not undertaken by any other country’s vessels fishing in UK waters. Secondly, it is to ensure that any UK vessel is not undertaking shark finning wherever it fishes.
Clause 3 sets out the extent, commencement, transitional and savings provisions and short title of the Bill. They are the practical parts of the Bill necessary for it to function properly. The Secretary of State will set the commencement dates for clause 1 and the schedule to the Bill by statutory instrument. For clause 2, amendments to the existing shark finning regulation 1185/2003, which forms part of the retained EU law and includes amendments in regulation 605/2013, will come into force at the end of the period of two months, beginning with the day on which the Bill is passed. Clause 3 will come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed.
Amendment 1 clarifies that appeals in relation to decisions by Scottish Ministers should be heard by the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland. Applicants who wish to appeal decisions where Scottish Ministers are the appropriate authority will do so to the First-Tier Tribunal for Scotland, as per paragraph 9 of the schedule. Scottish Ministers are the appropriate authority in relation to entry into or removal from Scotland of shark fins or things containing them. This is a technical amendment to appropriately reflect Scottish devolved competency within the Bill. For completeness, there is currently no similar and separate equivalent in Wales to the First-tier Tribunal. The Welsh Government have therefore indicated that a similar amendment is not necessary at this time.
On the schedule, there is only one exception to the Bill, which is where imports or exports of shark fins will be used for purposes connected with the conservation of sharks.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
That point about conservation has to be put into the context that as many as 273 million sharks are killed every year; on a figure of just 100 million, which is the lower estimate, that is about 11,000 sharks killed every hour. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the Bill before the House. Does she agree that it will send a message to other countries to end this barbaric practice?
Christina Rees
I thank my hon. Friend for another superb intervention. I thank him for his support in coming to the Committee today, which is much appreciated. I really hope the Bill sends a massive message that the practice should not go on and that, if it does continue, serious action should be taken.
The schedule outlines the strict processes in place to access applications for exemption certificates to ensure that they do not undermine the overall ban. Paragraph 1 confirms that the prohibition in clause 1 on the import or export of shark fins or things containing them does not apply if the appropriate authority has issued an exemption certificate. The definition of appropriate authority is outlined in paragraph 9.
The process for applying for an exemption certificate is set out in paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 permits the appropriate authority to revoke or issue a revised exemption certificate if, before the import or export takes place, any information provided in connection with an application is or has become inaccurate or incomplete.
Paragraph 4 provides for a civil liability, where the appropriate authority can impose a penalty up to £3,000 if the applicant provides inaccurate or incomplete information or a document that contains an inaccuracy in relation to an application. This power provides a strong incentive for applicants for exemptions to be truthful and ensures that the ban will not be undermined. The process for monetary penalties is outlined in paragraph 5.
Paragraph 6 defines what information must be included in an initial penalty notice and a final penalty notice. A final penalty notice may also provide for interest or other penalties to be payable in the event that payment is not made within the period specified by the notice. Applicants who wish to appeal against decisions will do so to the First-tier Tribunal. Appeals in relation to decisions by Scottish Ministers, as I have already said, should be heard by the First-tier Tribunal in Scotland, reflecting the devolved competency within the Bill. Paragraph 8 provides information for when a person does not pay the whole of or part of a penalty.
I thank all hon. Members again for coming here this morning. I hope we can agree that the Bill will deliver a significant improvement to our shark conservation standards and make us a global leader in shark conservation and sustainable fisheries. I am delighted to commend the Bill to the Committee.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath on introducing this vital Bill. It is a great step forward in the preservation of this wonderful species. I have absolutely no issues with the Bill and sincerely hope that it will go a long way to prevent further deterioration of such poor practice in the removal of shark fins, and will help us to conserve the species. I hope the Bill starts behavioural change on this loathful practice.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Neath on bringing forward this long-overdue piece of legislation. It fills in part of a broader plethora of animal-welfare issues, following, for instance, the Ivory Act 2018, which has started to roll back some of the ivory trade. We have lots of those practices globally, and it is important that both individual Members—such as the hon. Member for Neath—and the Government bring forward legislation to resolve them. The Labour Front-Bench team fully support this Bill.
One of the best tools we have in preserving animal welfare is the red list used by CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—to identify animal species most at risk. The last three sharks and rays added to that list were all added due to the removal of fins. The silky shark, the thresher shark and the devil ray are all at complete risk of extinction due to the practice.
Hopefully, the UK passing this Bill will start to roll back some of that and can protect those three—and many other—shark and ray species. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Neath and I commend the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Cummins, and it is a pleasure to be back. What a wonderful first Bill to be back for; it is always great to be part of a Bill Committee where there is a general consensus—even with our Scottish friends—because we all agree that it is a good thing to do. It is exactly the sort of thing that we should be leading the way on.
I must thank the hon. Member for Neath for bringing forward the Bill and for all her work on this. Indeed, I thank the whole Committee, because I believe that its members all have some reason for being on it. Possibly they have had their arms twisted, but, individually, each of us has some feeling, experience or knowledge on the issue, and I genuinely think that that is very helpful. It just goes to show that we mean business.
Nobody disagrees that shark finning is a gross practice. It is cruel and unsustainable. In fact, listening to some of the comments this morning makes my stomach turn; it is pretty grim. In the UK, shark finning has been banned for nearly 20 years, but this Bill goes an extra step to ban the import and export of the detached shark fins and shark-fin products. It is the only way that we can be sure that we are not inadvertently fuelling unsustainable practices abroad. The Bill is fully supported by Government, and we will do all we can to support its swift passage.
I am proud of our strong marine track record internationally. I went to the UN ocean conference in Portugal just a few months ago, and it was clear that the UK is considered a world leader on a lot of this conservation action. I do not think that we talk about that enough at home—how we are really seen as leaders. I think that this Bill will be another example; people will be watching us and what we have done.
We have committed to the protection and management of shark species, and the Bill is another step towards that. To reiterate, when we say sharks, that also includes rays and skates. I went to the Birmingham National Sea Life Centre not long ago; I do not know if anybody here has been there but it is a wonderful place to see those creatures. The skates and rays were enormous creatures; they were sort of like underwater flying machines, really. To think that we cause them such damage really brings home why we need this Bill to protect them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay so ably described to us, pulling off a creature’s fins inflicts a gross, cruel, painful and slow death. Sharks produce very few young compared with other fish, making them even more vulnerable if people carry out such practices on the scale mentioned by the hon. Member for Bootle. It affects their whole life cycle.
As we heard on Second Reading, the International Union for Conservation of Nature states that over 25% of sharks, rays and skates are threatened with extinction. Removing these top predators would have a catastrophic impact right the way down the food chain. This what my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford was really referring to. She has a great deal of knowledge in this area, particularly on dolphins. This is impacting the whole food chain.
We have heard some statistics. Something like 73 million sharks are caught I think annually—the exact sum is up for debate. A huge proportion of those—not all of them—would be affected by this, but a great proportion of them would have had their fins ripped off, so this is a really important step on our global journey on shark conservation. It will help us to consolidate our position as world leaders.
I want to touch on the point that was raised ably by the hon. Member for Leeds North West. CITES is holding its 19th meeting of the conference of the parties right now. I spoke to our team out there—it is in South America—and we are co-proponents of a proposal to list a further 54 shark species in the requiem shark family. The hon. Member named some previous species to be listed, and that group of sharks accounts for 85% of the global shark fin trade. I will name a few of them—I do not want to keep us here for hours—because includes sharks most of us never even think about, such as the tiger shark, the bull shark, the lemon shark, the spinner shark, the blacknose shark, the blacktip shark, the grey reef shark, the silky shark, the dusky shark, the blue shark, the copper shark. There are loads of them, and 54 species will now be on the list. That means they have to be controlled much more closely, and people will be given a permit to catch them only if that would not be detrimental to the survival of the species, so that is a really good move that our own Government are involved in right now.
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and, through her, also thank the hon. Member for Neath for introducing this Bill.
That is indeed very good news. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will keep the level of the fines in this Bill under review because enforcement of this Bill will be important to deter the practice from happening altogether? Will the Minister assure me that enforcement against the import and export of shark fins will be important in the Government’s application of this Bill?
Rebecca Pow
Of course, and I thank my hon. Friend for that good point. We have a paragraph in the schedule about the way the penalties work and the appropriate authority can revoke the exemption certificate if the right information is not supplied. The penalties are up to £3,000—actually, that is for providing inaccurate information about what they are doing. Of course, the whole system will be enforced by ensuring that Border Force and others know what to look for.
I want to highlight that it is leaving the EU that has enabled us to have this opportunity, and we have probably moved much more quickly than we might have done because, had we been in the EU, we would have had to get the agreement of all member states. That would potentially have been slow, so at least we have been able to get this matter taken forward in an individual Bill.
We have had widespread support for the Bill from non-governmental organisations. Organisations such as the Shark Trust, Shark Guardian, the Blue Marine Foundation and the Wildlife Conservation Society have done a great deal of work, for which I thank them. They have spoken to many of our MPs.
To wind up, I am so grateful to the hon. Lady for her work on this important Bill and, of course, to the Committee. The Government will do all that we can to support the Bill’s passage through both Houses and get it on to the statute books so that we can protect this iconic and critical species for generations to come.
Christina Rees
I am blown away, as they say. Committee members cannot know how much their support means to me—I am getting quite emotional.
I will go through the greatest hits of thanks. I want to thank everyone present for their contributions and interventions. I also want to thank the Members who are not present but who spoke on Second Reading and enabled us to get to Committee. I thank all the organisations the Minister mentioned—welcome back, Minister; it is great to see her in her place again—which, I am sure, will continue to support this Bill as it goes through, because it is so important to them. I also thank you, Mrs Cummins, for chairing superbly today.
We could not have done it without the Clerks, who work tirelessly and have managed to get me on some sort of straight line, and the officials, who never get thanked and are absolutely brilliant. I thank the Minister and the Government for their support. I look forward to getting the Bill on the statute book—I will probably be even more emotional then. Thank you again.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear!
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
Exemption certificates
Amendment made: 1, schedule, page 6, line 23, at end insert—
“(7) In this paragraph, references to the First-tier Tribunal, in relation to a decision of the Scottish Ministers, are to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland.”—(Christina Rees.)
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
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
West Balkans: Council of Europe
(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
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the West Balkans and the Council of Europe.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, and a great pleasure to move the motion. I want to begin by saying that I have recently returned from a visit to Bosnia-Herzegovina, where I observed the presidential and parliamentary elections on behalf of the Council of Europe. It left me with a deep impression of a troubled state where nothing gets done. I will come back to that in due course.
First, I wish to thank three people: George Papandreou, the former Prime Minister of Greece, who has produced a solid paper on the Europeanisation of the western Balkans. I am grateful for his sharing of the information that he collected, even though his paper remains too European Union-centric in its overall thrust. The second person I want to thank is Sandy Moss, our permanent representative in Strasbourg. Thirdly, I thank the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe secretariat in London, which does so much for us, and particularly the work of Nick Wright, its leader who is with us today.
The western Balkans covers a number of countries, including Albania, Bosnia- Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo. Most of those countries are members of the Council of Europe and have also applied to join the EU.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I know the hon. Gentleman is a member of PACE and I thank him for the updates on his work there. Does he agree that the Council of Europe has a key role to play in normalising bilateral relations in dispute resolution in the region?
John Howell
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her question. That is a large part of what my speech is about. The Council of Europe has a pivotal role in the area in being able to take forward the sort of agenda that she has outlined. I am grateful to her for raising that.
The granting of candidate status to Moldova and Ukraine has not gone down well with the western Balkans states. We can all understand why. It has been seen for what it is: a political act that has left the western Balkans high and dry. It is seen as being driven by political expediency in view of the dreadful war in Ukraine. It has left a growing disenchantment with membership of the EU and with the EU itself, which will do nothing to increase peace in the region or provide stability, despite the agreed commitment to the shared values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law—the three principal values of the Council of Europe. That should have given the Council of Europe the inside track in working with the western Balkans to establish those values as the norm.
Despite calls over the years for the Council to take the initiative in the region, very little has been done. I will return to that. A catalysing activity for the region is the war in Ukraine. The influence of Russia in the region is enormous. As a starter, it has big strategic influence in energy, banking and real estate. Some of the countries support the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia. Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro and North Macedonia have done so. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia have not. Serbia has signed a new three-year gas contract with Russia. We should note, too, that Russia is Serbia’s biggest supplier of arms—all sobering thoughts in a European context. The influence of Russia can therefore be seen to be felt very widely across the whole region.
In addition, two other players have a key role. Turkey’s activities have by and large been benign and focused on enhancing co-operation.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent and timely speech, and I praise his stewardship in leading parliamentarians on the Council of Europe. His mention of Turkey reminded me that there are elections in that country next year. Does he agree that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe also does sterling democracy-extending work in the Balkans and more widely in election monitoring? He mentioned Bosnia—he and I were observing the elections in Sarajevo last month—but such work extends to America, where I was election observing. The organisation also had border scrutineers in Ukraine during the lead-up to war. Does he further agree that its work has been vital?
John Howell
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and it was a great pleasure to see her in Bosnia-Herzegovina where she was representing the OSCE. That was very much a joint mission to observe the elections, and I agree that the OSCE has a lot to offer, but today I shall concentrate on the relationship with the Council of Europe and what the Council can do, which perhaps has a longer-lasting effect in the region.
Turkey can play a role for good in the region and it has done much good work, but the second country that has a role to play there is Iran, whose activities cannot be described as beneficial. Iran, for example, is widely believed to be behind the attempted vote rigging that occurred in Bosnia-Herzegovina when the hon. Lady and I were there observing the recent elections. That vote rigging attempt was stopped, but it showed what Iran can do.
What can the Council of Europe do in the western Balkans? One of the key elements on which the Council should be concentrating is the rule of law, which is a principle that embeds all others. Furthermore, there are two broad areas where the Council has the edge over the EU, the first of which is developing and enhancing civil society across the region.
Without civil society, there can be no enduring and fundamental championing of the rule of law. We need a civil society that can be taken seriously and not just be one of those complainers. It needs to be active in promoting aspects of society such as good human rights. That is just the sort of area that the Council is trying to establish in Russia, although it faces great difficulties, but it should be much easier to achieve that in the western Balkans. That means programmes providing assistance and watertight governance, and ensuring that the systems—the Governments—accept the role that civil society can play.
Secondly, there is the broad area of concentrating on bringing the systems used by Governments more in line with the rule of law across Europe. Where are the extensive training programmes for the judiciary and its independence? I am aware of the Regional Rule of Law Forum for South East Europe, hosted by the AIRE—Advice on Individual Rights in Europe—Centre and Civil Rights Defenders, which has brought together some of the judges of the Court of Human Rights and the Venice Commission to establish best practice, but we need much more of that.
Where is the work with the Administrations to enable them to be willing to invite civil society into the reform process? Where is the work to increase the political will to do something about these issues, which will either increase democracy or provide a conflict with it that needs to be resolved? Where, too, is the ancillary but essential work of ensuring that the media are free?
Those are activities in which the EU is not, I am afraid, 100% active, but where the Council of Europe should be and could be. That requires a Council of Europe secretary-general who is prepared to roll up her sleeves and get out into the countries to sort out those programmes. Sadly, that is one component of the Council that is currently lacking. Instead, it has put three countries —Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serbia—under monitoring procedures by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, while Montenegro and Macedonia have just come out of monitoring.
Margaret Ferrier
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he recently observed elections in Bosnia and spoke at the Council of Europe about the aftermath of the Dayton agreement. Does he feel that the worsening situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina can be remedied?
John Howell
The hon. Lady seems to have read my speech, because she is anticipating some of the points that I will make later. I made that point at the Council of Europe and I am happy to make it later if she does not mind waiting a few more minutes until I get to that part of my speech.
Kosovo has been caught up in internal Council of Europe committee meetings and wrangling for a long time. Monitoring can play a great part in helping countries move forward with their reforms, including established countries such as France, the Netherlands and even the UK—I am the monitoring rapporteur for Turkey—but the amount that can be done through monitoring, as opposed to active programmes, is limited. It is not a big stick to tell the countries what they have done wrong; it is much more about bringing PACE’s substantial resources to bear to help the country put right weaknesses that might have occurred in its human rights, rule of law or democracy.
How, for example, does PACE monitoring deal with political instability? If anyone thinks that political instability does not arise in that region, they should just look at two countries. We as a delegation are actively helping Kosovo to overcome the difficulties that it faces and become a full member of the Council of Europe, against Serbia’s objections which, of course, are backed by Russia.
Bosnia-Herzegovina contains Srebrenica—the site of a massacre of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys, which has been classed in the international courts as genocide. It might be thought that there is little to argue about, but Serbs do not accept that it was genocide, and Bosnia-Herzegovina has a mixed population.
Reconciliation, which is crucial for peace and security, requires an end to conflicting narratives about the past and a more vigorous prosecution of war crimes. That too is where civil society and the Council of Europe can play a key role. The council must not allow such disputes to fester while we put programmes in place, and we need good conflict resolution activity. If I were secretary-general of PACE—this is not a bid for election, although I am happy to entertain offers—I would seek to develop that area. It requires people with special skill and faith that the countries can come right.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) will agree that the general elections we observed in Bosnia and Herzegovina were generally well run and free. The polling booths, although sometimes a little eccentric—one was in someone’s front room—were generally well run. The only incident, to which I have already referred, occurred when those running a polling station turned up to open it with bags of polling forms that had already been completed.
A major problem, however, was that only three or four people were allowed in the polling booths at any one time. The queues stretched right out into the open air at times, because it took an average of 30 minutes for someone to vote because there were four very large, folded voting papers to read before they could identify their preferred candidates. It took that time to manage the paperwork. That is largely a result of the solution produced by the Dayton accord, which created an unsustainable constitutional system for the country. Sure, people were no longer voting with a gun pointed at them, but that cannot be the answer for the future. It cannot go on like that. Having three Presidents means that nothing ever gets decided. With a strong Muslim community, the country is divided into separate constitutional entities, all of which are threatening—at one time or another—to resign the country, such as the Republika Srpska. The high representative has already said that the country is
“facing the greatest existential threat of the post-war period”,
and its links with Russia are strong. It is a crazy and unsustainable situation. I congratulate Bosnia-Herzegovina on setting up such a large election-monitoring activity with both the OSCE and the Council of Europe, and other western organisations.
I have mentioned Kosovo. We as a delegation are actively supporting Kosovo, and have already offered to help it to become a full member of the Council of Europe. It can take its seats, but not vote, thanks to the work that we as a delegation did to encourage that as the first step for membership. I understand that our enthusiasm for Kosovo is the position of the UK Government as well.
It is difficult to comment on Albania without a comment on its Prime Minister. I have met Edi Rama, and did not find him to be the most conducive man for accepting the activities of the Council of Europe. We are aware of the number of Albanians, certainly the number of Albanian single men, who are coming across the channel, but Albania needs to make lots of progress on reforms to the judiciary and against corruption.
The big problem with Serbia is normalising its relationship with Kosovo and aligning its foreign policy away from Russia to a western, normal perspective. These both mean a lot of work, and a great deal of rethinking. It is interesting that the EU sees the help of the Council of Europe as crucial for enlarging the EU to include the western Balkans. It is essential for the UK too, but we should not try to do it alone at this stage. The UK should use my delegation to put pressure on the Council of Europe to take a more active role in the region and step up to the plate. It is not a question of money either; the Council of Europe Development Bank is able to help with the investment. We need a strategic approach, looking at the region as a whole. The question of migrants is a big factor in this, but we must move away from the narrow confines of nationalism and xenophobia, and the Council of Europe can play a major role in that.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) —I use that term advisedly—on opening the debate. His stewardship of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is exemplary, and I join him in his endorsement of the roles of those who help us here in the UK Parliament.
If we look at the west Balkans as a region—the hon. Member for Henley is right to say that we need to take a strategic view of the whole region—some things are common. Not everywhere has all of these features, but nevertheless one of the depressing things is to travel anywhere in the western Balkans and talk to young people, most of whom will say that their ambition is to leave. They do not generally want to leave for the UK, by the way; they normally want to go to Germany. The fact that young people have no hope or faith in the future is such a mark of what is going wrong. There are those of us who heard that message not so long ago in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but it is a common view across the region. It matters to us as the UK in narrow, national terms, but it matters to us in any case if we hold the view that a well-ordered world is in the interests of the United Kingdom. There are issues such as combating corruption and ensuring that the rule of law is underpinned by judges who are free of the taint of corruption. Those things matter and it is in our interest to ensure that we are part of a process that brings them together.
In the relatively short time I have, let me make one central point. At the moment, a battle is taking place that can be defined in national terms, or by groupings of nations. That is whether the Council of Europe and the European Union pull together and challenge the baleful influence of Moscow and, to a lesser extent, the growing presence of China in the western Balkans. Certainly, the influence of Moscow is almost entirely that of disruptor, through their friends in Belgrade as well as directly.
That matters because a disrupted western Balkans can descend into the kind of events that we have seen in the past. It is very difficult. Nobody would have predicted the violence that took place in the Balkans in the past, not many years before the region was plunged into chaos. I do not want to be overly dramatic, but when Mr Dodik talks about independence or secession for Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina we have the basis of a major challenge. An independent Republika Srpska’s armed force could lead to all manner of things, the like of which we should not contemplate. We have an interest, in any case, in the good governance of the region. That catastrophic view would not apply in most other countries of the region, I am glad to say, but we do have to challenge, both intellectually and practically, the role that Moscow and Belgrade seek to play in the region. That is one point I want to establish.
Many good things are taking place. Going back not that long ago, few people would have predicted that Albania would be a serious candidate for European Union membership, or North Macedonia, yet both those countries should be on a faster track into the European Union. It is always difficult, post Brexit, for UK politicians, even ones like me who were opposed to Brexit, to make the case for the European Union to take action. We need our friends in the EU to recognise that an EU that pretends to have the door open but in practice slams it pretty firmly shut is playing into the hands of the disruptors in the region, and those who already have the kind of despair I described among the younger generation and simply want to leave their countries.
There are some practical things we need to do. We need to work together, the Council of Europe with the European Union. That must underwrite everything that we do. There is no room for competition between the two bodies; we should be joined in everything that we do. That is fundamental, because it is about providing stability and the practical support that the hon. Member for Henley described. It is also about providing something else: the sense that there is a direction of travel that takes people to a better future.
In the end, the big prize is to say to the younger generation, which includes some very talented people, that their future is in their own countries in the region, to build that better west Balkans. If we can begin that process with sincerity and practicality, we can make a material difference. I know the region a little from over the years, but there are people in this room who know it a lot better than I do and I want to listen to what they have to say.
I will say this, though: the western Balkans matters to the United Kingdom. Perhaps it is not our principal area of activity at the moment, but one of the real tragedies of how we all operate is that today’s crisis is Ukraine, yesterday’s was Afghanistan and the day before it was wherever. The western Balkans was once that crisis that we thought was so important, and all our energies were directed there. As a Minister, I lived through the crisis in Kosovo, and we cannot go back to those days. The region is too important for us, so we have to make sure it is on all our agendas, not simply for today, but for the indefinite future. I thank the hon. Member for Henley once again for introducing the debate. It is an important debate that we need to remain fixed on.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
We have 34 minutes and five Members wish to speak. May I encourage you to keep to a limit of about seven minutes, although it is not a formal limit?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Without doubt, the crucible and cockpit for all crisis in the western Balkans is Bosnia. This country has 3.2 million people, ethnically south Slav in nature, but split into three basic religions. Muslims make up 51%, and they are often called Bosniaks. Eastern Orthodox people represent 31%—often called Bosnian Serbs. Roman Catholics represent about 15%—normally called Bosnian Croats.
In 1992, the Bosnian Serbs attacked their neighbours, seizing large tracts of land, which they ethnically cleansed of non-Serbs. As the war went on, the Croats and Muslims also carried out their version of ethnic cleansing. An estimated 2 million people were driven from their homes. In September 1992, the United Nations authorised the deployment to Bosnia of a protection force, UNPROFOR. The UN troops were often called peace- keepers, but actually that was not their role. There was no peace to keep in Bosnia and UNPROFOR did not have the mandate to enforce it either.
Although several British Army observers, medics and liaison staff were already on the ground in Sarajevo and elsewhere, Britain’s main contribution to UNPROFOR was a battle group based on the 1st Battalion, the Cheshire Regiment and a reconnaissance squadron of the 9th/12th Lancers. Around 2,400 troops deployed under Operation Grapple, which is what it was called, in November 1992, and I led it.
Our military has been directly involved in Bosnia since then, and 59 service personnel have lost their lives trying to help the country, among them my escort driver, Lance Corporal Wayne Edwards, and my interpreter, Dobrila Kalaba, who was deployed by us although technically not in the Army. Both were shot in the head, and I was shot in the leg. It did not seem to make much difference to me—I am still here—but I am very sad about the other two. Unsurprisingly, therefore, I have a deep personal connection to Bosnia, which I retain to this day.
The war, which started in 1992 when I was first there, continued until the massacre of Srebrenica in July 1995 and ended with the Dayton peace accords in 1996. That stopped the fighting and established a triumvirate of uneasy power sharing between the three major sides: Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks. Dayton was supposed to last only a few years until politics could be adjusted to make Bosnia a somewhat democratic and viable state, but the Dayton arrangements have become the status quo, and they are simply cracking at the seams.
The Bosnian Serbs in so-called Republika Srpska are seriously threatening to break away, and the Bosnian Croats are also making similar growling noises. If that happens, almost all authorities on the region believe we could easily see the renewal of civil warfare in Bosnia. Between 1992 and 1996, approximately 200,000 people were killed in that war and, as I have mentioned, 2 million people were displaced. That tragedy must not be repeated.
I believe that we, the British, are in a good position to influence what goes on in Bosnia. Our reputation there is quite high as a result of the actions of our soldiers over the years, as well as the continued interest that we hold in the country—witness the fact that Sir Stuart Peach is the representative there, and a good one too. In my experience, the one thing Bosnians respect is good, motivated and professional soldiers on the ground, who know what they are doing. I do not suppose that it will come as a surprise to colleagues that I believe that we could go in there again.
Currently, we have very few military forces on the ground there and we do not contribute to the so-called EUFOR, the European Union Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is utterly and completely useless and does nothing but wander around the country, but we have a few staff officers at the nascent NATO headquarters recently established there. It would be a hugely significant signal if we were to send a British battle group to Bosnia under NATO command. I suggest that should happen, and soon.
My interest in Bosnia has not waned over the years. I have been there twice this year and will return again on 8 December. As my friend, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), has already mentioned, it is a tragedy that 170,000 people left Bosnia last year. They were mainly youngsters. Consider that 170,000 as a percentage of the population of 3.4 million. They are heavily bleeding the people who could be the future of Bosnia. Those people would not be leaving if they believed they had a future, so we, the British, who have invested so much in the country and have paid a blood price, should do all in our power to help that country of decent people sort itself out.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for leading the debate and for his consistent and sterling efforts as leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe. I think we all believe that that delegation is in good hands. If I had the opportunity, I would vote for the hon. Gentleman, and I know others would as well.
Although the UK is no longer a member of the European Union—I am proud to be a Brexiteer—we do our best through the Council of Europe to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I am my party’s spokesperson for human rights and equality issues across the world, whether they be in Europe, the middle east or elsewhere.
I sincerely thank the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his contribution. I have heard it before but it does not make it less powerful to hear it again. We are all aware of his courage, his bravery and his dedication to the peace and stability of the Balkans. He did it in uniform, and I give my thanks—indeed, all our thanks—to him for that. He is a dear friend; he knows that. We think very highly of him.
The debate is especially important as the last time we debated the issue was back in February, at the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and we have since seen the devastation that has occurred as a result. The UK has always been a leading force in the Council of Europe, ably championed by the hon. Member for Henley, in holding Putin to account, so it is great to be here to discuss the protection of other small states.
On 13 December last year, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), met the Foreign Ministers of the six west Balkan states of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia. The hon. Member for Henley referred to Turkey as well. I have a deep interest in Turkey, particularly because of its human rights abuses. The fact that it suppresses and discriminates against ethnic minorities and those of other religious viewpoints is something we have to highlight, and I am glad that the hon. Member continues to do that.
Margaret Ferrier
With the dangerous rhetoric about religion heightening in Bosnia and Herzegovina, does the hon. Member agree that protecting freedom of religion across the region must be a key priority, particularly as some neighbouring countries look to join the EU?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. I know the Minister will respond positively. She knows that I have a deep interest in that issue. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, it comes up all the time, and I will go on to speak about it. The hon. Member for Henley referred to fit and healthy single males who seem to be leaving Albania with regularity to come to the United Kingdom. I am not against any person who wants to emigrate, but do it legally through the system. Don’t jump on a boat and come across.
I watched a TV programme last week that looked at a village in Albania. The village previously had a population of around 1,000, but it was down to less than 100. Those left behind were elderly people and children—not many children at that—because they are all coming across. When it comes to Albania, maybe the Minister could give some indication of what discussions there have been through the Council of Europe and what the Council will do to ensure that people do not come across in these increasing numbers.
Bob Stewart
I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene on him. A good role for the Council of Europe that has not been mentioned is convening a conference to try to sort out a Dayton 2—a new approach to Bosnia. If the Council of Europe is so flipping powerful, it should actually convene this conference and get on with it. All these words and elections are meaningless if the country is broken because of its constitution, which is non-existent and frankly is a cockshy.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
Mr Stewart, please can you think about the language you use in this Chamber?
Jim Shannon
The emotion of the occasion perhaps got the better of the right hon. Gentleman. I wholeheartedly support—with the exception of the last couple of words, of course—what he says. We have stated on multiple occasions that the UK is committed to the western Balkans and to the defence and promotion of freedom. The west has proven instrumental in ensuring support for the west Balkans’s call for greater Euro-Atlantic integration with the United States for both economic and cultural prosperity.
One major factor posing great concern is Russia. I spoke on this issue last time, and we have truly seen the utter malice and evil that Russia has subjected Ukraine to since we last spoke on the issue. The Kremlin has repeatedly demonstrated that the Balkan states are a conducive environment to push back against the west, especially the USA. Putin’s regime has refused to accept Kosovo’s independence, attempted a brazen attack against Montenegro and committed covert attacks to target arms supplies that were destined for Ukraine. Russia is clever when it comes to subversion and in its violence, brutality and wickedness. When we look at these things logically, Russia has absolutely nothing to offer the west Balkans. These countries are in desperate need of prosperity and greater stability, and there is no comparison between the Council of Europe and the corrupt regime of Putin. That is the real threat in the Balkans.
Part of the Berlin process is to ensure that nine EU member states, along with the west Balkans and the UK, engage with the six Balkan Administrations to promote regional co-operation and integration agendas between EU and non-EU states. I know the hon. Member for Henley is trying to do that through his leadership. Through the Council of Europe, we care much about striving for democracy and promoting fair elections. No smaller state should be subject to violent extremism. The ongoing war in Ukraine has been devastating, and the United Kingdom has a role as a western ally to help Balkan states preserve companionship and autonomy. It has been clear that Serbia has moved closer to Russia by not imposing sanctions on the Administration. We have to look at what we can do to impress on Serbia the importance of making efforts to distant itself from Putin.
I will conclude, as I am very conscious that others want to speak. The UK works very closely with Governments in the Balkans region to support internal reforms and the rule of law. I wish for that to continue. I call on our Government—my Government—and the Minister who is in Westminster Hall today to ensure that there are ongoing conversations and support for the future of the western Balkans. I thank them—the Minister and the Government—as well as the Council of Europe, and in particular the hon. Member for Henley, for their work and achievements thus far.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
In the brief time that I have, I will focus my comments purely on our relations with Albania, a country that I visited earlier this year with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who is the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Albania. I pay tribute to him for his professionalism in conducting that trip and in managing the APPG.
There is no doubt that there is growing controversy over illegal crossings over the English channel, but how we treat the existing Albanian diaspora here in the United Kingdom is very important and a key indicator of how we develop our relations with Tirana.
I am the sole Conservative Member of Parliament who was born in eastern Europe—I was born in Poland—so our relations with central and eastern Europe, including the Balkans, are of particular interest to me. I remember coming to this country for the first time, escaping communism with my family in October 1978, as a six-year-old child. I remember the tremendous warmth, kindness and hospitality that we were shown when we came to this country for the first time. That is what characterises British people and this country. That is what we are known for around the world—the way in which we treat people of different faiths, religions, backgrounds and other characteristics.
When Poland joined the European Union in 2004, there was a huge movement of people from that country to the United Kingdom. I remember that at the time the BBC and others whipped up hysteria about the huge numbers of Poles coming to this country, so much so that as I went around the United Kingdom meeting members of the Polish diaspora, I saw and heard evidence of racist attacks, abuse and intimidation of those hard-working Poles who had come to this country to contribute. It was because of the narrative that had been created by the media, by the BBC and by the newspapers. I felt so passionately at that time that I went on “Newsnight” and on Radio 4, and I challenged the media about their conduct, asking why they were focusing so much on people from one specific nation.
Of course we want to control migration, of course we want to control our borders, and of course we want to ensure that migration works in the interests of the United Kingdom. But if history has taught us one thing, it is that focusing on one particular type of people, or on a particular nationality, is a very dangerous thing for any society. And to blame that one particular group of people for the ills and difficulties that the nation is going through is the thin end of the wedge, and something that history has taught us repeatedly is extremely problematic.
I believe that Albanians in the United Kingdom are facing the same pressure that the Poles went through in the early 2000s—actually, perhaps even more so. I have come across cases in my constituency of Shrewsbury of young children of Albanian origin being bullied at school and experiencing racist abuse. Last week, I met Albanian citizens on Westminster bridge who were peacefully demonstrating and holding up their Albanian flags and saying, “I’m a carpenter”, “I’m a nurse”, “I’m a doctor”, “I’m a schoolteacher”, and, “We’re here and we’re contributing to the United Kingdom. We love this country. And yet the media portrays us all as criminals and part of some nefarious type of nationality that is here purely to take advantage of the British and to be criminals.”
I was very moved and touched by what I heard on Westminster bridge from those hard-working people. The demonstration that I saw last week on Westminster bridge is very different from how the event was characterised in The Mail on Sunday, which tried to portray those demonstrators as a marauding mob, hell-bent on creating violence. That is not what I saw on Westminster bridge. People like Mr Farage, who try to whip up this sort of anti-Albanian hysteria through the pages of The Mail on Sunday, should be very careful about what they are doing.
I want to raise a radio interview that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) had with Jeremy Kyle. For me, Jeremy Kyle is the epitome—the personification—of that vilification and that “baying to the mob” mentality. He tries to create division and tension in order to sell his agenda and vilify this diaspora. I was proud of my right hon. Friend when he described Jeremy Kyle’s comments as “emotive, corrosive, offensive drivel”. I agree with him entirely. To characterise a whole nation in that way is wrong.
We all want to destroy the business model of criminal gangs, but we must not pick on the Albanians. I urge the Home Secretary to focus on the task ahead of her, and to be careful with the language that she uses. Certainly, some of the Albanian residents that I met on Westminster bridge expressed concern to me about the characterisation of them by certain politicians in this House. I recognise and celebrate the helpful contribution of Albanians.
Finally, my constituent, Arlinda Ballcaj, has joined Shrewsbury Conservatives; she does a tremendous amount of work to help me with my local party in Shrewsbury. She was the first citizen of Albanian origin to stand for Shrewsbury Conservatives as a council candidate. I am very proud of her. Unfortunately, she lost the seat. When I sat down with her, we both cried about the vilification that she came under, the racist abuse that she received and the conduct of some of the other candidates towards her. It was an emotional experience. I do not want any candidate to go through that sort of abuse. I very much hope that all of us in this House bear in mind my key message today: let us tackle the criminal gangs, but let us be very careful about how we treat the Albanian diaspora. They are here, and in the main they are hard-working, decent people who make a tremendous contribution to the United Kingdom.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
May I ask that the final two speeches are kept to five minutes?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this debate. It has been an extremely well-informed debate, and it appears that virtually everyone around the Chamber has been to the western Balkans over the course of the last few months.
I serve as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the western Balkans. I want to focus less on the political perspective and more on the main element of my brief, which is trade. It is a means not just of growing economies, but of ensuring peace and harmony within those sometimes troubled states. It is clear that we have both a strategic and a financial interest in being close partners with this part of the world. As the trade envoy, I am tasked with encouraging and supporting the growth of business links between the UK and the region. To do so, I work with a wide range of organisations in both the public and the private sector.
As a region with relatively young democracies and market economies, it is to some extent characterised by a legacy of nationalism, ethnic tensions, protectionism and territorial rivalries. Some businesses may consider the region full of significant business challenges, such as bureaucracy, corruption and political instability. However, each country in the region is committed to tackling those issues head on, and improving the business environment. Progress is varied from country to country, and there are setbacks. However, the general direction is positive and strides are being made with Governments across the region, and they ought to be congratulated for their efforts.
Of course, as states hopeful of EU membership, each Government in the region are astutely aware of the need to continue making the necessary reforms to eventually achieve that aim. There is much that the Council of Europe can do to step up its assistance to those nations in improving their application of the rule of law, tackling corruption, ensuring media freedom and putting reforms in place across the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. That would also help them in joining other international organisations, including the Council of Europe.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley remarked, reconciliation is a key theme in the region and is essential to realising the goal of being admitted to the various international organisations. Numerous divisions exist both between and within states in the region; naturally, they are highly emotive and difficult to move on from. That is an area where the Council of Europe can play a significant role. Conflict resolution is difficult but essential. That means that those who have done wrong must be held accountable for crimes and prosecuted.
In some countries—Kosovo, in particular—the UK has not sufficiently focused on the trading relationship, instead preferring to support the country in state building and security issues. Other European countries, as well as the USA, have been quicker to capitalise on the opportunities. In other countries, such as Albania, our focus has dwelt on combatting organised crime. Given the direct impact that has on the UK, it is crucial that we address those matters and work together to resolve them. In doing so, we must remember that it is just one small aspect of what should be a wide-ranging and mutually beneficial relationship.
I want to address that particular issue in more depth. We will all be aware of the headlines in recent weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has highlighted, we have had protests in Parliament square relating to the channel boat crossings. I will say directly to the Albanian people, particularly those who live, work and contribute here, that the UK values their contribution. Most Albanians are here legally and contribute significantly to our society. The vast majority are law abiding and integrate well, maintaining strong relationships within their diaspora. Sadly, there are criminal gangs who exploit them; we are familiar with that. We enjoy a long history with Albania, and we ought to be able to overcome the present difficulties by working together to tackle the minority who are involved in drug trafficking and other crimes.
Those difficulties can be overcome through measures such as the mutual readmission agreement, which has already seen over 1,000 Albanian foreign national offenders returned. However, both of our countries need to do more. Fortunately, that is possible due to the strong and wide-ranging relationship we share with Albania as a close NATO ally, a partner in the UN and a vital partner in ensuring Europe’s collective security.
I suggest to the Minister that now would be a good time for her Department, in co-operation with the Department for International Trade, to launch a major initiative to encourage UK businesses to look more seriously at the opportunities that exist in Albania in particular, but also in the wider region. As has been said, those countries are losing their young people at an enormous rate. If we could do more to establish businesses there, the long-term effect would be to encourage those young people to stay in their home country. That would also, of course, be beneficial to our country as well.
I can see, Ms Nokes, that you are urging me to conclude. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley urged me to increase my contribution!
Martin Vickers
I will wind up by saying that a great deal can be done to extend our trading relationship. I urge the Minister to work with her colleagues in other Departments to enhance our relationship, and as trade envoy I will certainly do my part to assist.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, I think, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this really important debate and all Members who have contributed so far.
I want to make two short points about the western Balkans and the Council of Europe. The first is based on worrying political developments in the western Balkans, and the second on my visit to Bosnia in February and the report of the International Development Committee on atrocity prevention, which was published following that visit.
As right hon. and hon. Members know, the Council of Europe is the leading body supporting human rights on the European continent. Although we are no longer members of the European Union, we remain at the heart of the rights-based union of the Council of Europe, including through the delegations from this House and the other place, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, that we send to the part-sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly.
As my hon. Friend set out, however, the Council of Europe has been worryingly slow to act in relation to recent developments in the region, which I know from first-hand experience still experiences political instability following the troubles of the 1990s. Indeed, political instability in the region is increasing: there has been violent unrest in Montenegro, concerns about the Dayton peace accord, which ended the Bosnian conflict, and a freeze in negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia over Kosovan independence.
These are very worrying times, and the influence of what is taking place in Ukraine is keenly felt. That is why the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, at its October meeting, called for the EU to increase the speed and urgency of its enlargement process to the western Balkans. Without urgency on the part of the EU, the European vison may lose its appeal to those nations, and they will be at risk of Russian aggression, as we saw in Ukraine. That would be a shame, as the steps being taken by the western Balkan nations in pursuit of EU membership are incredibly positive. They include Bosnia’s 2022 laws banning female genital mutilation and forced marriage. I support the Council of Europe’s motion calling on the EU to increase the impetus accorded to the accession process for the western Balkans, and I hope the EU leadership will take that on board to help prevent further instability in the region.
My second point relates to the Council of Europe’s role as a guardian of human rights on the European continent and atrocity prevention. The International Development Committee’s report on preventing atrocities, “From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow: Preventing future mass atrocities around the world”, highlighted that in addition to a Government strategy on atrocity prevention, multilateral international action is absolutely crucial in safeguarding the population from some of the horror of events such as Srebrenica in Bosnia in July 1995, and more recently the reported war crimes of Putin’s forces in Ukraine.
The Council of Europe must not be understated; it must be prepared to be outspoken on any issues of atrocity prevention, not only through the influence of the European Court of Human Rights, but through the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. I hope the Minister will comment on how the Council of Europe can bring its influence to bear on the conflict in the field of atrocity prevention. This is a crucial moment, and the Council of Europe must not delay or hesitate.
This vast and hugely important subject cannot be dealt with thoroughly in the 90 minutes assigned to us. I hope the Minister will give consideration to the two points I have raised. First, the UK must exert what influence we can on the EU in support of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution from October, encouraging more integration for the western Balkans. Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley could confirm that all parts of the Council of Europe will be particularly active in atrocity prevention in Ukraine, following the recommendation from the IDC report about acting multilaterally.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes, and to make the winding-up speech for the Scottish National party. I commend colleagues from across the House for making a number of powerful speeches that have provided some great insight into the region and the work of the Council of Europe. In particular, I commend the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for introducing the debate and for his work on the Council. It is important that, post Brexit, the UK builds on existing links to deepen and strengthen them, because being absent from Brussels does not mean being absent from other ways of communicating and co-operating.
The western Balkans is at a pivotal moment, and it is important that while we rightly focus on events in and around Ukraine—especially the events overnight, with deeply worrying news coming from the region—we do not lose sight of the countries in the western Balkans, because they are vulnerable to what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) described as the baleful—that is the best word for it—influence of the Kremlin. There is a clear need for us to maintain focus there.
Colleagues know—I do not need to rehearse this—that I am a committed pro-European politician and pro-EU politician. I was a Member of the European Parliament for 16 years, and I greatly regret the UK’s absence from it. The EU is poorer for that, and the UK is poorer for it too. I think Scotland’s best future is as an independent state within the EU. We will come back to that.
One thing that I would say, arising from my 16 years in the European Parliament, is that it is important that colleagues remember that the Council of Europe and the EU are not in competition. There is always a risk of institutional vanity, but those organisations are best and most effective when they are in lockstep and in harness, working together. As a student in Warsaw in the ’90s, I saw that the EU accession track and the assistance that that brings from the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission and the EU itself can be hugely powerful spurs—a North star—for domestic reforms and capacity building in democracy, peace building, justice and the rule of law, which is hugely important for the western Balkans.
We have heard an important wake-up call from the Council of Europe, and I commend to the Chamber the resolution of 11 October, which states:
“The Parliamentary Assembly… firmly believes that helping Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo meet their aspirations for closer European integration is important not only for the countries concerned but for the European continent and will benefit all European citizens.”
It goes on:
“Surveys show that an increasing number of people in the Western Balkans, especially amongst the youth, are pessimistic about the prospects of EU accession. The European vision is losing its shine. In its place, ethno-nationalism has resurfaced, a very worrying development in a region in which the”
spectre of violence still looms large. It continues:
“The Assembly calls for a new impetus to be given to the European Union enlargement process.”
I could not agree more. Even if the UK is not part of the EU, I would hope we all agree that closer integration of the western Balkan states into the European framework, however that is defined, is in all our interests.
When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I always supported, as did many UK colleagues, a wider EU. I rejected any idea that the EU is a community of geography and that there is a limit to where Europe stops and starts. I explicitly rejected the idea that the EU is a religious community and that a Muslim country or a country with a significant Muslim population cannot be part of it.
It grieves me that those voices have been removed, and there is a risk, as the hon. Member for Henley mentioned, that voices that would see a more insular and more exclusive EU are stronger within EU discussions now that the UK is absent. That is something we should all regret, because such a development would be a tragedy for the west Balkans, given that the Kremlin is all too ready to gobble those countries up. We have seen what that can mean in the region, and we must do all we can, in all our forums, to ensure that it does not happen again.
I shall close with a few concrete questions to the Minister, whom I welcome to her place. I appreciate that she is newly in post and that the answers might not readily come, but in the context of the integrated review I hope she will take on in a constructive spirit the ideas she has heard today and the suggestions I shall offer.
There is a real, pressing need to expand and better fund the UK’s Council of Europe mission, because being absent from Brussels does not mean being absent from Strasbourg; quite the reverse. We need more resources, as well as more focus on what the Council of Europe is doing and what the UK can do within it.
We also need to increase bilateral support to build up precisely those democracy capacity-building and disinformation-countering measures across the states of the west Balkans. The UK is in a position to do that bilaterally or through the Council of Europe. I would applaud both approaches, and I would be glad to hear greater plans to see that come forward. The SNP has long called for an atrocity prevention strategy to be rolled out through the UK embassy network. Such a strategy would be important worldwide, but particularly in the western Balkans, where our excellent UK missions are doing sterling work, and an atrocity prevention strategy being higher up the FCDO’s agenda would help them in that. I really hope that we see a comprehensive Russia strategy in the integrated review. It is clear that the Kremlin is operating on multiple fronts, and we need to ensure that we are ahead of that and taking due note of it.
The western Balkans is an important part of Europe’s geography and an important part of our world view. I really commend the hon. Member for Henley on bringing forward this debate today. Where there are constructive ways to help the people of those great countries to get closer to us and enjoy the peace and prosperity that we enjoy, I will certainly support them.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing this debate at a critical time for the entire western Balkans and for the Council of Europe’s engagement with it. I also extend my thanks to our permanent representative, our judges, the whole delegation to the Council—many of whom have spoken today—and our envoy in the region, Sir Stuart Peach, who is doing an excellent job.
We have heard some fantastic speeches today, which have drawn on the huge experience we have in the room. The hon. Member for Henley made a comprehensive speech, speaking of the long arm of attempted Russian influence and the range of challenges across the region and in multiple individual countries. I did not agree entirely with all his views on disenchantment with the EU across the region; I was there recently and, while it is clear that there is frustration with the process, I also saw a lot of enthusiasm for further integration into the European family on multiple levels.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and his work in Kosovo. He spoke from his extensive experience. In particular, he spoke of the hope we need to offer younger generations across the region, and indeed in many troubled parts of the world, as being key to ensuring stability in the future. The right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke from his own extensive experience in Bosnia. I pay tribute to him and particularly to the work done by him and his fallen comrades in the region in the past. He said the risks of a further descent into violence are very real, and we should all be aware of them. We heard many other excellent contributions. As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made important points on human rights and freedom of religion across the region.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made some important points about not in any way demonising or targeting the diasporas of individual countries with our language and about the damage that that can do to communities playing a critical role in the UK. I very much agree with much of what he said about Albania. We have to be very careful; we need a pragmatic, official-led response to the challenges we see in the channel. The Home Affairs Committee has been very clear that what we are seeing is being facilitated by organised criminal gangs, which is why we have proposed a new National Crime Agency cell to tackle these groups upstream. We need to determine asylum claims swiftly so that those without claims can be returned, but that cannot descend into the language that we have seen from some parts of the media and, indeed, some senior politicians. It does huge damage to our good relations with Albania, which is one of our NATO allies. I sat in NATO headquarters just last week and saw the Albanian flag fluttering in the breeze alongside our own—we need to remember that Albania is our ally at a critical time. Indeed, many Albanians play a crucial role in this country.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) was with me on a trip to Kosovo earlier this year. He made some critical points about trade and commercial links. I saw that myself with him in Kosovo; we need to expand those. The hon. Members for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith) also made some critical points about why the region is so crucial and why the UK has a key role to play. It is right that much of our focus as parliamentarians in recent months has been on Putin’s heinous war of aggression against the people of Ukraine, but the western Balkans is just as critical because of the potential for future instability and the UK’s unique historical role there, as we discussed in the debate in June. Like all present, I maintain that the work of the Council of Europe has never been more significant in ensuring peace, security and democracy for the people of our continent.
I visited Pristina and Skopje earlier this year and have previously travelled in Bosnia and elsewhere across the region, so I am familiar with the challenges, but there are many grounds for hope as well. I saw dynamic young populations keen to expand their links with the rest of Europe, including the UK. In Kosovo, in particular, I saw a young and vibrant population with a strong desire to join the Council of Europe. I join the calls, led by the hon. Member for Henley and supported by the Government, for Kosovo to be a full member of the Council of Europe.
However, we clearly see significant tensions, often fomented and aggravated by internal and external forces, and those tensions have the capacity to unravel into violence. We must be under no illusions about the seriousness of what we see in the western Balkans at the moment. There is real potential to undermine and unravel the immense progress made since the 1990s. Tensions between Serbia and Kosovo are high, following recent disputes over the licence plate issue, and the resignation of Kosovan Serbs from the country’s institutions, despite Prime Minister Kurti’s calls for co-operation. Discussions have been going on; we met Prime Minister Kurti when he was here a couple of weeks ago.
Any further escalation of that situation could put the work done by the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue at risk. I am afraid we have seen some very unhelpful rhetoric from President Vučić in Serbia. We have also seen a range of measures in Serbia that undermine human rights and freedom of expression, including the backlash against EuroPride in August. Serbia has been reclassified as partly free, rather than free, by Freedom House.
We have seen President Vučić becoming increasingly close to Russia in explicit ways, declaring his intention to maintain friendly relations, signing a three-year agreement on gas supplies, and signing other diplomatic co-operation agreements at the UN, during the United Nations General Assembly, though we are not sure what is in those. Serbia has to make a fundamental choice; does it have a European future with progress, the rule of law and democracy, or is it to be a proxy for Putin and his regressive agenda, which we see acted out so violently in other parts of Europe at the moment?
Much of today’s debate was rightly about the situation in Bosnia. The recent election unfortunately confirmed that ethno-nationalism continues to typify political life in the country. Milorad Dodik and Republika Srpska remain intransigent when it comes to healing divisions and keeping the Dayton process alive. In October he pledged to 30,000 people at a rally that secession will become a reality for the Bosnian Serb entity, and he won re-election on that basis. He has also voiced support for Russia and China, and he went as far as to say that, if NATO intervened in Bosnia,
“We will ask our friends to help us.”
Dodik also supported the illegal and bogus annexation referendums staged by Putin in Ukraine in September, and he has taken a sledgehammer to the delicate balance of power in Bosnia. The implications of that could manifest themselves dangerously for the region and across the continent. We must be fully aware of that. It is only right that we have issued sanctions against a number of the individuals involved in undermining the Dayton agreement.
I have specific questions for the Minister, whom I welcome to her place and her new role. What conversations have the Government had with the secretary-general of the Council of Europe regarding targeted initiatives to protect democratic institutions across the western Balkans? She will have seen the resolution at the PACE assembly on 12 October that, since the Thessaloniki summit, political and public enthusiasm for further integration with Europe has been sapped, due to a slowing and stagnation of the processes. What comments does she have on that? I know we are outside the EU, but what does she believe we can do at this critical time, when others seek to undermine us, to stop that sapping of enthusiasm for integration in terms of accession processes with the EU and the role of the new European political community, which we are part of?
The EU-Western Balkans summit takes place in Tirana on 6 December. I understand that the UK will not be present formally, because we are not in the EU, but the UK has a critical role in many of these locations. I am disappointed that we will not be there in an associate fashion or taking part in discussions. Will the Minister tell us what discussions she has had with friends and allies in the EU and what contact there has been between our special envoy and the EU special envoy in the region ahead of that summit?
We have heard today about Russia’s efforts to spread disinformation and undermine democracies across the region. I was concerned to hear of the locations in Serbia that Russia is using to spread disinformation across the region in relation to not only Kosovo but Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia and elsewhere. Will the Minister say a little about what we are doing to share our expertise in counter-disinformation and cyber-security across the region to assist countries to have the strongest possible resilience against those Russian efforts?
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
Perhaps you could think about drawing to a conclusion.
Stephen Doughty
I will leave time for the Minister, Ms Nokes.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government see the Council as a crucial part of promoting democracy across our continent, fundamentally reinforcing the values that we all share, and that they will continue to support our delegation and its work in the months and years to come.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Minister for Europe would have been delighted to take part in the debate, but I am afraid that he is travelling on ministerial duties. It is a pleasure to be able to respond on behalf of the Government. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing the debate, and I recognise his valuable work as leader of the UK’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
As we have heard, the western Balkans continues to face challenges to its future stability, security and prosperity. Those challenges come from both within and outside the region. Our policy is to support a more prosperous and secure western Balkan future, built on strong foundations of democracy, the rule of law and regional co-operation. We will continue to challenge those such as Russia and Iran that seek to undermine those aims by sowing division, disinformation and distrust. That is why the UK is working with partners and allies, including in the Council of Europe, to support the six states of the western Balkans.
As hon. Members may know, the UK was a founding member of the Council of Europe. It was Sir Winston Churchill who first publicly suggested its creation nearly 80 years ago. Since then, we have been an active defender of the institution’s values: freedom, liberty and—most importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley reiterated so clearly—the rule of law.
Next May, in Reykjavík, the organisation will hold only the fourth Heads of State summit in its 73-year history. We support Iceland’s proposal to focus on the Council’s core values and strengthen them across Europe; against the backdrop of Putin’s heinous and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine, it has never been more important to protect those values. The UK welcomes the Council’s swift action to expel Russia, and His Majesty’s Government and the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly played a crucial role in that quick response. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and colleagues for their continued determination to lead on this.
The UK will continue to support reforms that support peace, stability and freedom of democracy across the Balkans, and the Council of Europe will play a vital role in that. The region’s future lies in sovereignty and self-determination. Its people and Governments have repeatedly spoken in support of greater integration with the Euro-Atlantic community. The Council of Europe’s monitoring and technical assistance is fundamental to the west Balkan countries’ progress on their EU membership aspirations, and the work that hon. Members continue to lead on—the challenges they have set out today—will continue to drive those hard efforts to help western Balkan nations to strengthen.
The Council’s tailor-made action plans for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania and Kosovo will look to push these stabilising solutions further. The whole gamut of the Council of Europe’s work to ensure that human rights, democracy and the rule of law are firmly embedded in the western Balkans is something that we will continue to actively support. As highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—an ever-strong champion of freedom of religious belief—the UK and the Government are unwavering in their commitment to promote freedom of religion or belief for everyone, everywhere. We continue to work with western Balkans partners to ensure that those rights are protected.
Through its office in Pristina, the Council of Europe is supporting Kosovo’s reform agenda on human rights, the rule of law and democracy, among other issues. Kosovo is a young country that, during its short existence, has made great strides in aligning itself with European democratic values. We have been engaging with other Council of Europe members through our embassies and strongly emphasising our support for Kosovo’s application for membership, and our permanent representative in Strasbourg has also emphasised that. Membership will bring clear benefits to the Kosovan people, including minority communities; in particular, it will strengthen citizens’ ability to challenge the Government when they feel that their human rights are being impinged on.
I congratulate all the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 2 October elections. The OSCE’s observation mission judged that they were, overall, peaceful and democratic, but instances of fraud must be investigated and prosecuted. The High Representative’s task is to support Bosnia and Herzegovina towards a secure future. When he imposed electoral reforms on 3 October, he made it clear that he had no choice but to act, given the absence of domestic political will. We cannot allow malign forces to destabilise Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose politicians and authorities must work for the benefit of all citizens.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) reminded us of the tragedies in Bosnia in the 1990s—the bloodshed and brutality that scarred that country. His leadership as a peacekeeper in those troubles and his continued reminders to us all in this House ensure that we keep Bosnia’s future success, economic stability and a place for growth for its next generation at the heart of our policy making.
I urge those politicians and authorities to collaborate and co-operate in order to ensure that the election results, and much-needed reforms, are implemented swiftly and effectively for the benefit of their citizens. That includes implementing long-standing European Court of Human Rights judgments, such as that in the Sejdić and Finci case, which cannot be enacted by the High Representative.
We are also concerned about recent tensions between Serbia and Kosovo, where parties must refrain from rhetoric and actions that risk escalating the situation. They must not endanger the progress made in recent years, or derail efforts to reach a comprehensive and sustainable agreement that benefits the people of both countries and the wider region. The UK will continue to work closely with Kosovo, Serbia and international partners towards that goal, including through our support for the EU-facilitated dialogue. It is vital that both sides honour the dialogue commitments that they have made so far. We encourage continued talks between the Kosovo Government and Kosovo’s minority communities—in particular, to strengthen inclusive and transparent local governance supporting the needs and interests of all Kosovo citizens. In this regard, it is vital that Kosovo Serbs return to Kosovo’s institutions to represent the communities that they have been elected to serve.
Montenegro, a valued NATO ally, is at a crucial juncture under its current caretaker Government. Political stalemate and weaknesses in some institutions leave it vulnerable to influence from beyond its borders. We urge Montenegro’s political parties to engage in talks and chart a constitutional path together, and to set the conditions for future elections.
The Council of Europe’s work in Albania and North Macedonia plays an important role in progress towards reforms. I note the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), as trade envoy, for further trade encouragement, which I will share with colleagues. He will know that UK Export Finance has substantial capacity to assist British companies to look to Albania. In Albania, the Council provides training and capacity building to the judiciary, prosecution and law enforcement authorities. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) highlighted Albania’s goal of EU accession—a sovereign choice—which acts as a stimulus for reform. We welcomed the formal start of accession talks in July of this year. Institutions play an absolutely vital role in tackling organised crime, including the criminals driving the illegal channel crossings that have cost so many lives.
I would like to take the opportunity to put on the record the strength of the close and long-standing UK-Albania relationship, including in the Council of Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) highlights, the 150,000-strong Albanian diaspora here in the UK are so important to the UK. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently met Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama in Berlin earlier this month. We want a stable and prosperous bilateral partnership, benefiting not only our two countries but the region and Europe as a whole. We are working together against drugs and people trafficking and money laundering. The NCA has a strong relationship with Albanian partners, with growing co-operation and data sharing.
If I may—I am sure that you would agree with me, Ms Nokes—I would like to encourage the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham not to be discouraged by her initial failure in electoral presentation: many of us have stood for office several times before winning. Arlinda Ballcaj’s commitment to her community and willingness to stand in order to speak up for those among whom she and her family live are commendable.
The people of the western Balkans deserve to enjoy peace, security and prosperity. As colleagues have said, as progress beyond historic crises helps these countries to begin their EU-facing positioning, we continue to welcome their work. We work alongside to support that, hand in hand with our partners, including the Council of Europe, which does such valuable work. I have noted some of the powerful voices from across the House on an atrocity prevention focus. I reassure colleagues that we are developing our work on that across our network to put in place early-warning mechanisms that have track indicators. There were a few questions I was unable to answer today, for which I apologise, but I will ensure we do so in a timely manner.
John Howell
I thank everyone who has participated in this debate. They have made it a very cross-party debate, as is typical of the Council of Europe, and as is typical of how I try to run the delegation. There are two things that I will recall from this debate. The first is the overall impression that the western Balkans matter to us, and that we need to spend a lot of time looking at them. The second is that when I first became the leader of the delegation, nobody in these sorts of debates had heard of the Council of Europe, or at least nobody quoted it, but today many people have quoted from the reports of the Council of Europe and many have referred to it. That is a fitting tribute both to me and to the delegation for the enormous work we have done to ensure that we continue to play a vital role in the Council of Europe. That is vital for Europe more widely and for making sure that we are well known and active across the region.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the West Balkans and the Council of Europe.
Family Law Terminology
(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
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the terminology used in family law.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, not least as I know you are a huge champion of families, and when you looked after relationship work in the Department for Work and Pensions under previous ministerial briefs, you understood the importance of this field of work.
Who does not love a good on-screen relationship drama? Lovers falling out, marriages breaking down and dramatic affairs of the heart are the stock-in-trade of film, soaps and the media. But when children are caught in the middle of storylines, we routinely hear, “I’ll see you in court”, “I’m going for custody of little Johnny and little Sarah”, or the possessive—“She’s my daughter”—and divorce is described as a battle to be won. This language is hugely unhelpful to families who are going through the heartache of separation.
I was a family law solicitor before I came into this place, and I saw the fallout of unnecessarily divisive battles. I am often found shouting at the telly when they get the terminology wrong. My love of “Coronation Street” and “Eastenders” probably needs to be outed here—I am going to write to the producers about the report and the debate today. Language really matters in family law.
In real life, every year around 280,000 children see their parents separate. It surprises many that the term “custody” should have stopped being used 30-odd years ago when the Children Act 1989 came in, but it surprises nobody that the language of war used for separating families is damaging to all involved, with approximately 40% of all separating parents bringing issues about their children to the family court. For too long we have allowed thousands of children to be caught up in an adversarial court system.
The language of the legal system is accusatory and divisive. Parents are described as Smith v. Smith; barristers will talk about “my opponent”; we refer to “the applicant” and “the respondent”; and we have “dispute resolution” rather than problem solving. The most important humans in a child’s life are therefore immediately pitched against each other at a time when co-operation is most needed.
Many years ago while working for the relationship experts OnePlusOne, I wrote an article that explained—there is lots of evidence—that destructive and acrimonious conflict between parents puts children at greater risk of emotional problems such as depression and anxiety. Children may develop behavioural difficulties and become aggressive and difficult. Parents do not want that. For the majority of mums and dads, separation is extremely painful and a decision not taken lightly. The wellbeing of their children is their main concern, and often the first concern when they come in to speak to lawyers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the time I have had the privilege of knowing the hon. Lady, she has addressed these issues with a deep interest and knowledge, and I thank her for that. In children and family courts, children often hear big and complicated words without knowing their meaning, but they know the emotional impact—for example, custody in prison, being in pain, separation, being alone and perhaps even violence. Does she agree that the justice system could and must look at the courts’ choice of words, their impact on young children’s development and the fear they instil about the environment those children are growing up in and the changes that they might face?
Siobhan Baillie
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for what was, as usual, a thoughtful intervention. He is absolutely right. The language we all use, whether it is in the media or in the legal system and court documents, can be changed. It will not be easy—we all use terminology that is outdated and that we have been told is wrong, and we get it wrong sometimes—but it can be changed, and we have to work towards that.
With that in mind, I encourage everyone to look at the “Language Matters” report by the Family Solutions Group. The FSG was set up by the eminent Mr Justice Cobb in 2020. It is an excellent and constructive multidisciplinary group of experts working with separated parents and children. There is a lot of emotion in this area, but it is trying to find solutions and I recommend that everyone look at its work.
Let us be honest: the courts system that we are working in is stretched to breaking point. Over 66,000 new cases started in the family courts in April to June 2021, which is up 14% on the same quarter the year before. The case numbers are increasing. The pressure on courts in the pandemic was a tipping point because so many hearings were cancelled. Delays in cases involving children are always counter to a child’s best interests, yet despite the best efforts of the Government, the judiciary and lawyers, from 2011 to 2021 the mean duration of disputes and cases involving children increased from over 31 weeks to 41 weeks—up by a third. It is now commonplace for hearings to be cancelled at short notice, and the number of litigants in person are rising exponentially. That gives the judiciary an impossible task in many cases.
Let us imagine how hard it is for emotionally charged parents to go through a confusing court system on their own. When I was practising, people would save up to have one hour of my time. That is all they could afford—hundreds of pounds. They would get as much as they possibly could from me and head into the court system on their own, often terrified and desperate to do a good job. We come back to language in the courts system. The FSG report sets out the archaic language that is familiar to me, the judiciary and lawyers, but court bundles, pleadings and section 7 statements are alien to most people.
In essence, the court should be the last resort for parents, but sadly it is often seen as the first port of call. However, our system can be changed so that parents who do not have legal issues to resolve do not go anywhere near a judge, particularly for child arrangements. Many cases are not about law but about communication or relationship issues, responsibilities, schools, hobbies or the scheduling of a child’s time once they are in two homes. If there is no safety, or if there are domestic violence or protection issues, parents would be best served by being supported to reach agreements as early as possible outside the court system.
I have said for years that I estimate that about a third of private law children cases should not be in court, but I defer to the brilliant judge Sir Andrew MacFarlane, the president of the family division, who I heard on a Radio 4 programme the other day. He estimated that about 20% of families could be helped outside court. If we invested in helping 20% to 30% of families stay out of litigation, we would not only help the children of those families but free up court time for the families that need it most. In the case of Re B, His Honour Judge Wildblood said:
“Do not bring your private law litigation to family Court here unless it is genuinely necessary for you to do so.”
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
As a former magistrate in the family proceedings court, I completely agree that when people come for contact arrangements with their children, very often the magistrates are acting in the role of mediator and helping them to come to a decision in the court. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not the place for parents to go to have other people sort out their child arrangements for them?
Siobhan Baillie
I agree. It is not a good use of magistrates’ time, either. This is not easy for parents—nobody should suggest that they rush to court, because often that is not the case. At the moment, parents think that court is the only place to go to get disputes resolved. That change in society and culture would help to free up the court’s time, which is incredibly important to my hon. Friend and other magistrates. His Honour Judge Wildblood went on to say this, directed at parents and lawyers:
“If you do bring unnecessary cases to this Court, you will be criticised, and sanctions may be imposed on you. There are many other ways to settle disagreements, such as mediation.”
I am looking to the Minister to help me and other parliamentarians to change the family law system to, in turn, help the Ministry of Justice to achieve its goals to ensure that people can access justice and court time in a timely way when they really need it.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. The problem is that there are insufficient resources in mediation services, but if we invested in them, we could make savings further down the road within the court system and the Ministry of Justice. Is that something she would encourage?
Siobhan Baillie
It is absolutely fantastic to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about mediation. There has actually been a lot of investment in mediation. The demand went up an awful lot when we had a voucher system, which we may hear about from the Minister. Where demand has gone up, we need to meet that demand, because those parents will end up in court if we cannot get them into mediation services. It is absolutely great to hear the hon. Gentleman champion mediation in that way, and we will look to the Minister to hear more about the options.
I am asking for a few things today. Will the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Justice’s much-needed focus on family law reform is continuing, now that the Lord Chancellor is back in his post? It went quiet for a bit, and the Lord Chancellor previously did an awful lot on this issue. What has happened to the demand reduction plan? I know the Department was looking at that very carefully, and it was designing the plan to keep families out of court wherever possible. Does the Minister agree that the FSG should receive a formal response from the Government to its “What About Me?” and “Language Matters” reports?
Can the Minister please confirm that the Ministry of Justice is working across Departments to embed support for separating families in services such as family hubs, and to learn from the Department for Work and Pensions’ successful reducing parental conflict programmes? Will the Government confirm that they will investigate extending family law projects and pilot schemes? We know that they are working really well and teaching us better practice for cases involving children, so we would like to see more of them. Finally, will the Minister get representatives of the FSG to meet officials in the Department in order to discuss their proposals?
I genuinely believe that changing the options available to parents, re-educating society about the impact of litigation on children and changing the legal language of separation will help millions of parents and, importantly, the life chances of children. I hope we can work together to make that happen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
As ever, it is a joy to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing a debate on this important topic. It is a topic on which I know she has campaigned for quite some time and with vigour. I tried to find the blog she wrote some years ago, but I suspect I may have to dig a bit deeper to find it. If she has a copy to hand, I would be very interested in reading it.
As parliamentarians, we are all aware of the power of language to influence, to make others reflect and to be a force for good. The focus of the family court must always be on acting in the best interests of the child, as well as on creating stability and reducing conflict for families. The language used by professionals, and in the systems, processes and guidance that make up the family court, can set the tone for how families and individuals interact with it and with each other, both in and out of court. Our choice of language makes it clear what we value the most, and it can act as a reminder that children are at the heart of the family justice system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned, the Family Solutions Group, which is a collection of multidisciplinary experts looking at how to improve the family justice system for children and families, noted in 2022 that the
“language for separating families has evolved out of an adversarial legal system: it is accusatory and divisive. It is also potentially harmful, increasing conflict through battle metaphors while parents compete for justice and control of their children.”
The Government have recognised that the language used in the family court needs to move away from pitting parents or couples against each other. Instead, the emphasis should be on clear and simply terminology that recognises children as children, not as cases, and that encourages individuals to reach joint agreements. We should be moving away from arguments about custody and residence, and towards what is the best outcome for the child, instead of perpetuating the idea that there are winners and losers in the family court. We should be encouraging resolutions and agreements.
Reducing conflict between separating parents is a priority for the Government. I will set out the actions we have taken to support them and their children before turning to some specific measures to improve the language used in the system. We are introducing measures to reduce the number of disputes that come to court in the first place so that we reduce the time that children are left to deal with uncertainty and minimise exposure to the court system for young people.
My hon. Friend mentioned the family mediation voucher scheme, which was launched in March and is designed to remove the barriers that parents face in accessing mediation. Family mediators are trained to support separating parents to move past their conflicts and resolve issues in a non-adversarial way. Mediation can often be a quicker means of reaching an agreement. We hope that by offering separating parents the opportunity to mediate, we can reduce the period of uncertainty and distress for children by avoiding more lengthy court proceedings.
More than 11,800 couples have now accessed the mediation voucher scheme and received £500 towards the cost of their mediation. A Family Mediation Council survey of the first 2,800 cases suggests that 65% of separated parents reached whole or partial agreements in their mediation, which means that they no longer needed to attend court. Clearly, an amicable agreement will always be in the best interests of the children.
Where court is unavoidable, we are working to ensure that disputes are resolved as quickly as possible, and that the processes are as understandable and stress-free as possible, especially for children. For instance, we have adopted a more investigative approach to proceedings. In February, we launched the first integrated domestic abuse courts pilot in Dorset and north Wales, delivering on a 2019 manifesto commitment. This new approach to child arrangement cases seeks to reduce conflict, protect victims and survivors and enhance the voice of the child by gathering more information during the early stages of the process, which allows courts to narrow down issues, and minimises the time spent pitting parties against each other in a courtroom setting. The new pilot also includes the option for children to meet judges or have direct access to a judge in their case who can give them direct feedback in simple, plain language on the recommendation decisions about their lives. Of course, that puts a human face to the process.
The Government introduced the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 to allow no-fault divorce and end the pointless blame game when a marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken down. Instead, it allows couples to focus on resolving more important priorities, such as how best to co-parent any children. The Act also aimed to help couples to reach amicable decisions by introducing joint applications for divorce, which was not previously possible. Joint applications replace the adversarial concept that divorce is something done by one party to the other. We have also made changes to the language of divorce to reduce language that automatically pits individuals against each other. We have removed terms such as “petitioner” from the process. Those are simple changes, but they set the tone for how individuals engage with each other in court.
My hon. Friend stressed the importance of language and terminology. The Government used the Children and Families Act 2014 to remove the concept of winners and losers from cases involving children. It removed terms such as “residence” and “contact”, and replaced them with more child-focused language such as “child arrangements”.
Technology also plays a significant role in how people access and understand the family justice system. The Government are creating a more modern and straight- forward justice system that is accessible to all. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s reform programme has been running since 2016, and aims to move court applications across all jurisdictions online. That commitment includes providing online systems and resources that are written in plain English. Although there are times that legal language is required, all HMCTS forms and gov.uk resources go through a plain English review to make sure they are clear and accurate. We are committed to making not only the family courts accessible but the wider justice system. So far, divorce, probate and public law proceedings have moved online, and private law cases also have an option for online applications. We are continuing to work on providing more resources for child arrangements, finance applications, adoption and certain protective orders.
Finally, I want to champion the work of the Family Justice Young People’s Board, and set out how it contributes to improving how the family justice system is using language and terminology. The young people’s board is a group of over 50 children and young people, aged between seven and 25 years old, with either direct experience of the family justice system or with an interest in children’s rights and the family courts. It works directly with the Ministry of Justice and other partners across the family justice system to share their experiences and unique viewpoints, helping to bring a vital perspective to our work. The board has been working to demystify the family justice system for children and young people, both in private and public law proceedings.
Working with the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, the Family Justice Young People’s Board have produced several resources and guides for children that aim to break down family court terminology, as well as more complex procedural processes that children will experience in court. I encourage everyone to read their “Mind Your Language!” guide on the words for professionals to avoid using in proceedings, such as terminology that is too complex. I also recommend their first book, “In Our Shoes”, for the moving first-person testimonies it provides from children and young people going through the family justice system.
To conclude, the Government are committed to improving the experience of the family courts for children, and are taking action to make the family justice system a less adversarial experience for those who go through it. We are doing that by supporting parents to resolve their issues without the need to come to court, by improving the language and terminology used in the systems and that underpin family court, and by ensuring that at all levels the voices of children and young people who experience family justice are heard.
I reiterate the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made; family justice system reform remains a top priority for the Government, and I can reconfirm that it remains a priority for the Lord Chancellor. The projects on law reform and reducing court backlogs are a key priority for the whole Department. As my hon. Friend stressed, if we can get people out of the courtroom, it releases court time for more complex cases. The FSG remains a key partner of the Department, and the family division sits as an observer of the family justice board. The Department is entirely aligned with the objectives of my hon. Friend and the points she raised have firmly landed. I look forward to working with her in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Male Primary School Teachers
(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
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered increasing the number of male primary school teachers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise what I think is a really important issue, and I am sure we will have plenty of time between us to discuss some of its merits—perhaps we will not need the full 90 minutes.
I want to start by setting the scene and explaining why I have secured this debate on recruiting more male teachers into primary schools and, indeed, teaching more generally—we are short across the board. Having the debate this week is important in the build-up to International Men’s Day this weekend, and I will touch on the impact of the issue on our young people and young boys, and on their mental health and stability.
Of course, there are many challenges facing our schools, not least the financial squeeze that all organisations are feeling from inflation and rising costs. Don’t get me started on the curriculum, teacher recruitment and retention, and empowering teachers on Ofsted—I am sure the Minister and I could debate those things all day, which would be very enjoyable. As I will explain, increasing the number of male primary school teachers is socially and culturally important.
I declare an interest: before I accidentally became a politician, I had always planned to be a teacher, and I had considered teaching in primary schools. I never quite got there before I fell into some local issues—bin-related drama, as it happens; people get very passionate about wheelie bins—that led to me becoming a district councillor, and the rest is history. Despite not having ended up in teaching, children’s welfare and primary education remain really important to me personally, not least because I have primary-age children myself. I have committed much of my time over the past five years in this place to policy that is in one way or another related to supporting children.
Another issue that is really important to me—and, I think, to our society—is equality. I have been perhaps the most vocal critic of our equalities legislation, which is almost always misused and misunderstood. The Equality Act 2010 is often explained as protecting characteristics such as being female, BME or LGBT, but that is not the case. It protects biological sex, race and sexuality, among others—both male and female equally; white, black and anything else equally; and gay and straight absolutely equally. It is, after all, the Equality Act.
The intention behind the law is that the exact same legislation that is cited in order to support young women into science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, where they are historically under-represented, and into university—even though today’s figures show they are over-represented—should also be used to support young men where they are under-represented in professions such as nursing or, indeed, primary teaching.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is a great loss to teaching, but he also has a great passion for sport. I recently met representatives of the Professional Footballers Association, which helps thousands of men and women transition from their footballing careers into other careers. Surely this is a big opportunity for the Department for Education to work with them, particularly—given the thrust of this debate—to help get more male teachers into primary schools.
Ben Bradley
I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a really important point. We had a debate in this place only a few weeks ago about more flexible routes into teaching, and that sounds like a brilliant one. We also touched on routes from early years education into primary teaching. If someone is able and qualified to teach and support five-year-olds in an early years setting, surely they could do the same for six-year-olds in a primary setting. Some of the barriers make it very difficult, but my hon. Friend has mentioned what sounds like a fantastic scheme, which is perhaps an example of how taking positive action under the Equality Act could increase the number of male primary school teachers.
The law exists to enable us to tackle this issue, but it is almost never interpreted in that way. In a recent debate on access to teaching, which took place in this very room, the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), informed me that there are no schemes or planned schemes to support young men to get into primary teaching. The point of my speech, and of securing the debate, is quite simply to ask why, because we have the opportunity to address this issue. That is why we are here, but what is the problem?
I have some figures that Members might find surprising, as it feels like the issue has gone under the radar. I know it is the subject of conversations outside the school gates among parents of primary-age children, because I am one and I have had such conversations with a number of parents at my own children’s school, but the figures might surprise a wider audience. Only 14% of primary and nursery teachers are male—significantly less than one in five. That is actually a slight rise from 12% in 2010, but the total teaching workforce has become more female-dominated in that time: more than 75% of teachers are now female, up from 74% a decade ago. Out of nearly 17,000 primary schools in England, 3,240 have no male teachers on the payroll whatever—not one. At an average of just under 300 pupils per school, that is nearly 1 million children with no male role model in their education setting.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
My daughter is in her second year of training for qualified teacher status, having done her PGCE. I asked her whether she agreed with my hon. Friend’s premise that more men should be encouraged into what is a largely female workforce. She made the point that he just made: many of our young people are growing up without a male role model in their lives. She pointed out that it is really good for children to see men in a caregiving role, which is essentially the role in a primary school. She made one or two other observations, which I may share with him later.
Ben Bradley
That is exactly right. If we are striving make public services representative of our communities and society, primary education should be at the very heart of that. It is hugely important to teach young people about relationships and provide role models. I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I will come on to it in more detail.
This is a particular problem in my region in the east midlands. A study for the Institute for Social and Economic Research in May found that nearly a third of all state-funded primary and secondary schools in the east midlands do not have a single male classroom teacher. That is the highest proportion in the country. In London, the figure is 12.5%, which is still a lot of schools, but in the east midlands 30% of schools do not have a single male teacher. That means that one in three children have no male role model in the classroom—not even in the building—whom they can seek out.
Not only are men less likely to become teachers in the first place, but those who do are far less likely to remain in the profession than their female counterparts. We have been unable to recruit and retain male teachers. I know it is a problem with female teachers too, but it particularly so with male teachers. The stats I have just shared make that issue particularly clear.
Lots of action has been taken to address inequality in teaching. There has rightly been lots of action to get more women into leadership roles in education, and to make teaching more racially diverse. Indeed, the teaching population is more ethnically diverse than the country as a whole. As I said, those imbalances are tackled under the Equality Act, yet although one in three children in my region has no male teacher at all and only one in four teachers are male—it is even lower in primary school at just 14%—there are no schemes, and as the previous Minister said, no planned schemes, to try to redress the balance under the Act, which is intended to support men and women and protect them equally. It is not working; it is not being used properly.
Members might be thinking, “All right, the figures are skewed. We can see that there aren’t many male primary school teachers—not many blokes in the profession. Why does that matter?” Well, I will tell them why. It touches on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) made. Having male primary school teachers is really important for a number of societal, psychological and social reasons. First, male and female teachers contribute to children’s gender knowledge in a balanced way. They contribute to their understanding at a very young age of what male and female are and what they mean, and of what those roles might be. That may seem a small thing, but for an ever-increasing number of young people who do not have a male role model at home, and who often do not have male role models they can learn from and emulate in their personal lives, having them at school is important.
In an increasingly difficult and often frustrating society where discussing gender can sometimes be incredibly unclear and misleading—certainly complicated by mixed and politically charged messages about what being male means and what gender is—a simple balanced interaction with male and female positive role models is important. At a time when masculinity and being a man can be portrayed very negatively, and young men increasingly find it hard to figure out what their role in life and in our society might be, leading to all sorts of mental health problems, which I am sure we will discuss over the course of this week in the build-up to International Men’s Day, it has never been more important for them to have a consistent, respectable male role model they trust in their life. I would make the same case in support of men in youth work, for example, which can do so much for the relationships, trust and security of young people in our communities.
For the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children, the presence of male teachers might be vital, allowing them to observe men who are non-violent, for example, and whose interactions with women are respectful and positive. This is particularly important for children from dysfunctional backgrounds—households with domestic abuse, or other family environments that are not healthy. If the only consistent male figure in someone’s life is actually a bad role model who is teaching bad behaviours, how is that person to know or learn any different?
Today, some 2.5 million children grow up without a dad at home, which has an impact. Moreover, there were estimates in 2020 that some 30,000 or more children are exposed to domestic abuse at home every month, whereby the man in their life and in their home sets a poor example and relationships are dysfunctional. Male teachers—safe, trusted, respectable role models—are absolutely vital for those children.
I am consistently saying “children”, rather than “boys”, because I mean all children. Good male role models are important not just for boys but for girls, and for exactly the same reasons. They are equally important in helping children to understand how men and women treat each other, or should treat each other. For children to have trusted adult males they can rely on in their lives is important for them to understand, as I have said, some of the issues around gender, and roles and responsibilities, and also to tackle the problems caused by poor examples and poor role models, if children have those at home, and show them a different path.
I think this is a self-perpetuating cycle, whereby limited visibility of male teachers means that men are less likely to go into teaching. Again, I draw the comparison with nursing, as stereotypes abound in that space, too. The stereotype is that primary school teaching is a women’s job, and that men teach design technology and physical education; similarly, men are doctors and women are nurses. That is all outdated and old-fashioned; it is absolute nonsense, of course.
However, there is still an outdated and ill-informed prevailing view that primary teachers are women; that should not be the case, but when we look at the statistics we see that it is largely the case. That view often means that men do not apply for primary teaching jobs. I might as well keep adding in nursing, because there is a similar challenge in that profession. These are areas where the Equality Act is absolutely clear that measures could and indeed should be taken to tackle a clear imbalance and disparity between characteristics, whereby one group is massively under-represented. That is precisely what the Act is intended to tackle, yet we heard here in Westminster Hall just a month or so ago that there are no schemes or plans for schemes to try to tackle that imbalance.
Quite simply, I ask the Minister: why not? When we put so much energy and resource into teacher recruitment and retention, which is hugely important for our schools, why not? We offer huge financial incentives for people to teach key subjects, but this issue is key, too. A lack of male role models will have a negative impact on the lives of young people, leaving an increasing number of young men with mental health problems, unable to work out who they are and what their role in society is, and leaving young women in particular and young people in general with unhealthy views about what relationships with men should look like.
In my view, a lack of men in teaching is actually more important in society—for its fabric and for the wellbeing of our young people—than a lack of maths teachers, but we incentivise maths teachers. We are not incentivising male teachers and healthy relationships. Why? Is there a logical reason or is it, as I suspect, something else? I have already spoken about the Equality Act. My experience of it is that there is a deep-seated fear within parts of Whitehall, which thinks that if they use the Equality Act to do something that supports men, they will get slated on Twitter. That is probably true. When I have had these types of conversations and raised these points, I get slated on Twitter as well, but it is important to recognise that Twitter quite regularly spouts a load of nonsense and we cannot be governed by Twitter.
I firmly believe that the wider public will be fully supportive of what I am saying here in Westminster Hall today and the premise behind it. We need more male teachers, in primary schools in particular and in schools in general.
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend makes some very interesting points about financial incentives. I think that it is accepted that salaries and careers in secondary education are generally more highly remunerated than in primary education, which does not provide an incentive for male teachers to go into primary teaching. Often in a relationship, males are seen as the main breadwinner, and while none of us would want there to be a particular financial incentive for male teachers, the attractiveness of primary school teaching really needs to be looked at.
Ben Bradley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the wider recruitment and retention challenge as a whole, and trying to get more people into teaching, and primary school teaching. As I have touched on, we debated some of the avenues that we might take to support more people, and people with a wider range of backgrounds and experiences, by providing easier routes. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) mentioned the transition from coaching, for example, into teaching, or a transition from early years into teaching. There are different ways in which we can support people through schemes such as that to incentivise male teachers. Perhaps the football example is a good one. We can imagine that lots of men in their 30s who are ending a career in sport, or who have been coaching and looking after young people in a coaching environment, could easily transition into a teaching-type role.
Justin Tomlinson
It goes even further than that, because the majority of those men are aged between 18 and 24—they have not quite fulfilled their dream of premier league stardom. The PFA is desperate to sit down with the Department for Education to talk about this; it is already working with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I hope my hon. Friend will join me in encouraging the Minister to sit down with the PFA.
Ben Bradley
I absolutely support that—I would love to have that conversation. That is a prime example of the kind of scheme that is supported by the Equality Act and everything I have described. It is exactly the kind of thing that we could and should do to try to incentivise people in a massively male-dominated space to transition into teaching. That is a perfect example of what I am talking about; I thank my hon. Friend bringing it up.
Aside from setting up that conversation, which would be really helpful, what can the Minister do to ensure that the importance of this is recognised, barriers are removed and the tools we use to tackle these inequalities in other areas are also used for this? All the data, anecdotal evidence and common sense should tell us that this issue is really important. I hope that that can be recognised in policy. I thank colleagues for engaging in the debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. Thank you for calling me to speak—it is not often I am called straight after the Member who moves the motion, but it is a real pleasure. I thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for leading the debate. He leads on many things in Westminster Hall. I have been there to support him when he has spoken on other subjects in education and I wanted to continue to do that.
There is no doubt that this conversation needs to be had. For some time now, the trends and statistics across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have shown that male teacher figures have either dropped or lulled. Whatever the reasons for that, and there are many reasons indeed, we must do more to encourage men—especially young graduates—to get into the world of teaching. We must also play a key role in destigmatising those reasons as to why men are put off and discouraged from getting into the profession.
In previous debates to which the Minister has responded, I have tried to bring a Northern Ireland perspective. That perspective in relation to male teachers will replicate the very point made by the hon. Member for Mansfield in his speech and by others in their interventions. Male teachers are under-represented in the primary school teaching workforce in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The stats for Northern Ireland are just as bad as those cited by the hon. Member for Mansfield. Back home, just short of 23% of all teachers are male; in primary schools, only 15% are male.
In the ’60s and ’70s, I went to a boarding school—it was many moons ago, so I will see how far back I can go on that—where we had only one female teacher. The rest were all male teachers. I suspect that the trends have changed and, where it might once have been male dominated, it is now very clearly female dominated. My three boys went to Grey Abbey Primary School. Before the new principal joined 15 or 20 years ago, it was a female-only school: all the teachers were female; the principal was female. That has not changed very much over the past few years.
The figures for Northern Ireland have decreased over the past decade. The most recent figures for Northern Ireland, from ’21-’22, show that there are some 4,800 male teachers in Northern Ireland, compared with 16,160 women. The percentages are quite clear—it is about 23%. That shows a trend. How do we address that? That is what the hon. Member for Mansfield was asking. We have to look at that.
I appreciate that this debate is about primary school teachers, but I would just add, to show the extent of the problem—the hon. Gentleman might already know this—that we do not one male nursery teacher anywhere in Northern Ireland. I am quite perturbed by that as well. I understand that trend when it comes to nurseries; there is a perception that it is always girls working in nurseries, and the facts show that it is. Those statistics alarm us greatly. To address them, we must look at the reasons why this is the case not just in Northern Ireland but across the whole of this great nation.
One of the main issues is peer pressure. Men are often socialised to believe that teaching is a female-led job that requires extensive care and nurturing. That is wrong, but it may be a feeling that we have and an issue in society that needs to change. If we are going to make that change, we need to make teaching as attractive to males as it is to females. Despite all that, men statistically tend to end up in higher authority roles—for example, as senior teaching staff or school principals. I do not know whether that is to do with their age or whatever it may be, but there are certainly trends there that need to be looked at. That has been seen as a faulty or illegitimate argument that plays into “anti-gender role” rhetoric. None of this should not come at the expense of decent classroom teaching; merit and effort should mean more than just gender.
It saddens me that there have been narratives of males seeking employment in teaching to display their dominant characteristics. People say that, and that might filter through society. That is wrong, but if it does in any way knock people out of kilter, we have to address it. It further marginalises men who want to be teachers and to support and encourage our young people as they go through their education. Those narratives are simply not the case and are simply not right.
Male teachers are capable of being role models—the hon. Member for Mansfield set that out very well. Society is not broken, but young boys need a male figure in their lives to focus on, and male teachers are capable of being role models to both boys and girls. It is good for children to see that male teachers can be kind and encouraging. The hon. Gentleman referred to them as being caring, and they are. Compassion and understanding are not exclusive to one gender. There has been an assumption that male teachers can play a crucial role in a young child’s development, especially if they come from a family with only a single parent or mother.
I am not being critical, Sir Gary—it is not my form—but I just want to make this point, which was brought to my attention through my engagement with things we are involved with in my office and from talking to teachers. Fatherless children have been shown on some occasions to stray and to get involved in addiction issues, whether it be drugs or alcohol. As the hon. Gentleman referred to, having a male figure in their life can—not on all occasions—help to maintain an element of stability and give a child a role model outside the home, so that they feel less pressurised.
A former Secretary of State for Education initiated a £30,000 grant for a project run by the Fatherhood Institute that aims to break down the barriers that dissuade men from starting childcare careers and to tackle the myth that men are less suited to caring roles. As I said, compassion and understanding transcend all genders across society. I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) about his daughter. Those were my thoughts too coming into this debate. He illustrated the point well through his daughter’s comments, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Mark Pawsey
My daughter thinks the staffroom is a better place from having a mixture of genders in it. Male and female teachers can engage with each other in the workplace. The perspective of a male teacher may be slightly different from that of a female teacher, and the opportunity to share those experiences in the staffroom is important.
Jim Shannon
I absolutely agree. The hon. Gentleman is fortunate to have such a wise daughter, who seems to understand the position of a teacher in school with great wisdom and knowledge. I wholeheartedly agree that that mixture and blend would be better for us all.
I always respect the fact that the rules are different here, as they might be in other regions across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we have a UK-wide problem. I understand that the Minister does not have to answer for Northern Ireland, but whatever he answers will be the template for all of us across the four regions, because the issues are the same. The dearth of male teachers in primary schools is the same, but how do we address it?
I encourage the Minister to take the lead for all of us. I will certainly be sending the Hansard copy of the debate to my Minister back home and probably to some of the schools as well to let them know what we are doing. I ask the Secretary of State for Education to engage in an in-depth discussion with his counterparts in all the regions about further action on encouraging and incentivising more male teachers. If we can do it here, we can do it everywhere. What we can learn here can be replicated back home. What we have done back home might be of help as well.
Back home, teaching courses have a decent number of male students, but there is clearly a barrier—I am not entirely sure why—that stops them fulfilling teaching roles in schools. We must fix that. If someone has a desire to teach and to be in education, that desire needs to be encouraged in whatever way it can to get males working in primary schools. We must ensure that the blockades are removed to help increase the numbers of male teachers.
Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield on securing this debate. It is a very worthy one, and I look forward to the speech by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who always brings knowledge to these debates, and particularly to the Minister’s speech.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I call the Opposition spokesman to speak forth.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I want to start by thanking the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing this debate on an issue that I know he cares passionately about. It is also an important issue to consider at a time when there are challenges facing the workforce in our nations’ schools, where we see a crisis in the recruitment and retention of teachers and school support staff. It is clear from the contributions from Members on both sides of the House that we all agree that male primary school teachers play a vital role in children’s and young people’s development.
The hon. Member for Mansfield spoke about ideas for practical action to remove or overcome barriers to teaching. He shared the views of parents and carers and mentioned the value of positive role models in schools. In their interventions, Members made helpful points about career progression, from coaching to teaching, and about making primary school teaching a more attractive profession. As ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made helpful points from his perspective in Northern Ireland, sharing figures and trends in the workforce and making helpful points around peer pressure and why that might be a barrier to more men coming forward to work in our nations’ primary schools.
Despite the strength of feeling across the House today about how much male primary school teachers have to offer in terms of equipping our next generation for the future, the Government have sat on their hands and failed to tackle the areas where they have fallen short. In response to a written parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Mansfield in October, they responded that they wanted to
“attract and retain diverse, talented teachers from all backgrounds, and this includes recruiting male teachers.”
The Labour party agrees with that approach, but why does the Government’s own data continue to show that males are under-represented in the primary school teaching workforce in England?
As we heard earlier, the most recent data states that just 15.5% of state-funded primary school teachers in England are male—around 34,000 out of a total workforce of 220,000. We also know that, for over four years now, that proportion has remained at the same level, and Ministers have failed to take action to improve it. Despite the stagnation, the latest Department for Education data indicates that recruitment of male primary school teachers shows no sign of improvement, with just 2,367 male primary school teachers recruited in 2021-22—a mere 16% of the total. That is in stark contrast to the more than 12,000 women, or 83%, who were recruited as primary school teachers during the same period. All children need positive male role models who come from a diverse range of backgrounds, and that includes male primary school teachers, yet the Government’s mismanagement of education is driving teachers away from classrooms.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on a number of points. What action is he taking to address the current levels of under-representation of male state-funded primary school teachers in England, including, specifically, on retention? What action is he taking to boost the recruitment of male primary school teachers in England and to tackle the stigma around male primary school teachers? Ministers cannot go on pointing to the wider economic fallout for their failure to recruit the diverse, representative teacher workforce in England that we need. It is the actions of the last 12 years of this tired Government that have got us into this mess. Labour is ambitious for our children’s futures and we will deliver the well-rounded education—
Stephen Morgan
I am just going to carry on. We will deliver the well-rounded education that our children need and deserve to ensure that they are ready for work and ready for life. If Conservative Ministers will not deliver that for our children, the next Labour Government will.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to speak forth under your very capable chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) on securing this important debate on increasing the number of male primary school teachers in the run-up to International Men’s Day. I thank him for his contributions on this topic during a recent debate on apprenticeships and training. I know that education is a priority in his work, both in his previous role on the Education Committee and in supporting Mansfield and Ashfield as an education investment area. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson): my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is undoubtedly a sad loss for the teaching profession, but we are very happy to have him here in the House of Commons representing his constituents as ably as he does.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon referred to the PFA wanting to find a way to help ex-professional footballers to be encouraged into teaching. He will know that I want to do more to improve sport in schools. He and I have had many conversations over the years. I will certainly take up his offer to arrange a meeting; I would enjoy that very much indeed.
The Government are committed to providing world-class education and training. We know that accomplished teachers, regardless of gender or background, provide positive role models and shape the lives of young people. That is why the Department aims to attract and retain highly skilled and talented individuals from all backgrounds and to support them throughout their careers.
The Department’s current recruitment marketing campaign on teaching, “Every lesson shapes a life”—with its brilliant marketing and advertisements on television and radio to recruit people into teaching—is deliberately targeted at various audiences, including recent graduates and potential career changers. That targeting is regardless of background. The marketing takes every effort to ensure that all the advertising is fully reflective of the target audiences, including men. If hon. Members see those adverts, they will see precisely how that marketing does that very effectively.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield will be aware, despite the challenges of a competitive recruitment market, the Department’s target for the number of trainees starting postgraduate initial teacher training primary courses has been exceeded in four of the last five years. In 2021-22, 136% of the postgraduate initial teacher training target was achieved in primary.
Too often, we hear schools and universities saying that they know a good teacher when they see one. The Department is committed to dismantling the stereotype of what a good teacher looks like and supporting people into the teaching profession regardless of their background. Although it remains true that men make up a smaller proportion of the teaching workforce, the number of male teachers in primary schools has gradually increased since 2010. There has been an increase of more than 7,000 male teachers in state-funded nursery and primary schools, from 28,180 in 2010 to 35,202 in 2021. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield cited that in percentage terms, but clearly it is still a very small proportion of the total workforce.
Jim Shannon
That shows a trend that, unfortunately, we do not have in Northern Ireland. I know that that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I am keen to know whether he has been able to ascertain why the trend is for an increase here on the mainland, because if there is something that the Department for Education is doing here to improve the situation, I would very much like, as I said in my speech, to use the pluses from this debate for us back home. If the Minister could share any information on that, I would be much obliged to him.
Nick Gibb
What is interesting about that intervention is that the problem, the issue, that we have in this country is reflected in Northern Ireland, where of course education policy is devolved, so this is not specifically related to education policy; it is a deeper, societal issue and requires considerable consideration. I will come to those points shortly.
Male teachers are more likely to work in secondary schools than nursery and primary schools: 14% of nursery and primary school teachers are male—that is up from 12% in 2010—but 35% of secondary school teachers are male, although that is down slightly, from 37.8% in 2010. Let us look at the picture as a whole: 28% of all male teachers teach in state-funded nursery and primary schools, whereas 65% of male teachers teach in secondary schools and 6% of male teachers teach in special schools and pupil referral units. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in his speech, cited similar proportions in Northern Ireland.
Male teachers do progress to leadership positions at a higher rate. As of November 2021, in state-funded nursery and primary schools, 26% of headteachers were male, compared with 14% of all nursery and primary teachers. There is also data to suggest that men progress faster. For example, in 2020 the median new female primary headteacher had been qualified for 19 years or fewer, compared with 16 years or fewer for the median male primary headteacher—whatever a median male primary headteacher is. People know the point I am making in terms of averages.
The Department is committed to making teaching and teacher recruitment as inclusive as possible. That includes recruitment campaigns designed to attract a diverse pool of candidates to teacher training, including men into primary teaching. All candidates have access to tailored support to help find the best route into teaching for them. Although we are seeing increasing representation in some areas—for example, recruitment into initial teacher training is increasingly racially diverse—the Department recognises that some groups, including men, are still under-represented compared with the working-age population. I know that that view is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and his daughter, who is herself a primary school teacher. This is particularly evident in the teaching workforce in primary schools.
The Department is committed to using all our new sources of data and insight, including the new in-house recruitment services, to identify barriers to accomplished people becoming teachers and staying in teaching. From initial attraction, to recruitment, development and progression into leadership, the new services and support are designed to deliver a high-quality and diverse workforce, for the benefit of pupils across the country. Excellent teaching of course starts with recruiting excellent people, from all backgrounds, and the Department does work hard to create diverse recruitment campaigns, as I mentioned, that attract brilliant students, recent graduates and career changers into teaching. Through the new Get Into Teaching website, prospective trainees can access tailored support and advice from expert, one-to-one teacher training advisers, a contact centre and a national programme of events. The Get School Experience digital service also helps potential candidates find and arrange experience in the classroom before deciding whether to become a teacher.
To transform the application process, we successfully rolled out the new initial teacher training application service in England in 2021. The Apply for teacher training service has removed recruitment barriers and is better supporting a wider range of excellent applicants to apply for teaching. The new Apply for teacher training service gives the Department more data and gives us greater insight into the behaviour of male candidates and all candidates, and of schools and universities that offer initial teacher training. That helps us to identify and address barriers for under-represented groups, including men.
If there is one area in which we can help to address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, it is through understanding why certain candidates are refused an initial teacher training place and what causes any particular candidate to drop out of the application process. We will learn a lot through the new website and I can commit to my hon. Friend that, as a consequence of this debate, I will also monitor any differential data that relates to the sex of the candidate going through the application process.
The Department is committed to tackling barriers to becoming a teacher, including reforming the routes to teaching. That includes a review of the postgraduate teaching apprenticeship, to create a more efficient and streamlined route. As well as that, we are providing a seamless journey into teaching for the best candidates. We have increased the starting salary to £28,000, seeking to ensure that the teaching profession is increasingly competitive, and we have the ultimate goal of getting to a starting salary of £30,000 in the following year.
At the recruitment stage, we have targeted our financial incentives where we know they are most needed. That is why we have put in place a range of measures for trainees from 2023, including bursaries worth up to £27,000 and scholarships worth up to £29,000, to encourage talented trainees to apply for those subjects with the greatest need for new teachers.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for his interest in and passion for the recruitment and retention of the highest quality teachers, and his particular interest in increasing the number of male teachers in primary schools. Recruitment of primary school teachers remains strong, with the Department exceeding primary recruitment targets in four of the last five years. That said, the Department is taking action to increase teacher recruitment and retention and to boost teacher quality through several high priority programmes, including the early career framework, which I have not touched on today.
At the recruitment stage, the Department has made progress in encouraging applications from the highest quality candidates through our marketing campaign and the transformation of our recruitment services. Meanwhile, our world-class teacher development programmes are designed to support all teachers in the early stage of and throughout their careers, right through to executive leadership. I am very happy to continue these discussions with my hon. Friend in the months ahead.
Ben Bradley
I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate; it was an interesting conversation. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out that it is important to recognise that this is an issue across the whole UK. It is not a small or isolated problem; it is reflected in primary school teaching across the entire country.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) gave a practical example of something we could do, which is already being discussed. I am grateful that the Minister has agreed to take that forward. It is interesting to compare how much funding, time and energy is, quite rightly, committed to helping young women into football, with the fact that not a lot is committed to getting young men from football into a profession in which they are under-represented. It would be good to redress that balance in a positive way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) bought his daughter’s views and opinions to the fore, and was absolutely right to do so. He made an interesting and important point about how having a balanced workforce makes a school a more enjoyable place to work, given the increased range of diversity, experience and background.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) made lots of partisan points that I wildly disagreed with, but he was absolutely right about the wider recruitment and retention challenges. An awful lot needs to be—and, I hope, is being—done to tackle those challenges. Here is a recruitment solution: make a big point of positive action, which we use in other spaces, to help us to recruit male primary teachers.
I welcome the Minister back to his place. His knowledge and experience in education is unmatched in this place, and he is very welcome. I am grateful for his kind words and for his commitment to meet the PFA. Perhaps we have started something beautiful that might lead to some outcomes. He pointed to his commitment to sport, which is fantastic. As an aside, he will be aware of the work I am doing on sports facilities that are locked away at schools. We have been trying to work on that issue for a long time.
The Minister talked about adverts and how teacher recruitment campaigns are balanced. That is interesting because in other areas the Equality Act allows us to specifically target certain groups, and we have no issues with that. The language in this place and in wider society—this is not a criticism of this place, as this is a wider societal trend—shows that we are very happy to overtly say that we want to see more women in STEM subjects and in certain professions, but we rarely hear people say, “We want to see more men in x.” The language is about being balanced across all genders, all sexes and all the rest of it. That is a very different conversation, which I find really interesting. We seem less comfortable making those points in the same way, but I hope that can change. I would like to not get into gender or any of that at all, to be honest. My fundamental issues with the Equality Act are well documented in Hansard.
I was pleased to hear the Minister’s points about the importance of that balance and that the number of male teachers has risen, and his commitment to monitoring recruitment and applications, which will be helpful in driving this forward. Fairness of access and support during career progression is also absolutely right. I look forward to further discussion and seeing schemes come forward—perhaps there will be more footballers in primary schools very soon. I thank colleagues and you, Sir Gary, and, of course, the Minister for his time and consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered increasing the number of male primary school teachers.
Energy Price Support: Northern Ireland
(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
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy price support to households and businesses in Northern Ireland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Sir Gary. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and I am pleased that the Minister has joined us. The main purpose is to focus on energy cost support for households and businesses in Northern Ireland, with a focus on the urgent delivery of the £400 energy support scheme and the payments to those using home heating oil.
I am extremely concerned about the impact of delays in support for Northern Ireland households, and the ongoing lack of clarity around when that support will arise. The UK Government have yet to clarify whether the £400 energy support and the £100 in support for oil-reliant households will be made available to Northern Ireland.
I will give a few words on the broader context. I appreciate that the current energy cost crisis reflects a range of international and domestic factors. Beyond the short-term energy support interventions, there are clear imperatives around insulation and other energy-efficiency measures, and diversification of energy supply, especially in relation to renewables.
Northern Ireland has some of the most challenging rates of poverty and other social and economic indicators in the United Kingdom, including low productivity, high economic inactivity and reliance on benefits. It also has a different energy market from the rest of the UK, with different suppliers and a different profile of energy sources, and with its connectivity on the island of Ireland. Most notably, almost 70% of Northern Ireland households use home heating oil, compared with less than 5% in the rest of the UK.
Northern Ireland is already facing a series of unprecedented risks. Our political institutions have collapsed. There are huge challenges to consumer and business confidence, creating enhanced risks to the economic outlook.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) on securing this debate. It is a great subject for us back home. The welfare of our local businesses is extremely important. He will know that our family-run and smaller businesses are the backbone of our constituencies—his, mine and those of other Members here—making them unique.
A local Japanese restaurant in my constituency that has only been open for about six months has seen an increase in its electricity bills of £900 to £3,000 per month. Should this remain an issue, it is clear that jobs will be lost and the business forced to close. Does the hon. Member agree that more consideration must be given to the long term—not just the next four months, but beyond—because businesses are clearly on the brink of closing?
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Just a reminder that interventions should be brief, Jim.
Stephen Farry
By Jim’s standards, it was. I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree with him about the looming cliff edge that will come next year. It is also relevant to stress the issue of spending power in the economy, particularly in the run-up to Christmas for the hospitality sector.
Delivery of energy support should have been implemented by the Northern Ireland Executive. Normally, Northern Ireland would receive Barnett consequentials, based around equivalent spending in Great Britain, and would therefore have the scope to design or modify schemes to address local circumstances. Delivery of the £400 payments would have been implemented by now in those circumstances.
Furthermore, the size of the Barnett consequentials may well be significantly greater than the value of support that comes from direct provision from the UK Government to households and businesses. The Government have recognised that it would have been much easier for delivery to have been through a devolved Executive. However, in a political vacuum, it has fallen to the Government to intervene. I acknowledge the need for that, given the circumstances.
The energy price guarantee is now in place for Northern Ireland. That said, there are concerns about the scale and duration of the support, particularly what happens from next April onwards. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has already touched on that point. For today, the most pressing issue is clarity on the timescale for the delivery of the £400 energy support payments, and how that will be phased, plus the implementation of the home heating oil support.
Despite those pressures, unlike in England, Wales and Scotland, households in Northern Ireland have not yet received a penny of the £400 energy support. There had been indications that we would receive that support in November, one month after the rest of the UK, yet it is now looking increasingly unlikely to be delivered this side of Christmas. We are also hearing that the payment might now be staggered, which means that households will have to wait even longer into next year.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on such an important issue—he is always current. I do not know of any suppliers that will deliver less than 200 litres of heating oil, so the £100 support that was proposed would not even get a tank filled—people will have to put in about £150 before they can even avail themselves of it. Does he therefore share my concern about what would happen if that support were staggered or delivered in a piecemeal way?
Stephen Farry
Absolutely. There are huge issues in recognising the subtleties of what is efficient for making deliveries in the home heating oil market and the minimum size of delivery, and £100 pounds will not cover the minimum order volume. It is also worth stressing that there are economies of scale. The larger the order, the cheaper it is proportionally, so the households that are struggling most will be hit doubly by that pressure point.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
Another big problem that we have in Northern Ireland is supply and the volume of storage. Kerosene works out around 7p a litre more expensive than in any other region of the United Kingdom.
Stephen Farry
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention, which again highlights how the situation in Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the UK, and reinforces the importance of trying to tailor solutions to address our very particular circumstances.
It also emerged this week that the UK Government’s joint taskforce responsible for delivering the scheme into Northern Ireland has met only twice. While households across the rest of the UK are being insulated from the worst effects of the crisis, families in Northern Ireland are still waiting for this lifeline and have no clarity about when it will arrive. It is not tenable to argue that, because the money will be coming next year, Northern Ireland will not be missing out. There must be a real urgency for getting this resolved now.
Disposable incomes in Northern Ireland are being particularly eroded by rising energy costs. This represents a grave threat to the wellbeing of households. People in Northern Ireland are also being left behind in terms of their ability to access energy support and are suffering as a result. A survey by National Energy Action in Northern Ireland in June indicated that 45% of Northern Ireland households were already spending more than 10% of their total household income on energy costs. This will be even higher now. That has resulted in dangerous coping mechanisms. Some 80% of Northern Ireland homes admitted to rationing their use of central heating in an effort to reduce costs, and one in 10 households has resorted to skipping meals to ensure that they have enough money to pay for their energy.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous, and I thank him for that. Some figures I got from Northern Ireland today indicate that an estimated 12% of Northern Ireland families live in absolute poverty—it is even worse than normal poverty, if there could be such a thing. Does that not support his case for why we need urgent help in Northern Ireland now?
Stephen Farry
I am grateful again to the hon. Member for his intervention. Households are facing, in effect, destitution, which is taking poverty to the nth degree in terms of their ability to cope. Similarly, reliance on food banks has increased by 76% in Northern Ireland over the past three years, which is way in excess of the increase in any other UK region. We cannot afford to see households tipped into poverty, more children going hungry, or more pressure on the national health service due to worsening physical and mental health.
These behaviours put households at significantly increased risk of detrimental impacts on their health and wellbeing, and people in 75% of households admitted to being stressed, anxious or worried about paying for the cost of their energy, either at present or over the winter months ahead.
Fuel poverty organisations in Northern Ireland are already overwhelmed by demand. NEA in Northern Ireland has seen significant rises in the number of households seeking emergency support. Indeed, it was forced to suspend its referral system temporarily in October because of unsustainable levels of demand on the service, a trend that has now been replicated across other organisations in the sector.
There will also be a knock-on consequence for consumer spending. Potentially £300 million of spending power is at risk. This is particularly crucial in the run-up to Christmas, with many businesses, which are struggling themselves, depending on Christmas trade to survive. It is make or break time for them.
Northern Ireland is also suffering because we have a very different energy market from the rest of the UK, and the UK Government’s energy price guarantee does not reflect that. Although households using gas have been protected from price rises through the Government’s energy price cap, those who use oil are yet to receive the paltry £100 of support. That is a mere £100 in heating assistance, which applies to almost 70% of Northern Ireland households. Therefore, the vast majority of homes in Northern Ireland have not received a penny in support for heating cost pressures so far—that is, those households that do not use their electricity for heating.
We know that oil prices have not risen as much as gas prices. Nevertheless, £100 is simply not enough, particularly given the up-front costs of filling an oil tank. The Consumer Council for Northern Ireland estimates that it now costs £460 to fill a typical 500-litre tank, compared to £269 this time last year. In practice, as the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) has already mentioned, there is not a supplier in Northern Ireland that will provide a tank fill for less than 200 litres, meaning that households need to find an additional £150 before they can even avail themselves of support. Orders for oil need to be larger in order to access those economies of scale.
We also still do not know when or how this £100 will materialise in Northern Ireland. Not only is the assistance for Northern Ireland households late, but it is lower than the assistance provided to those in the rest of the UK, if we make that comparison between oil and gas costs.
There are also problems and distortions that come from the use of electricity bills to help oil customers. It is likely either that those people will end up with a credit on their electricity bill that they cannot access at this time of greater stress, or that this will lead to people switching from oil heating to using electric fires, which are potentially more expensive, pose greater health and safety risks, and put further strain on the electricity grid.
Finally, I am also worried about the looming cliff edge that is faced not only by households but by businesses next April. Recent research by Danske Bank indicates that energy prices rank highly among the key concerns for businesses in Northern Ireland. The latest data from the Office for National Statistics shows that 58% of businesses in the food and drink sector say that their energy prices were their main concern in November, up from 39% in October. Businesses are also extremely concerned about the risks associated with consumer spending, and the current impasse on the energy assistance for Northern Ireland puts local businesses at a direct disadvantage in that respect. I urge the Government to acknowledge that most businesses will likely need continued support, and to confirm that they will cast the net widely in that regard.
In summary, the human costs of this energy crisis are very real. I suspect that the ongoing uncertainty about post-April assistance will only serve to fuel the economic costs, as consumer spending and business investment will be constrained as a result. I urge the Government to provide assistance and greater clarity as a matter of extreme urgency, for the good of the people of Northern Ireland, the business community and indeed the broader economy, all of which will ultimately have fiscal consequences for the UK Government if conditions further deteriorate.
I am grateful to the Minister for his presence today. I will focus on the most pressing questions that I hope he will respond to, among other comments that he may wish to make. When and how will households receive the £400 of energy support? Will the Government review their calculation and the level of home heating oil support, and how is that support to be delivered?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) on securing this very important debate, and I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) for their interventions. They all made important and salient points relating to the problem in Northern Ireland.
Given the record energy prices, the Government understand the pressures being faced by households and businesses in Northern Ireland and right across the United Kingdom, and we are taking direct action to address the issue. Clearly, the crisis has been driven by Mr Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, which has caused a surge in the global price of wholesale gas, leading to an unprecedented increase in the amount that households and businesses are paying for the gas, electricity and oil they use. This has compounded already high prices in economies across the globe that are recovering from the covid-19 pandemic. The effects of the price rises are being felt up and down the country, but the Government are determined to ensure that families can provide power for their homes and that businesses can power the economy.
Paul Girvan
While we have been sitting here, I have taken the opportunity to check on today’s oil price. In England, people can buy a litre of 28 kerosene for 85.9986 pence, but the current price in Northern Ireland is £1.0835—a difference of 22 pence. How can we address the imbalance in transporting oil from GB to Northern Ireland? We have no refinery in Northern Ireland, and no way of dealing with it.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I heard his comments earlier about the increased price of oil in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Down spoke of the very high number of households in Northern Ireland that are off-grid, and that is extremely important. I will try to cover that point in my remarks.
The announcements made by the Government in September demonstrated our commitment to protecting UK households and businesses through the energy price guarantee, the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills support scheme, which is the key matter under discussion. Under the plans, households, businesses and public sector organisations across Northern Ireland will be protected from significant rises in energy bills, thanks to the Government’s support. As well as outlining the support that still needs to be delivered, I will set out what the UK Government are already delivering in Northern Ireland, and what is to follow shortly.
The energy price guarantee in Northern Ireland launched on 1 November, offering equivalent support to that provided in Great Britain for domestic households. The scheme reduces the price that energy suppliers charge customers for units of gas and electricity, providing money off energy bills. Households will receive backdated support to cover October 2022 through a higher discounted rate. Through the EPG scheme, a typical household in Great Britain with both gas and electricity contracts will save around £700 this winter, based on current prices. Equivalent support will be provided for households in Northern Ireland.
Government support will also be provided for households that use alternative fuels for heating, such as heating oil or liquified petroleum gas instead of mains gas. The alternative fuel payment scheme will provide a one-off payment of £100 to ensure that all households that do not benefit through the energy price guarantee receive support for the cost of the fuel they use. The £100 payment has been calculated with reference to increases in the cost of heating oil between September 2021 and September 2022. The aim is to ensure that a typical customer using heating oil will be offered support that is broadly in line with that offered by the energy price guarantee for those using mains gas to heat their homes. However, I hear what hon. Members say, and we are monitoring the price of heating oil and other alternative fuels very closely, now and in the months ahead, to see whether further payments are required at a future point in time.
Households in Great Britain that are eligible for the payments will receive £100 credit on their electricity bills this winter. For Northern Ireland, the Government are working with electricity suppliers to explore how the payment could be delivered via electricity bills under a similar delivery model. Details of when the payment will be made will be confirmed shortly—we have heard that word a number of times from Ministers at the Dispatch Box—so I cannot give the hon. Member for North Down a firm date, but we are very keen to deliver it as quickly as possible.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his response. In Northern Ireland, my understanding is that the proportion of those who are dependent on oil—I think the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) referred to this—is between 65% and 68%, so two thirds of the population in Northern Ireland need the payments. I hope he does not mind, but I am going to press the Minister on this. He says the payment is imminent or will be made shortly, or whatever. The people back home in my constituency—indeed, all our constituents—want it, and they want it now. The people have it here on the mainland, and we want the same.
Kevin Hollinrake
I totally understand that. We have to get this right. There are some complications in terms of timing, which I will set out. I wish I could give the hon. Gentleman a firm date. I get frustrated, too, in debates like this. I am slightly sitting on the fence in not giving a firm date, but I guarantee to him and other Members that the measure will be implemented as quickly as possible. I had meetings with officials earlier today. They are fully cognisant of the issue and keen to deliver quickly.
There are a number of complications. There is no central register either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland for people who do not use the gas grid for their heating. We are working rapidly with stakeholders on the best way to identify those who merit support. Households that are eligible but do not receive alternative fuel payments because they do not have a relationship with an electricity supplier will receive the £100 via the alternative fuel payment alternative fund, which will be provided by a designated body.
Stephen Farry
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for what he has said so far. May I press him on the data on customers who use home heating oil? If we take the entirety of households in Northern Ireland and subtract those currently using gas, we can use the dataset that remains and assume that they are using home heating oil. That will give the Minister 99% accuracy. Similarly, I hope the £400 energy support will come shortly. Will the Minister explain the technical issues to the people of Northern Ireland, who are slightly confused as to why it is taking so long? We appreciate that the companies in Northern Ireland are different from those in Great Britain and that there might be question marks over their viability, but, to our minds, they are well-established and secure companies, so there should not be any real doubt about their ability to deliver the Government scheme.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will go on to explain some of the complications. The hon. Gentleman’s points have been well made and heard by me and officials, so we will do what we can. In the discussions that I had this morning, it sounded as though there was a solution. We just need to roll it out as quickly as we can.
The energy bill relief scheme for Northern Ireland will apply to all eligible non-domestic electricity and natural gas customers, including businesses, charities and the public sector, which receives its gas or electricity from licensed suppliers. Discounts will be automatically applied by suppliers to the energy bills of eligible customers, covering energy usage between 1 October 2022 and 31 March 2023. The scheme, as has been said, will run for an initial six-month period. The exact discount applied will depend on the type of contract a customer is on and when it was agreed. Although the scheme applies to energy use from 1 October, savings applied to October bills are typically received in November, which means businesses in Northern Ireland start to feel the benefits in November.
The Government announced on 21 September that we will also provide support to non-domestic consumers who use alternative fuels in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Further information will be provided shortly. The schemes are supporting millions of households and businesses with rising energy costs, and the Chancellor made it clear that they will continue to do so from now until April next year.
Beyond April, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—this applies to the whole of the United Kingdom—have agreed that it would not be responsible for the Government to continue exposing the public finances to unlimited volatility in international gas prices. A Treasury-led review is considering right now how households and businesses will be supported after April 2023 and will publish its findings by January 2023. The objective is to design a new approach that will cost the taxpayer significantly less than planned while ensuring enough support for those in need. It is very important that non-domestic customers that are less likely to be considered vulnerable to energy price increases, particularly larger businesses that are not energy-intensive, use the six months we have to identify measures they can take to protect themselves against high energy prices.
On support already received, low-income households received a cost of living payment in July of £326 and will receive another payment of £324 by 23 November. The energy bills support scheme launched in Great Britain in October provides eligible households with a discount of £400—that is the key point in front of us—that is being paid in six-monthly instalments in the UK.
Energy policy is devolved to Northern Ireland, but the issue has now been put back to the UK Government to deal with. The hon. Member for North Down referred to the taskforce. The reason it only met twice was that its job was to determine the best way to address this issue, and it determined that the UK Government should do it. The issue is now with officials and Ministers in my Department to make sure that we deliver the scheme in a way that accounts for the differences in Northern Ireland, and we are working with suppliers to get this across the line as quickly as possible.
Detailed work is under way to establish how suppliers can use their systems to pass funds on to consumers in a way that is consistent with the Government policy intent, while ensuring that public money is properly protected. We will of course use our experience thus far in the scheme in the rest of the United Kingdom, and we will work with the Utility Regulator in Northern Ireland to deliver the scheme.
We have already acted to resolve one of the barriers to delivering the scheme in Northern Ireland by taking new powers in the Energy Prices Act 2022, which received Royal Assent only on 25 October. We now need to provide clarity on timings on when the scheme will be finally rolled out to households in Northern Ireland.
Some households in Northern Ireland who do not have a direct contract with an electricity supplier or a meter of their own, for example park homes, cannot receive the £400 discount directly via an electricity supplier. We will also support those households under a separate arrangement called the energy bills support scheme alternative funding.
The Government have delivered and will continue to deliver comprehensive support for energy consumers across the United Kingdom to overcome the extraordinary challenges we are facing. We are delivering support to households and businesses in Northern Ireland through the EPG and the energy bill relief scheme already, but we fully recognise the need to provide further clarity on when these measures will be delivered to consumers in Northern Ireland and are working at significant pace to do so.
I cannot give a firm date, but I can give the commitment that we are trying to expedite payments by every possible means. We have listened to the points made by the hon. Gentleman and others, particularly about off-grid homes, which is an issue not just in Northern Ireland but across the country, and we are working to make sure that the payments are at the right level. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important topic today. I will continue to work with him to try to make sure that we get the money out of the door as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Conflict in Ethiopia
(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
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the conflict in Ethiopia.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. This debate has come at a very significant time for the Ethiopian people. It is exactly two weeks since an agreement was struck and signed in South Africa between the Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, or the TPLF. The ceasefire officially ending this brutal two-year conflict is welcomed by all Members of this House. However, according to Ghent University, an estimated 600,000 people have lost their lives, some 875,000 people have become refugees and 90% of Tigray’s population are now dependent on food aid. Those are staggering figures.
Of course, information is still being gathered. Establishing the full facts is incredibly difficult. This is partly because of the serious danger to even well-established and world-renowned non-governmental organisations, whose first priority has to be to protect their workers and those to whom they must give emergency aid. While we sit in this warm, relatively calm and peaceful place, hundreds of incredibly courageous and dedicated aid workers will put their own safety and comfort aside to help the human victims and survivors of the atrocities of war. We may never know the names of those who prioritise the safety and survival of others, but their selfless humanity cannot and should not be underestimated or go unrecognised by this House and politicians the world over.
Although it was a great relief to hear the news of the cessation of this bloody conflict, just two weeks before, UN Secretary-General António Guterres had expressed his deep concern that the situation in Ethiopia was spiralling out of control, and there continue to be reports of conflict in northern Ethiopia, including looting in Adwa and drone attacks. There are gravely concerning reports that, despite the ceasefire, Eritrean troops continue to defy the ceasefire and are still active. We know that they did not formally take part in the peace agreement. With no assurances of an internationally recognised and supervised ceasefire monitoring mechanism, that continues to contribute to fears over the safety and security of civilians, particularly in Tigray.
The conflict has been one of the world’s deadliest, so ensuring that peace is maintained and agreements are adhered to has to be a humanitarian priority for Governments the world over. What I want to hear from our Government today is what actions they are taking to ensure that, either through direct interventions with the Ethiopian Government and/or through the UN.
I have touched on the famine, death and displacement of Ethiopia’s people, but what is perhaps most difficult to discuss is the sexual violence and human rights atrocities committed over the course of this conflict. There has been extensive verification of widespread atrocities, including by Amnesty International, the UN councils and commissions on Ethiopia and the testimonies of many incredibly brave survivors. As politicians, we hear such evidence from warzones quite frequently, but I have rarely been as shocked and moved as I have after hearing about some of those experiences.
The stories are anonymised to protect the survivors. Aida, a 20-year-old from the indigenous Irob minority, was kept in sexual slavery with two other Tigrayan women. She was gang raped by Ethiopian and Eritrean military commanders for over a month in November 2020. Lilly, a 23-year-old from Irob, was kept in sexual slavery with six other Tigrayan women and was repeatedly gang raped by troops when they were hiding in that area. Both women escaped, but one has now given birth as a result of rape. Hanna, a mother of two suffering from breast cancer, was gang raped in a church after being dragged away from family members. Her breast was cut off by a commander and she was left unconscious after being raped by eight soldiers.
There are many hundreds, if not thousands, of similar stories being collected by incredibly brave and outstanding volunteers like Rita Kahsay, who spent three months in refugee camps speaking with those displaced by this conflict. She has painstakingly taken the testimonies of survivors at great personal risk. Some of the most horrific crimes were carried out on children. The Joint UN Human Rights Office-Ethiopian Human Rights Commission found that Tigrayan boys were not spared from the weaponised rapes that took place.
I am lucky enough to be in touch with Rita thanks to the work of a former Member of this House, Sally Keeble, who has continued to raise the plight of the Tigrayan people. Rita could have chosen to simply pursue her path as an engineer in the UK, but she felt compelled to act and help those left in the country of her birth. Her family are dispersed, and she has not been able to be in regular contact with them for at least two years.
Those are the human beings; those are the experiences of people caught up in brutal, bloody and deadly conflicts that have absolutely nothing to do with them. Those are the circumstances that lead to displacement and the creation of hellish refugee camps. Many risk their lives to get to safety by any means.
If those who signed the peace agreement truly welcome peace, they must allow bodies such as the UN to carry out their work. If they truly welcome peace, aid in the form of food and medical treatment must be allowed through, and aid agencies must be allowed to carry out their work unhindered. If they truly welcome peace, that process should be seen to go smoothly by politicians and the displaced diaspora so that the rebuilding of those devastated lives can begin. We in the UK must listen to the joint UN and Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and play our part to help all those affected. We have to act as a global community and seek every assurance that the peace and cessation of violence in Tigray will be meaningful, real and lasting.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. The wind-ups begin at 5.10 pm. We therefore have about 30 minutes and there are six of you seeking to catch my eye, so that is about five minutes each. Let us be disciplined voluntarily.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. It is also a pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) back in the Government. Like me, he greatly values the effect that British aid has had over very many years and wants it to continue. I know he takes a deep interest in these subjects, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge)—it is really good to see him in the debate.
We have held a number of debates on Ethiopia. I have secured an urgent question and have taken part in the debates. I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Ethiopia for a dozen years or so, and I continue to take a deep interest in the country. I am very sorry to see what has been happening over the past few years. I was at the Ethiopian embassy two weeks ago. The ceasefire had been announced the night before; it was a very moving moment and there was a lot of hope. I am very hopeful that we can make progress. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) set out the case for peace and spoke movingly. I congratulate her on securing this debate.
The tragedy of the conflict is that Ethiopia has held together for so long, despite having very sizeable Christian and Muslim populations and something like 80 tribes and 80 languages. Yes, Eritrea broke away many years ago, but Ethiopia has been very peaceful. It has had great economic success, with growth rates that we in the west would envy, and is one of the safest countries to walk around. That is the tragedy.
I have called constantly for the UN and the African Union to take more of an interest than they appear to have been taking, although there has been a good deal of success recently from the work carried out by the African Union. We now need to make sure that is followed through and the peace holds. Both sides and Eritrea are accountable for that. They have to make sure the peace holds for the very reasons that the hon. Lady set out. We have to make sure food, medical supplies and everything else that is needed in that part of Ethiopia gets through to Tigray.
I say this slightly reluctantly, but it is important that the west is not seen to lecture developing countries because we have had our own problems. We had 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland, and we saw what that did to morale; it destroyed futures. We saw what it did through the 3,000 or so lives that it took. We saw the effect that had on the economy in Northern Ireland. At the worst of the troubles, the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland was something like 25%. That is what war and conflict does to a country. On that occasion in the embassy I said that, since we have had relative peace in Northern Ireland, we have had relative prosperity. Yes, there are problems, as we heard in the debate just a few minutes ago. But it is a far better place—it is almost unrecognisable from the place that it was. That is because the conflict was ended. I know that is the wish of the hon. Member for Canterbury, who very ably introduced this debate. I know it is the wish of everybody in Westminster Hall. It is certainly my wish. My call goes out to everybody involved to embrace peace and enjoy the benefits of peace.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I will stick to five minutes as you asked, Sir Gary, so we can all speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on securing the debate and the way she introduced it, particularly her drawing attention to the way women were treated during the conflict in Tigray, the abominable abuse they suffered, and sadly probably continue to suffer, and the lack of closure in that part of the conflict.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The cessation of hostilities agreement is obviously very good news. For there to be lasting peace, however, it is crucial that victims and survivors have justice. Does the hon. Member agree that accountability for war crimes and serious human rights abuses is paramount?
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. I am sure that everyone agrees with the hon. Member on that point. I certainly do. I was going to say this further on in my speech, but I will say it now: we must ensure that the UN Human Rights Council has unfettered access to all parts of Ethiopia to examine these abuses and the crimes that have been committed. In the past, it has been barred from access and had to interview victims by telephone and things like that. Obviously, that is a very unsatisfactory way of reporting.
The other point I make about Ethiopia generally is that there are almost a million refugees in Ethiopia from most of the neighbouring countries: South Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea and so on. There is a massive demand placed on Ethiopia to deal with that. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply, he can give us some indication of what support we can give to ensure that the refugees are decently treated and, where they want to and where it is possible, what assistance we can give them in returning to the country they come from.
The Tigray conflict ended because of the intervention of South Africa, with the support of the African Union, and we should be very grateful for that. It was good that they brought about the ceasefire and the agreement. The ceasefire and agreement are one thing. What is important is the progress that happens after that: the investigation of the crimes that have been committed; getting humanitarian aid, medical aid and food rapidly into Tigray; and not being blockaded or blocked from going in.
There is also the question of their democratic point of view. They could not take part in the Ethiopian elections last year. The government in Tigray has been dissolved and there is no regional government in Tigray—it is done from Addis Ababa. Surely there is therefore a big democratic deficit in Tigray. If that democratic deficit is not addressed, it could well be the source of future stress and conflict.
The last point I want to make is this: Tigray is not the only part of Ethiopia where there are problems. The Roma community are also facing tensions and stresses. There has been unrest and violence, and there have been deaths as a result. It is not for us to interfere in the running of another country—I am absolutely clear about that—but we must be prepared to recognise that we may be able to play a role that can help by facilitating the UNHRC and with necessary aid and support of a humanitarian kind. We must ensure that we do not supply arms that fuel this conflict to any actor on this field and that arms that we sell elsewhere do not end up in Ethiopia, because the terror, death and real problems that the people of Ethiopia face—drought, famine, poverty, the lack of medical aid and other issues—must be addressed as quickly as possible.
Ethiopia was the one country that was never colonised by the Europeans. I see it as the major beacon of Africa. It is the centre of the African Union and so much else. Let us respect that history and participation and give all the support we can to what we hope is a path to long-term peace in that country.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for securing this important debate and setting the scene. As horrific as it is, it is important that we never forget. It goes without saying that the suffering caused by the conflict in Ethiopia is truly heartbreaking. I have constituents with family in Tigray who have not seen or heard from any of their family members in the past two years because of the communication blackout. They do not know whether their families are alive or dead. Indeed, the stories they have heard about the conditions in Tigray mean that their assumption is that some of their family members will almost certainly have passed away.
Hundreds of thousands of people have died in the conflict, more than 3 million are internally displaced and 13 million need food aid in northern Ethiopia. Yet there is a sense that this humanitarian crisis is not being treated with the utmost urgency. According to the Norwegian Refugee Council, the crisis in Ethiopia is one of the 10 most neglected displacement crises in the world, all of which are in Africa.
Last week, members of the International Development Committee and I were lucky enough to be joined by experts on the horn of Africa’s hunger crisis. We were told that the conflict in Tigray has intersected with a series of other factors to create a devastating food crisis. High inflation in world markets, partly as a result of the conflict in Ukraine, is pushing up the price of food and fertilisers. Climate change is increasing the prevalence of droughts, and the covid pandemic is devastating economies and livelihoods. We were told that there is the real possibility of famine and that the World Food Programme has not managed to get aid into Tigray since 24 August. We must welcome the recent agreement to allow full access to food and aid, but must closely track its implementation. There is no time to waste with almost a third of children already suffering from malnutrition. Michael Dunford, who is regional director at the World Food Programme across the horn of Africa, said at the evidence session that the cuts to the overseas aid budget are harming the WFP’s ability to respond to people’s needs. He said that, in 2019, the World Food Programme benefited from £181 million funding from the UK Government. In 2022, it has received less than a third of that figure—£55 million.
The Government are failing to do all that is possible to provide humanitarian support and help create the conditions for lasting peace and prosperity for the people of Ethiopia. I would therefore like to make three recommendations to the Minister. First, we must restore our commitment to spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas development assistance if we want to retain the capacity to adequately respond to crises. Secondly, a significant amount of funding must be immediately directed to bilateral aid for Ethiopia. Thirdly, we need to restore our previous contributions to multilateral agencies, such as the World Food Programme.
The Committee also received evidence from Mamadou Dian Balde, the UNHCR representative in Ethiopia. He told us last week that we need greater investment in medium to long-term programmes to ensure resilience to climate change, which would include irrigation schemes and drought-resistant crops. I hope the Minister, who is in his place, will listen to all of us and be able to help not only those of us in this Chamber today, but the families who are worried sick from not knowing whether their families are alive or dead.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I made an error: I counted six instead of five speakers, so the next two speakers can in fact have six minutes each. I apologise—especially to you, Jeremy.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
No. I call Jim Shannon —you can have six minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Sir Gary. I am now glad I was called at the end, because I have an extra minute; I thank hon. Members for being so generous. I am particularly interested in this issue, and I thank the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for setting the scene so well. Some of the evidence and information in her speech was hard to listen to, and quite unnerving, but I understand that she wanted to set the scene.
I speak, and declare an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. I have a deep concern and heart for all those individuals who do not get the opportunity to express themselves from their religious points of view. The situation in Ethiopia is tragic. Thousands are dead, and many more are displaced, owing to the conflict. Over 13 million people in the northern region of Tigray need food aid and lack essential services. While ethnic conflict rages on, freedom of religion or belief remains a sorely disregarded human right.
Against the background of political violence and unrest in Ethiopia and Tigray, it should be remembered that it is difficult to differentiate between faith-related and ethnically or politically related attacks in Tigray. All too often, the religious dimension is brushed aside because of the close links between ethnicity and religion, and their close links to the various drivers of the conflict. It is difficult to characterise incidents as based solely on religious identity.
I omitted to welcome the Minister to his place; I am very pleased to see him there. He has had a deep interest in these matters over the years, so I am optimistic that he will respond to our questions in a positive fashion.
When some say that the number of reported incidents based on religion or belief has dropped—from the figures and the evidential base, that does not seem to be the case—that should be understood in the broader context of the conflict. In Tigray, religion is closely entangled with ethnicity and politics. There is no denying that the conflict has had a devastating impact on Christian communities. Many churches have been destroyed and many Christians killed.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) gave me some literature related to Aid to the Church in Need, which had an event in the House of Lords. I could not attend, but I know that you, Sir Gary, were there. I sat and read one story, about the Eritrean Axum massacre, in November 2020, when there was an attack on a church where 1,000 people were worshipping:
“It might be that more were injured and died later. 750 were killed for sure.”
That illustrates the issue very clearly. As the hon. Member for Canterbury mentioned, Eritrean troops stand accused of a campaign of ethnically motivated cultural cleansing, and of participating in massacres of Ethiopian Christians. The people doing that are the army, police and those in authority. I feel very sad to say this, but Aid to the Church in Need was told that nuns have been raped as part of the attack on Tigray. That gives hon. Members an idea of the brutality, violence and ethnic cleansing that is happening. People have to be accountable.
Ethiopia ranks 38 on the Open Doors world watch list for the world’s worst places to be a Christian, despite Christianity being the majority religion in the country, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) mentioned. Given that Christianity is the religion favoured by most, it is hard to understand that Christians have been targeted. In Ethiopia, converts from Islam to Christianity, as well as converts to Protestant Churches from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, face mistreatment from family, friends and the wider community. Islamic extremist attacks against churches are increasingly prevalent. So many Christian converts face pressure to renounce their faith and continue to suffer as a result of political unrest, dire humanitarian conditions and added environmental pressures as a result of some of the driest conditions since 1981. Last year, the Government said that their priority was
“to ensure that Ethiopians, irrespective of ethnicity, religion and political affiliation, receive life-saving aid and that humanitarian access to areas affected by conflict and insecurity is restored.”
My question to the Minister is this: if that was said by our Government—my Government—then can we have an update on where we are? Can the Minister confirm that the lifesaving aid and the humanitarian access has been delivered?
In conclusion, this is not the first debate we have had on the situation in Ethiopia. I very much focused my contribution to this debate on the religious persecution perspective, which I know you have a deep interest in, Sir Gary, as do many others in this Chamber, because it matters. However, the other issues and factors in Ethiopia also matter, so I call on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, our Minister and our Government to fulfil their promises and to take what I have said into consideration when engaging in discussions with Ethiopia. We have a duty in this House and an opportunity to be a voice for the voiceless—for those people who have nobody to act for them—and today we are doing just that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on securing this important debate. The conflict in Ethiopia, which began two years ago in the region of Tigray, has been and continues to be brutal, devastating and destabilising for the wider horn of Africa. There are reports of thousands of deaths and abductions and of the widespread use of rape and sexual violence in the conflict, and warnings that the scale and systematic nature of the violence, and the language that accompanies it, may amount to genocide.
I pay tribute today to brave journalists, including Lucy Kassa, who has borne witness to the scale and intensity of the violence, and politicians, including Filsan Ahmed, who resigned from the Ethiopian Government over their handling of the conflict in Tigray. Both are remarkable young women who have borne significant personal cost for their work to give voice to people suffering under this conflict.
For some of my constituents, the conflict in Tigray has meant a total loss of contact with close family members over the past two years. I have a constituent whose parents and brother, who has Down’s syndrome, are in Tigray. She knows that her aunt was one of the first to be killed in the conflict, but she has not had any word at all from other family members for more than two years, resulting in unbearable worry, anxiety and anguish.
The conflict has left 20 million people across Ethiopia in urgent need of food aid, hospitals entirely without medicine and 2.8 million children without access to school. The scale of the conflict is as appalling as its brutality, with 500,000 people dead as a result of fighting and conflict-related factors such as famine, and 100,000 dead just since the fighting resumed in September. Yet for a conflict that is causing such suffering and has the potential to cause such widespread destabilisation, there has been extraordinarily little international outcry or mainstream media coverage of the devastation and insufficient international engagement.
The ceasefire that was recently signed is welcome, but it is not clear that it is yet having any impact, with further reports of violence today—not entirely surprising given the absence of the Eritrean authorities from the negotiations, since Eritrean forces are reported to be among the main perpetrators of violence in Tigray.
The humanitarian need is desperate, as is the need to investigate the crimes that have been committed so far within this conflict, to gather evidence and testimony and to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. There has been extensive verification of widespread atrocities in Ethiopia, including by Amnesty International, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and the UN Human Rights Council. Their inquiries have found evidence of atrocities that may amount to war crimes, including massacres of civilians and evidence of language indicative of genocide.
One extreme feature of this conflict is the widespread use of sexual violence. Conservative estimates are that more than 26,000 women have been affected, while some estimates are far higher. While all parties to the conflict have been accused of atrocities, the UNHRC’s investigation identifies Tigrayan women as having been targeted for particular violence. It also found that the Ethiopians were the only air force in possession of the drones being used in aerial bombardments, including on a refugee camp.
The highly respected Dr Denis Mukwege Foundation released a report in November 2022 that concluded that data suggests Ethiopian and allied forces committed conflict-related sexual violence on a widespread and systemic basis in order to eliminate and/or forcibly displace the ethnic Tigrayan population. The UN Human Rights Council has found action taken by the Ethiopian legal justice system to be wholly inadequate in terms of numbers of prosecutions and lack of information about prosecutions and convictions. It is a dire situation that demands the attention of the world.
I welcome the Minister to his place. I know that he has a personal commitment to see peace in Ethiopia. I ask him to set out what actions the UK Government are taking over atrocity crimes in Ethiopia, both through direct interventions with the Ethiopian Government and through the UN. Will the Government invite representatives from Tigrayan civil society and other diaspora communities in the UK affected by conflict-related sexual violence to their Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict conference? What actions are the UK Government taking to progress and support investigations on the reports of genocide in the Tigray region of Ethiopia? Finally, what actions are the UK Government taking to help to secure humanitarian access into Tigray to meet the urgent needs of the population there?
My constituents, and all those whose families are affected by this terrible conflict, need to know that the UK Government are doing everything possible to work for peace, justice and humanitarian access.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
We now turn to the Front-Bench speeches. I suggest seven minutes rather than five for the first two speeches, then the Minister can take the rest.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
Having spent as long as I did in the European Parliament, where 90 seconds was a long speech, I am well used to brevity, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on securing a debate on this important issue. I am glad that we all welcome the ceasefire and peace agreement in Tigray. Brokered by the African Union, it has been a real achievement for the South Africans. We should give them their due in this; it was in danger of becoming a frozen conflict before their involvement. African diplomacy has gone a long way towards resolving the conflict.
With the Minister in his place, we should look towards the future and what we can do to help the people of the region enjoy a durable peace. I will focus on the durability of the agreement that has been struck, the accountability for crimes and justice for victims, and the food insecurity that I am deeply concerned will set the conditions for a relapse into further violence in the region.
The durability of the agreement was hard won. Even as the ceasefire was being announced, one side referred to the “terrorist” Tigray People’s Liberation Front, and the other side to the “fascist clique”. Eritrea was not a formal signatory to the agreement, but it clearly was involved. We have not seen any disarmament thus far under article 6 of the agreement. What assessment have the UK Government made of the prospects for disarmament on the ground, particularly in terms of how the verification of the withdrawal of the Eritrean forces is going to be checked? We have already heard concerns about the access of international observers. What sort of access are we going to be pushing for to verify that the agreement, particularly article 6, is being implemented?
We are all united in believing that accountability for war crimes is integral for a just peace going forward. That is something that we really are in a position to assist with. It concerns me deeply that no side of the conflict has accepted that any war crimes were committed by their side. I am not sure the conditions for accountability and honesty are necessarily there yet. I can see why accountability would not be foreseen within a ceasefire agreement, but surely the international community cannot lose sight of the need for accountability mechanisms.
Again, I ask what the UK Government are doing to assist those accountability mechanisms. The African Union is doing a great deal of work on that, as are the UN authorities, but their access has been hindered. That can be usefully taken forward by the UK Government to ensure access and give financial support—even in terms of lending personnel to the investigators. Those war crimes need to be properly explored and people held to account.
On food insecurity, the point is wider than just Tigray, Ethiopia or the horn of Africa, but the numbers facing food insecurity in that region are very stark. According to the World Food Programme, there are 13 million people across northern Ethiopia alone who are in real danger of food insecurity, including 5.4 million people in Tigray, 7 million in Amhara and 1.2 million in Afar. There are millions of people in real danger of starvation right now. Aid was not able to get through, but now it is, which is one of the big advantages of this ceasefire.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation has classified Ethiopia as a whole at its highest alert level for hunger and starvation. That is a real challenge to the international community and a challenge, as well as an opportunity, to the UK Government to step up. Now that aid can get through, we all need to consider how we can best help to prevent the conditions for a relapse into violence from occurring.
The Minister well knows the SNP position on the return to the 0.7% aid criteria; he has his own well-documented thoughts on that. I appreciate that he has collective responsibility today, but surely in the case of Ethiopia and the horn of Africa there is a real need for more aid than we have seen. As well as reinstating the 0.7% aid—and even if we are short of that—I would make a plea today for increased UK Government aid, particularly to combat food insecurity in that region. I would be glad to hear about that. Otherwise, I fear that the conditions exist for the bad guys to come back. The peace is fragile. Of course the agreement is significant, but it needs help, and I think we are all united in that effort.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Sir Gary. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for securing the debate and opening it so brilliantly. I thank all other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions; it has been an excellent debate.
The devastating conflict in Ethiopia has lasted for two very long years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury stated, some estimates suggest that as many as half a million people have died, including hundreds of thousands of civilians. The ceasefire agreement could simply not come quick enough and Labour is deeply grateful to the diplomats who have worked to secure it, most of all the African Union and its representatives. We need to face the reality that the chaos in the Conservative party over recent months has weakened the UK’s international voice, but now we need to look forward. I hope the new Minister will tell us how the Government will deepen the UK’s support for African Union mediation, peacekeeping and peace-building work over the coming years.
East Africa was named a priority region by this Government in their “Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy”. Now we need to understand how that commitment will be implemented to support peace, security, inclusion and accountability. The first priority, as we know, must be to support humanitarian access for the people of Tigray. In August, 89% of the population in Tigray were assessed as food insecure, and 29% of children under five and half the pregnant women and breastfeeding women were malnourished. That situation will inevitably have worsened since then.
Over the past two years, many people have been descending into deeper desperation in the absence of aid. That in itself is sure to have fuelled the conflict, because if the only way people can eat and survive is by signing up to fight, why would they not do that? That desperation puts women and children at massively increased risk of abuse and exploitation, so what progress has been made with humanitarian access right now to all parts of Tigray? Let us face it: demand for assistance is extremely high in many parts of Ethiopia and across the region because of the terrible drought. Are we confident that aid agencies have enough resources to take full advantage to deliver life-saving help quickly?
The Minister has rightly said in response to my written questions that the UK stands ready to support the peace process—that is fabulous—so now I would be grateful to understand how. Will he tell us if discussions are ongoing with the Government of Ethiopia and the African Union? Like my hon. Friends, I have several constituents who have been agonisingly out of contact with their families in Tigray for many months now. Surely we can expect a rapid and final end to the communications blackout and the restoration of services.
Jeremy Corbyn
Like my hon. Friend, I have constituents from Tigray, Oromia and Ethiopia as a whole, and they are going through the most awful stress. There is a lack of communication, but they want to send help and aid in support. Does she think we could do more to facilitate information, to give the families some sense of security about what is happening to their relatives? The community in this country is also very keen to send whatever help it can.
Ms Brown
My right hon. Friend has known me long enough to know that I agree entirely with what he just said. As my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury, for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), have highlighted, there have been many credible reports of repeated war crimes and potential crimes against humanity.
It is unacceptable that the UN-mandated International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia has been so heavily restricted in its work. Despite those restrictions, the commission has set out damning evidence of horrifying abuses by all parties to the conflict. Because of the lack of access for journalists and human rights defenders, the violations we know about may well be only the tip of the iceberg.
It would be good to know how we are preparing for the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative conference in two weeks’ time. There have been many reports of women, children and men being subject to horrific sexual violence, including repeated rape and torture. Many seem to have been targeted, based on their identity, with sexual violence being used as a weapon of war. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the UK is working to support survivors through access to specialist services, including mental and physical health support, and access to justice.
For many of the survivors who have been displaced it is not currently safe to return home. Many are in camps in Sudan as well as across Ethiopia. I am sure we all understand that specialist support needs to get to where they are now, and quickly. I genuinely struggle to see how the enormous divisions in Ethiopia will mend without proper accountability. That is about security as well as justice for the victims.
I am struggling to understand how we can have confidence in a sustainable peace, if there is not healing and inclusion in Ethiopia. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the approach that he will take to support credible accountability for the countless victims of abuses in this war. I want to ask the Minister about some of the pitfalls, as it would be devastating to the people of Ethiopia and damaging to UK interests if the agreement fails.
First, the agreement excludes Eritrea, and it is not clear how the rapid withdrawal of all Eritrean forces will be ensured. The Government have failed to mirror previous US sanctions against Eritrean entities involved in the conflict, so I hope that the Minister will consider that as a lever that he might have to deploy.
We know that there are significant border disputes, particularly around western Tigray. Many of the alleged systematic abuses, including ethnic cleansing, relate to that area. A pathway will need to resolve those disputes fairly and peacefully. The ceasefire does not end the need for close and consistent engagement by the UK—far from it. Let us be clear: the UK has much to gain from a just peace.
Ethiopia has made an enormous contribution to sustainable development and to the pan-African vision and its institution. The potential of the people of Ethiopia is even greater than their history. I believe that our partnership and collaboration could be much stronger if the UK supports the peace to hold, and if justice is done and seen to be done for the peoples of that very great country.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Just before I call the Minister, can I check, Rosie, whether you want to take advantage of time to wind up the debate ?
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
We will give time to the Minister. It is a pleasure to call the Minister, Andrew Mitchell.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Thank you, Sir Gary. This is the first time I have had the privilege of performing under your eagle eye. It is my third time in government, since I first became a member of the Government in 1992, but I have never taken a debate in Westminster Hall before, so I hope you will treat me gently on this occasion, as I am a bit of a debutante.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for securing this debate. I thought that she led and framed it with humanity, wisdom and knowledge, and the whole Chamber will be grateful to her for doing that. I am also grateful to other hon. Members and right hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, and I will try to respond to as many of the points that were raised as I can. I will come directly to the important points that were raised at the end of my remarks if I do not cover them in the speech that I am about to deliver.
After two years of brutal and bloody conflict, today’s debate takes place at a moment of hope. There is finally a path towards peace and prosperity for the people of Ethiopia. During two years of fighting in the north of the country, thousands of people have been killed. There have been human rights violations and abuses on an appalling scale, as has been set out during this debate, and some 13 million people have been left in need of humanitarian aid. It has been one of the world’s most destructive conflicts.
The peace agreement signed on 2 November by the Ethiopian Government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front is an opportunity to bring a permanent end to this conflict. I recognise the achievement of both parties in taking this step towards peace. I particularly commend the role of the African Union and its envoy—the former Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo—who led mediation efforts, with support from South Africa and Kenya.
This weekend, there was further cause for optimism. On Saturday in Nairobi, senior military commanders from both sides in the conflict signed a further agreement that maps out implementation of the peace process. At the forefront of this agreement is a rapid return to full and unhindered humanitarian access to Tigray, which, as Members have made clear today, is absolutely vital. The peace agreement provides for a permanent cessation of hostilities, the disarmament and demobilisation of Tigrayan forces, and the restoration of services across Tigray. It also provides for a restoration of the constitutional order and the presence of federal authorities within the region.
This is a comprehensive agreement which, if implemented in full, can be the basis of a lasting peace. However, its implementation is far from certain. It will require sustained, magnanimous and restrained leadership on all sides, and support from Ethiopia’s friends across the international community. The UK Government have offered our support to the Ethiopian Government and the African Union. So far, the early signs are promising. Since 2 November, we believe that fighting has largely ceased, and the agreement signed on 12 November demonstrates commitment to implementation.
Humanitarian access is desperately needed. The UN estimates that 13 million people in northern Ethiopia require assistance, which includes millions of people in Tigray whom humanitarian agencies have been unable to reach since August. Humanitarian access has been one of our chief concerns throughout the conflict, and I know that that concern is shared by many in this Chamber. The UK Government have consistently called for humanitarian agencies to have unhindered and unfettered access to northern Ethiopia.
My predecessor as the Minister with responsibility for development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), raised this issue when she met Ethiopia’s deputy Prime Minister, Demeke Mekonnen Hassen, on 22 September at the UN General Assembly and she followed up that meeting with a visit to Ethiopia on 19 October, when she again held talks with the deputy Prime Minister.
In both those meetings, our message was clear: stop fighting, start talking and ensure that all those affected by the conflict can access humanitarian aid and essential services. We therefore welcome the commitment of the Ethiopian Government and the TPLF to enabling humanitarian aid to enter Tigray and to the restoration of essential services. It is crucial that this agreement rapidly makes a difference on the ground.
Turning to the issue of drought, the conflict has taken place in the context of a wider humanitarian crisis in Ethiopia. In the south and east of the country, there have been four consecutive seasons of failed rains, which is unprecedented. This has led to a devastating drought. In October, my predecessor visited a region in Ethiopia that has been impacted by drought, and she witnessed one of the largest and most severe humanitarian crises in the world. As many as 24 million people have been affected in Ethiopia alone. In the past 18 months, the UK Government have allocated nearly £90 million to support communities in the Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromia and Somali regions of Ethiopia, which have all been affected by conflict and drought.
The issue of human rights has been raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members. The peace agreement affirms the principle of respect for fundamental human rights. It commits to the creation of a comprehensive and national transitional justice policy aimed at delivering truth, accountability, redress, reconciliation and healing. Throughout the conflict, there have been appalling records of human rights abuses and violations. The civilian populations of Tigray, Amhara and Afar have endured the most terrible suffering.
Throughout the conflict, the UK has consistently called for an end to human rights abuses and violations, and for accountability for those found to have perpetrated them. We have raised this issue frequently with all parties to the conflict through our embassies in Ethiopia and Eritrea, through my predecessor’s engagement with Ethiopian Ministers, and at the Human Rights Council. The UK was a co-sponsor of the resolution of the Human Rights Council that established the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, and we are also providing direct funding to support the important work of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the Minister for his contribution. Is he confident that unfettered access to all parts of Ethiopia will be given to the UN and other agencies?
Mr Mitchell
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am not confident about that, but we are pressing in every way we possibly can, and we must move forward optimistically. I will come to his specific point in a moment, when I address some of the comments that have been made during the debate.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I mentioned the issue of religious attacks. I know the Minister will come back to that, but I also want to press him on the issue of access to humanitarian aid for the Christian groups in Tigray, which are not getting the access to aid that they should.
Mr Mitchell
If I may, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s comments later.
The presence and conduct of Eritrean forces in Tigray has fuelled the conflict and made its resolution more challenging. The Eritrean Government were not party to the peace agreement, but will inevitably be crucial to its success. We have consistently called on Eritrea to withdraw its troops from Tigray—I repeat that call today, and urge the Eritrean Government to support the peace agreement. We recognise that a durable peace in the horn of Africa depends on mutually acceptable security arrangements, which must include Eritrea, and we encourage those in the region to find solutions through dialogue.
I want to make a couple of points about our development assistance. Before the conflict, our development partnership with Ethiopia—one of the best in the world—had lifted millions of people out of poverty. Indeed, the results of spending British taxpayers’ money in Ethiopia were truly stunning, and helped Ethiopia to become one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. We want Ethiopia to return to more prosperous times, and the peace agreement calls on international partners to support its implementation, to help build infrastructure and to support economic recovery, although the UK will play its part in that. The UK Government have already provided 54 trucks to the UN World Food Programme in the region, and we are working with partners to remove the logistical barriers that prevent them from operating at full capacity. If the peace deal holds, we will encourage international financial institutions to support Ethiopia’s recovery.
Ms Lyn Brown
To my obviously amateur ear, that did not sound like an awful lot of aid for the number of people in need of support. Does the Minister think it is enough?
Mr Mitchell
If the hon. Lady, who knows a great deal about these matters, will bear with me for a moment, I will come specifically to the issue of money.
This may be a moment for optimism. There is an opportunity to end one of the world’s most destructive conflicts, but that opportunity must be comprehensive and nurtured by everyone. The prize is a return to peace and prosperity for a nation of over 100 million people, and the UK stands ready to do all that we can to assist with that.
I will comment briefly on a number of points that were raised during the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for what he said. He is one of the experts, having had a relationship with Ethiopia and its people for many years. The House benefits greatly from his expertise. The former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), raised a number of important issues. He asked about the delivery of aid to the conflict areas. Yesterday, for the first time, two trucks from the International Committee of the Red Cross got through to Mekelle. Nothing has got through for so long, so I hope that that may be a significant breakthrough on which we can build.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edmonton—
Mr Mitchell
I do apologise. The hon. Lady the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who always takes a great interest in international development, asked specifically about the figures for aid, and made three very interesting recommendations. Others, too, asked for these figures. In the last 18 months, the UK has provided nearly £90 million of humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia. Our support has reached people in Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Somalia and Oromia, and last year UK funding in Ethiopia provided nutritious food for over 200,000 malnourished women and children; emergency health supplies for 1 million people; clean water to over 200,000 people; and child protection services to over 40,000 children affected by the conflict.
In August, the UK provided an additional £6 million to the Ethiopian humanitarian fund, and in October the former Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford, announced £14 million of support to assist 150,000 women and children affected by conflict and drought. Those contributions are part of a wider £156 million UK commitment to humanitarian support for crises in east Africa this financial year. The hon. Member for Edmonton will recall that when I had responsibility for these matters at the Department for International Development I was always keen to demonstrate what results we achieved for that expenditure of British taxpayers’ money, so alongside the figure that I have given her I stress the number of people we are reaching with that sort of aid.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about religious freedom. To amplify what I said earlier, at the 51st session of the Human Rights Council we co-sponsored a resolution to extend the mandate of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, and we have added £4.5 million to help to build the capacity of Ethiopia and the Human Rights Commission. That does not directly address his point about religious freedom, but I am sure that he will understand that it goes hand in hand with human rights. We are very conscious of the importance of the issue that he raised.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) asked about PSVI. I want her to know that we have invited a range of representatives, including from civil society groups. She also talked about the role of journalists. We are very conscious of that, and she will know that the Government have made a particular point of trying to support press freedom overseas through the work of the Foreign Office. She asked whether people would be held to account for what they have done. I stress as strongly as I can that we will do everything that we can to ensure that there is no impunity for war crimes and those who have committed human rights abuses.
The hon.—
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I am so sorry; our time has run out. We could have listened to the Minister for a lot longer.
Written Statements
Shipbuilding Update
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Today I am providing an update on our plans for the next stage of the fleet solid support ship programme.
I am pleased to announce that Team Resolute has been selected as the preferred bidder to provide three solid support ships for the Royal Navy. This appointment follows on from the award to BAE Systems in Glasgow of the £4 billion contract for five Type 26 frigates earlier this week. Both are good news for UK shipyards and the skill base.
Team Resolute, comprising Harland & Wolff, BMT and Navantia UK will, subject to final approvals from Ministers and HM Treasury, be awarded a contract worth £1.6 billion, before inflation, to manufacture the crucial vessels providing munitions, stores and provisions to the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates deployed at sea. The contract will deliver more than 1,000 UK shipyard jobs, generate hundreds of graduate and apprentice opportunities across the UK and a significant number of further jobs throughout the supply chain. Team Resolute has pledged to invest £77 million in shipyard infrastructure to support the UK shipbuilding sector.
Blocks and modules for the ships will be constructed at Harland & Wolff’s facilities in Belfast and Appledore, and this work will also support a significant UK-based supply chain. Some build work will also take place at Navantia’s shipyard in Cadiz in Spain, in a collaboration allowing for key skills and technology transfer to the UK from a world-leading shipbuilder.
The entire final assembly will be completed at Harland & Wolffs shipyard in Belfast, to Bath-based BMT’s British design.
The awarding of the contract will see jobs created and work delivered in Appledore, Devon, Harland & Wolff Belfast and within the supply chain up and down the country. This announcement is good news for the UK shipbuilding industry. It will strengthen and secure the UK shipbuilding enterprise as set out in the national shipbuilding strategy.
[HCWS369]
COP27 Biodiversity Day: UK Action to Support Nature and Climate
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Today, I am making a number of announcements on biodiversity day at COP27. This builds on the leadership the UK has shown throughout our COP26 presidency. We brought nature to the heart of COP for the first time in Glasgow—with more than 140 world leaders, representing 91% of the world’s forests, committing to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. The UK Government are continuing to demonstrate international leadership on nature and climate by:
Committing £30 million of seed finance into the Big Nature Impact fund, a new public-private fund for nature in the UK which will unlock significant private investment into nature projects;
Pledging an additional £12 million to the Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance to mobilise investment in coastal and ocean natural capital;
Committing a further £6 million to provide capacity building support to developing countries to increase commitments to nature and nature-based solutions;
Announcing a new UK climate finance contribution of £5 million toward the Inter-American Development Bank’s (IDB) multi-donor trust fund for the Amazon to help tackle deforestation through community-led projects, while providing sustainable business opportunities to indigenous people whose livelihoods depend on them;
Spotlighting the vital importance of mangroves and their role in coastal resilience by endorsing the Mangrove Breakthrough led by the UNFCCC high-level champions and the Global Mangrove Alliance;
Highlighting the climate benefits of blue carbon through continued support for the new Global Ocean Decade Programme for Blue Carbon (GO-BC), which has now launched a new global graduate scheme for early career blue carbon researchers.
Global momentum is now behind plans to halt nature’s decline. I will be urging countries to build on progress at COP27 to renew action on nature and come together to agree a robust global plan for tackling nature loss at next month’s meeting of the United Nations convention on biological diversity (CBD) in Montreal.
[HCWS370]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Energy Bill Relief Scheme Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 31 October. The EBRS GB and EBRS NI schemes are necessary in response to exceptional global circumstances affecting energy prices. Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine has led to an unprecedented rise in energy prices, affecting businesses and vital services right across the UK. The Government have moved swiftly to introduce emergency legislation to protect consumers from these inflated prices, which will stop businesses collapsing, protect jobs and limit inflation. I am grateful to the opposition parties for helping us speed the legislation through the House. The wider negative effects of this economic pressure, including on the businesses of gas and electricity suppliers themselves, would be severe and would materialise very quickly in the absence of an intervention of this kind.
The Energy Bill Relief Scheme Regulations 2022 and Energy Bill Relief Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022—the EBRS regulations—have been created under the Energy Prices Act, which, as the House knows, gained Royal Assent on 25 October 2022. The Energy Prices Act, introduced in Parliament on 12 October, provided the legislative footing needed to ensure that businesses across the UK receive support with their energy bills this winter through this EBRS. The regulations are essential secondary legislation, needed to implement and operationalise the ERBSs.
The regulations reduce the charges for electricity and gas supplied by licensed energy suppliers to eligible non-domestic customers and make payments to suppliers in respect of those reductions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The schemes represent significant and bold action by the Government to protect all eligible non-domestic customers—including businesses, charities and the public sector—such as hospitals and schools, from excessively high energy bills over the winter period. As a result, the scheme will run for a six-month period from 1 October 2022 to 31 March 2023.
Turning to the detail of the regulations, the EBRS GB and EBRS NI regulations set out that, with few exceptions, all non-domestic customers with electricity and gas contracts from licensed non-domestic energy suppliers will be eligible for a discount. The discount will be applied to the wholesale price element of bills, and the regulations set out how this discount has been calculated. The regulations cover the process by which the energy supplier is reimbursed by the Secretary of State for the discount. Regulations give powers to the Secretary of State to delegate this function where he considers it appropriate. Further provision is included to prevent suppliers or customers deriving greater benefit than is intended, in order to protect the integrity of the schemes.
The regulations also provide for an additional reduction to be applied for qualifying financially disadvantaged customers who are supplied under so-called “deemed” or “out-of-contract” contracts. The EBRS NI regulations prevent end-users who are outside Northern Ireland receiving the discount to their bills. The regulations also cover essential operational matters, including information and reporting obligations, enforcement powers and powers to impose civil penalties in respect of missing or defective declarations.
To accompany the regulations, we have published a suite of legally binding rules and non-statutory guidance, which provides further detail on how the schemes work in practice. Given the urgency of ensuring that organisations receive the support they need this winter, we have not been able to launch a formal consultation. Instead, we have had extensive informal consultations with energy suppliers, regulatory bodies and delivery bodies. We commit to reviewing these instruments as necessary following their implementation, based on stakeholder feedback. Additionally, separate pass-through requirement regulations were laid in Parliament to ensure that intermediaries such as landlords, who have received energy price support, pass through the benefit obtained to end-users—for example, non-domestic customers in rented properties. This also includes the laying of separate regulations to ensure the pass-through of EBRS benefits to heat network customers.
The regulations’ objectives are to support economic growth and to limit inflation, and we expect their most significant impact to be the avoidance of the closure of many firms, and therefore of redundancies. The benefits of avoiding closures will accrue to business, while the benefits of avoiding redundancies will of course provide broader benefits to society. Our aim is that the support delivered through these schemes will enable public services such as schools and hospitals to continue to operate this winter.
The EBRSs remain a source of critical support for non-domestic customers across the United Kingdom. Let me emphasise that the measures in these regulations are crucial for the effective operation of the schemes. The schemes will complement the other large-scale support the Government are providing with energy and the cost of living. I hope the House will be able to support these measures and their objectives. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government and my noble friend the Minister on bringing through the enabling Act and in particular the regulations before us this afternoon. I commend the support the Government are giving both to non-domestic and domestic customers. If my noble friend will permit, I have a number of questions I would like to press him on, but that does not detract from my overall support for the scheme.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee prepared a very helpful brief, which states that the instruments are made to delegate powers to enable the Secretary of State to make technical rules for the effective operation of the EBRS, including rules for the calculation and recovery of accounts. Paragraph 7.1 of the helpful Explanatory Memorandum appended to the regulations states that the Secretary of State
“can reimburse licensed non-domestic energy suppliers applying price reductions on customers’ bills representing the wholesale energy price element of the bill. This will allow non-domestic customers to receive the benefit of such a discount.”
I welcome what my noble friend said about landlords passing this on to those who operate the businesses; that will be very welcome indeed.
Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum say that the Secretary of State is required,
“within 14 days of the schemes’ introduction date, to make rules about further reductions”.
The rules will apply to the supply of gas and electricity for the period referred to by my noble friend. Will there be an opportunity for the Committee or the House to see them in advance and to scrutinise them? Will they be laid before the House? I realise they are technical rules, but it would be helpful for us to see them.
Paragraph 11.1 refers to stakeholders, individual organisations and so forth. I would like to make plea for the plight of publicans in pubs, restaurants, bars and cafés, who will benefit from this scheme until the end of March. It is particularly welcome in the run-up to Christmas, and in January and February, which tend to be slow months, as it recognises their need to incur high energy and electricity costs to make a welcoming atmosphere. My noble friend is probably not in a position to tell us today—we will have to wait until tomorrow or even the March Budget—what will happen after this scheme expires. I do not want to be like Oliver Twist and ask for more, but it would be helpful for businesses to know what the future will be. My noble friend has rightly identified that the regulations and the enabling legislation under which they fall are intended to prevent closures and job losses resulting from high wholesale energy costs, which we know are largely global in nature.
I also make a plea for non-domestic customers and businesses that operate in rural areas. The Minister and I are from the north-east of England. I grew up there and represented part of North Yorkshire for 18 years in the other place. In about a week’s time, we will have the first anniversary of Storm Arwen, when a number of businesses closed. Those who were not fortunate enough to have generators were heavily penalised. As part of learning from that, I met our local director of the NFU, which is keen to work with the Government and other bodies to see how we can enhance infrastructure and the grid in rural areas where we are heavily dependent on off-grid fuels such as oil, solid fuel and LPG, and to look at what prospect there might be for developing those off-grid resources. It is basically about lessons learned from Storm Arwen, in what was a very difficult time.
These regulations were debated in the other place by the Delegated Legislation Committee on Monday 14 November. It was asked then why there had not been a greater assessment of the impact of administration and resource costs on Ofgem, which will be heavily involved in monitoring compliance. Has BEIS looked at that? Will it have time to do so in the next few weeks? Secondly, if a company has outstanding debt on bills of greater than 28 days, it effectively does not qualify. For what reason has that benchmark been chosen? With those few questions, I wish Godspeed to the regulations and congratulate my noble friend and his department on the work they have done in this regard, for both non-domestic and domestic customers.
I have one further question, which relates more to domestic customers. What I would identify as sharp practices are being developed by electricity providers on the back of the Government’s generosity in this regard. When a customer is in credit, their direct debit payments are going up, which I can see no rhyme or reason for. If a customer is in credit, why on earth would you seek to increase their direct debit, particularly when the Government have lent the generous help that they have? Another such practice happens when, no matter how many meter readings they may give, the customer ends up with an estimated bill. Again, that seems to be a way of bumping up the price. I would welcome any response that my noble friend has to what seem to be developing sharp practices.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, we on our side very much welcome this relief for businesses and commercial operations with regard to energy prices. Again, I very much echo the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the fact that the evaluation does not take place until three months. I understand the issue of how you would evaluate it before that, but there is no obligation to put forward further plans until the end of the scheme, after six months. I would be interested to hear an answer on that.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the instruments today and thank the stalwarts of the energy debates, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for their questions and comments, which I am sure will be responded to.
These are the first two instruments from the Energy Prices Act, which we debated recently. We supported the Bill during its passage and appreciate the pressing need to have these arrangements in law as soon as possible. As such, we will not be preventing the passage of these instruments. This also means that many of the points that we have made in regard to these instruments have already been debated in passing the Energy Prices Act. I will not spend time dealing with that and repeating points but rather will focus on the specific contents of the instruments before us today, not least as we will be considering more before too long.
As we have heard, between them these two instruments make provision for the implementation of the energy bill relief scheme—the EBRS—for non-domestic customers across the UK, with powers derived from the Energy Prices Act: Section 9 for Great Britain and Section 11 for Northern Ireland. To comment on a point that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised, what these instruments do not do is to set out the exact terms of the scheme, neither for the first six months, which is now clear, nor for the following 18-month period that the Act allows these powers to provide for. We now know the Government’s plans for the first six months—they were recently revealed—but we have heard little on their plans for the period thereafter. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, if the Minister is able to, I would appreciate it if he could elaborate on what is proposed, or at least update us on the progress of their consideration as to what might happen for the latter part of the period that this Act governs.
Part 3 of the instrument relates to discount recovery, on which I have a small item to raise. I understand that Energy UK previously expressed concerns to the Minister about the arrangements in this part. Its interpretation is that energy suppliers would not receive financial cover to cover the difference between normal and capped unit rates, which is inconsistent with what the Energy Prices Act suggested. That issue appears to have been fixed, which is welcome, but it is troublesome that it was not the case from the outset. I am keen to hear an explanation from the Minister of how these issues emerged and some reassurance that, in action, energy companies will have no difficulty receiving their entitlements.
I also understand that the consultation to resolve the issue took place under non-disclosure agreements, which not only is concerning in itself but, as Energy UK raised, often means that not all suppliers are included in talks and that the industry cannot work together with the Government to come to the best solutions. This seems neither a sustainable nor an effective way of creating policy.
Part 5 of the instrument, which relates to qualifying financially disadvantaged customers, requires the Secretary of State to make rules about further reductions that the suppliers must apply to the amounts payable of these customers within 14 days of the scheme’s introduction date. As the Explanatory Memorandum says,
“The current levels of many deemed and out-of-contract tariffs mean that, even with the discounts provided by the rest of the EBRS scheme, these customers … would often still experience particular difficulty in obtaining a supply of energy at a reasonable rate”.
It is welcome that additional support will be set out. However, given the situation, waiting until 14 days after the scheme’s introduction does little to offer reassurance to these customers and makes it difficult, if not impossible, for your Lordships to scrutinise the plans. Perhaps the Minister could give some advance notice of the Government’s plans for this section.
Before I finish, I briefly revisit one broader area from the Energy Prices Act, regarding the powers of the Secretary of State, some of which allow them to escape secondary legislation. Of course, that is not the case here, as we are debating secondary legislation, but I use this opportunity to repeat our regret that other significant powers given by the Act are not subject to parliamentary debates such as this.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, could I intervene before the Minister responds? I have carefully gone through the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Regulations 2022 and the Energy Bill Relief Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022, which are about the same thickness, to see where the differences are. Obviously, we know that the situation is different in Northern Ireland, so there have to be some differences, but it would be helpful if, in winding, the Minister could clarify any substantial differences between how the scheme is going to work in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Minister is aware, we in Northern Ireland are always wary of being treated slightly differently for some unknown reason that we find out about later. I appreciate that there have to be separate regulations on this, but I would appreciate clarification on any substantial differences.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I first thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As I said, the Government have implemented the EBRS GB and NI schemes to ensure that non-domestic consumers are protected from excessively high energy bills over the winter period. The schemes will make sure that the amount that eligible businesses pay for their wholesale energy costs comes down to a reasonable level, with some saving over 50% on those costs.
I am sure it is reassuring for the House to know that the schemes are already in force and delivering support to organisations across the UK. I hope this reassures the public that the Government are committed to taking decisive action to alleviate at least part of this energy crisis.
As well as providing immediate relief, these schemes will support economic growth and have the happy effect of limiting inflation caused by increasing energy bills and the knock-on effects on prices, labour, goods and services. As I said at the start, we are confident that the schemes will seek to avoid firm closures and redundancies and will ensure that vital public services and charities can continue to operate over the winter.
We will continue to monitor the schemes to ensure that this support is provided to the people and businesses that they are designed to help. We are committed to reviewing the schemes by the end of the year and will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that their feedback is taken into account. We will use the review to look at how best to offer further support to customers who are most at risk from energy price increases beyond April 2023.
I start off with the contribution of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, who asked whether the House would have the opportunity to review the rules accompanying the statutory instrument. It is worth pointing out that the schemes have been set up at pace, and the House of course helped by passing the legislation at pace, to deal with the crisis. Therefore, it is right that the more technical details of the scheme have been included in statutory rules, which have been published on GOV.UK. The first tranche of EBRS GB and NI rules were published on 1 November; amendment rules relating to discount recovery were published on 4 November; and a third tranche of amendment rules relating to disputes and treatment of financially disadvantaged customers was published on 9 November. Minor changes made via amending rules were published on 10 November. If the noble Baroness wants to check on GOV.UK, she can while away her weekend reading the rules in detail. The business support scheme is intended to give immediate relief to businesses and other non-domestic consumers from the current level of inflated electricity and gas prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked the good question about what will happen in six months’ time, once these schemes come to an end. I cannot say that I have an answer for the Committee at the moment, because we are still to conduct the review of the scheme, which we have said that we will do by the end of the year. Perhaps if I set out what the review will consider, that will give the Committee some clues as to where we intend to go with this. The review will consider how best to offer further support to customers who are most at risk of energy price increases. By their very nature, they are likely to be those who are least able to adjust—for example, by reducing their energy uses or increasing their energy efficiency. Of course, any further support will begin at the end of the initial six-month support scheme.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked something that, I have to say, has nothing to do with these regulations, about lessons learned from Storm Arwen. We have had extensive discussions on that subject in this House. We published a comprehensive review of the recommendations for improvement of the electricity sector in response to Storm Arwen. There were a number of key recommendations covering enhancing system resilience; protecting customers; and additional support, such as compensation. The recommendations are due to be finalised by December 2023, but the majority are already complete, ahead of this winter.
My noble friend also asked about the assessment of the impact of administration and resource costs to Ofgem. Of course, we are working very closely with Ofgem to ensure the effective enforcement of the scheme requirements, and we will ensure that it has the necessary resources to carry out its role in this and many other government schemes operating in the energy sector. Given the pace at which we had to deliver the impact assessments of this time-bound intervention, we have focused on the largest and most significant impact—of course, the direct costs to the Exchequer.
My noble friend also asked about the 28-day disqualification policy. The arrears rule already referred to applies only to the additional discounts that suppliers are required to apply to those qualifying disadvantaged on deemed or out-of-contract contracts. That is in addition to the main EBRS discount.
On the points made about suppliers increasing energy bills, the EBRS scheme is shielding businesses across the country from soaring energy prices. The vast majority of energy suppliers are operating responsibly and within the spirit of the scheme. Of course, we are aware of reports that some companies are being faced with excessively high quotes this winter. I can tell the House that we will take a robust approach to this, and we are working with Ofgem to ensure that the licensing conditions have not been breached and that businesses are able to see the full effects of support offered by the scheme.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also raised the issue of the UK’s energy resilience in winter. We have a secure and diverse energy system, and we are confident of our plans to protect households and businesses in the full range of scenarios this winter, in light of Russia’s illegal war.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I listened to what the Minister said and return to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Do I take from the Minister’s remarks that there is going to be a review after the winter period that is covered by the present legislation? There are many small businesses scattered across the community in Northern Ireland that are totally dependent on electricity and have therefore met this volatility in energy prices. It is hard for them to plan for the future without knowledge of where we will go after the short period covered here. How long does the Minister think the review will take, because these businesses certainly need to plan for the future?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. As I said, we will conduct a review as soon as possible with the aim that it will be published before the end of the year. That will inform businesses of where we hope to go with the scheme after its expiry in April. That applies not just to businesses in Northern Ireland but to small businesses across the whole United Kingdom.
In conclusion, the Government remain committed to ensuring that consumers receive help with the rising cost of living and with energy costs. These regulations are vital to ensuring that support is delivered this coming winter. I commend this draft instrument to the Committee.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply to my point on fraud but, as he has not replied on holiday home lets, I assume that, if they are on business rates, they will get this benefit.
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are two aspects to this support. The price guarantee applies to domestic consumers and the EBRS applies to business consumers. If it is registered as a domestic premise, the home owner would receive this support in the same way as other owners of multiple homes would receive it—under the domestic scheme. If it is registered as a business, again they would receive a price discount. That applies to all businesses across the UK, with a few exceptions for some generators.
I take the noble Lord’s point about how this will probably go down badly in the areas concerned, but the scheme was rolled out at pace. We saw similar effects with the Bounce Back Loan Scheme during the pandemic. By the very nature of these schemes, if you do not spend years putting the scheme in place, going through every detail and exempting certain groups that might perhaps be undeserving of the support, there will be cases that most people regard as slightly unfair. That is in the nature of rolling something out quickly. We needed to get the support out quickly, which is why this has been done that way.
Energy Bill Relief Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bill Relief Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Energy Prices (Domestic Supply) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Prices (Domestic Supply) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 31 October 2022. They are quite narrow and define the terms “Northern Ireland domestic electricity supply” and “Northern Ireland domestic gas supply” for the purposes of the energy price guarantee Northern Ireland schemes. I will refer to these schemes as the “EPG NI”.
Energy is of course an essential and unavoidable expense for households. The economic fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine have driven a global inflationary surge that is continuing to hit UK households and businesses. A typical household in Northern Ireland has seen its energy costs increase threefold since this time last year, which will put significant financial pressure on Northern Ireland households. The Government have moved swiftly to introduce emergency legislation to protect consumers from these inflated prices and to limit inflation.
The electricity and gas markets operate differently in Northern Ireland. There is a different regulator—the Utility Regulator for Northern Ireland—no price cap and an entirely different set of suppliers. Therefore, Northern Ireland could not fall under the remit of the Great Britain energy price guarantee scheme. The Government have established the energy price guarantee Northern Ireland scheme to deliver much-needed equivalent support.
The EPG NI reduces the unit cost of electricity and gas for domestic consumers in Northern Ireland, via the same mechanism as the energy price guarantee in Great Britain. Energy suppliers reduce consumer bills by a set amount of pence per kilowatt hour, and His Majesty’s Government compensate them for that reduction. Electricity costs are being reduced by 20 pence per kilowatt hour and gas by almost 5 pence per kilo- watt hour.
Importantly, the EPG schemes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland are intended for customers on domestic tariffs. The energy bill relief scheme is for customers on non-domestic tariffs. The Energy Prices Act 2022 set out that the EPG Northern Ireland schemes are to apply to those with “domestic electricity supply” and “domestic gas supply”. These regulations define those terms for Northern Ireland.
These definitions will mean that some non-domestic premises will be in scope of the energy price guarantee electricity scheme in Northern Ireland. This includes some places of worship, which have similar metering and tariff arrangements to domestic premises. These non-domestic premises will receive EPG support. There was no timely way for energy suppliers to disaggregate them from traditional domestic premises with similar metering and tariff arrangements.
The Government want to ensure that energy users in Northern Ireland receive equivalent support to that offered to Great Britain. By a quirk of the electricity market in Northern Ireland, a bespoke definition of domestic electricity supply was required for the timely establishment of a scheme in Northern Ireland. That is what these regulations do, and I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome this instrument. It will go some way towards alleviating hardships in many Northern Ireland households.
Energy supply in Northern Ireland is very complicated because Northern Ireland has a separate energy market from the rest of the UK, with its own rules and regulations, but, as in the rest of the UK, energy costs continue to rise at a very high rate. One problem is that two-thirds of households in Northern Ireland use heating oil but, unlike in Great Britain, the oil market in Northern Ireland is not regulated. Is there any consideration of how those who use oil will be compensated? There is great competition in the oil market in Northern Ireland, and so many suppliers, so the prices can be kept at a reasonable rate.
Turning to gas, in the past 12 months both Northern Ireland gas providers, SSE Airtricity, which supplies Greater Belfast, and Firmus Energy, which supplies townlands, have increased their prices many times. There is a problem here. The gas market is even more complicated because the Utility Regulator must approve any tariff changes proposed by Firmus Energy in its 10 townland networks, but not in Greater Belfast. SSE Airtricity must also go through the regulator.
The main electricity provider in Northern Ireland is Power NI, which is overseen by the Utility Regulator, but there are other electricity providers in Northern Ireland, which increase their prices. They are not subject to the regulator and can put up their prices at any time. Has that been considered?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I want to reiterate the point raised by my noble friend Lord Browne, that a vast proportion of Northern Ireland is reliant on heating oil and not on gas or electricity for heating their homes. That is the case especially in rural Northern Ireland, which is a vast area. Many of our elderly certainly rely on it, as do those who are disabled. The payment towards heating oil—I think £100 was mentioned—is totally useless and verging on an insult to those in such need, especially as they face the winter.
As the Committee knows, domestic consumers are very concerned about the £400 payment. I trust that the Minister will be able to answer this. The previous Prime Minister confirmed that the £400 energy bills discount would be paid to householders in November and backdated to October. I believe that the Chancellor has also reaffirmed that it will be received by families before Christmas. I heard one Minister say today that you cannot believe everything you read in the papers, when she was speaking about the names of possible Peers in a couple of years’ time. There is talk that the payment may not now arrive until January. Could we have some clarification on this? Certainly, two Prime Ministers and past Chancellors and Secretaries of State have confirmed that the payment would be made in November and at the latest before Christmas. Could we have confirmation of that, as it is concerning a lot of people?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for explaining the details of the Northern Ireland energy market. I did not realise that it was quite so complicated, as it sometimes is here with multiple suppliers, and so on.
I want to make two points. The first has already been covered by noble Lords—the predominance of oil provision in Northern Ireland and how that is dealt with. Despite the strong competition, I suspect that the £100 is far from enough in being able to compensate those rural households for their energy costs.
Secondly, as the Minister will be well aware, there is a single electricity market in Northern Ireland. The grids are integrated. As noble Lords have said, it is separate from the British system. Are there any potential issues in relation to differential charging either side of the border? There may be no issues—
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord said that it was different from the “British system”. I think he means the Great Britain system. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; we are British.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. There were no implications at all. I was trying not to say “the United Kingdom”, because the system is different from that in Great Britain. I thank her for that.
I think that I have made my point. I am interested to understand whether there is any issue between the two sides of the border in terms of what is a single market.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the regulations before us and the noble Lords, Lord Browne, Lord McCrea and Lord Teverson, for their comments and questions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in particular for clarifying the depth and strength of the market in Northern Ireland. I was going to say that the regulations were not contentious, but there is a bit of contention and, no doubt, the Minister will deal with that.
The instrument defines the terms “NI domestic electricity supply” and “NI domestic gas supply” to scope the extent of premises that will be eligible. Specifically, this is to include some non-domestic premises which due to their similar metering and tariff arrangements would receive EPG support. Given there is no way for energy suppliers to disaggregate, it is difficult to disagree with this. I would be keen to hear from the Minister the scope of this impact, both in terms of the number of non-domestic premises and any additional costs incurred.
The Explanatory Notes use places of worship as an example, as did the Minister, but what other types of non-domestic premises are included? Perhaps we could turn to the experts from Northern Ireland to help us with this.
I would like to raise an issue that was brought up in the other place during the debate on this instrument on Monday. There is a scheme document linked to this instrument, headed “Establishment of domestic electricity price reduction scheme for Northern Ireland”, which in Schedule 5 states that the Government will require suppliers of electricity to hand all meter data to the Government for the purposes of regulating and discussing the domestic supply scheme.
This data will encompass many things; it will be held by the Government for 10 years and can be shared with other departments, law enforcement agencies, regulatory bodies and others. While it is not pertinent to today’s instrument, this is the same for rest of the United Kingdom in the respective document. This appears to be a breach of the data access and privacy framework which was produced when smart meters were first rolled out. It states that smart meter data is the property of the customer and can be disclosed to third parties, including the Government, only with their consent. I understand the Minister in the other place committed to write to Dr Alan Whitehead MP on this issue and I would appreciate it if the Minister could ensure that I receive the same response.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. The Government have implemented the EPG Northern Ireland scheme to ensure that consumers are protected from excessively high energy bills over the winter period, and I am sure that is something the Committee supports. The Committee will be reassured to know the scheme is already in force and delivering support to households across Northern Ireland. I hope this will also go some way to assuring the public that the Government are committed to taking decisive action to deal with the energy crisis.
As well as providing immediate relief, this scheme, alongside the EBRS, will support economic growth and limit inflation caused by increasing energy bills and their knock-on impact on prices, labour, goods and services. The scheme has been designed to operate robustly and guard against fraud and gaming, and we will continue to monitor the schemes to ensure that support is provided and limited to those people and businesses who it is designed to help. We are committed to reviewing the schemes and we will consider how best to offer further support to the customers who are most at risk to energy price increases beyond April 2023.
In response to the questions raised, I will concentrate first on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about heating oil. The noble Lord will be aware—and this was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea—that the alternative fuel payment will provide £100 to support households who do not use mains gas for heating. This alternative fuel payment is in addition to the £400 that households will receive through the energy bills support scheme. This applies in Northern Ireland and is designed to compensate for the rise in the price of heating oil from October 2022 in a way that is equivalent to the support received by people who heat their homes using mains gas and receive their support via the energy price guarantee. As the £100 alternative fuel payment is designed by reference to the increases in the price of heating oil and other alternative fuels that happened from September 2021 to September 2022, the Government are committed to continuing to monitor the prices over the coming months and we will consider further intervention if it is required to protect UK householders from extraordinary fuel prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, further asked about unregulated electricity providers in Northern Ireland. Of course, the regulation of prices is a matter for UR, the regulator in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord is right that some electricity suppliers in Northern Ireland are not price regulated. It is a competitive market, but the EPG applies to all suppliers equally—the same discount applies to all.
The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked for clarification on backdated payments. The £400 EBSS will not be backdated, as it is paid as a flat sum. The EPG is, of course, backdated via an additional pence-per-kilowatt payment on top of the base EPG rate from November to March.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also raised a point about the particular predominance of the oil provision in Northern Ireland; I think that I answered that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Browne. On the point regarding the single electricity market in Northern Ireland, there is no problem here. The measures that we are implementing are designed to support domestic consumers in Northern Ireland at the supply level as they relate to the retail market and do not impact on the underlying wholesale market. Therefore, they have no effect on the workings of the single electricity market.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, raised a point about metering and tariff arrangements and the scope of the impact on the number of non-domestic premises that have been brought into the EPG. In addition to places of worship, he questioned what other premises are included. I can confirm to him that some farms and small businesses are included. In respect of small businesses, it is those that are operating from former dwelling-houses. In reality, very few premises are affected—possibly fewer than 100 non-domestic premises are in scope—and the EPG and the EBRS of course provide equivalent support.
The noble Lord went on to ask about meter data. We are continuing to plan for and assess the use of personal data provided under the scheme documents in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Obviously, as part of this work we will ensure that we comply with any relevant legal duties under the smart meters Data Access and Privacy Framework, so the data will be used only when necessary to calculate support payments and, of course, to ensure the good use of public money, which I am sure the noble Lord will support.
With that, I think I have answered all the relevant questions—
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I do not think I heard a response from the Minister on whether the payment that was promised—the £400—would be coming out to the people of Northern Ireland before Christmas.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I cannot give the noble Lord a precise date for that now; we are working to implement it as quickly as possible. As soon as I can provide him with further information on that, I will do so. However, we are working as fast as possible, and we are aware of the urgency of the situation. We know that the money is required, and we will get it out as fast as we possibly can.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Russia in Georgia
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the influence of Russia in Georgia.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we fully support Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we work closely with the Government of Georgia to strengthen their resilience with regard to malign Russian influence through our bilateral defence and security co-operation. The NATO leaders’ summit in June agreed a tailored support package for Georgia that builds on the extensive support provided to Georgia over recent years. We expect the UK to play a leading role in the framework of this additional package, supporting strategic communications and cyberdefence.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for his Answer, but I am not sure that it fully reflects the seriousness of the current situation in Georgia. Political and economic life in Georgia, including the media, is controlled by Bidzina Ivanishvili, the multi-billionaire businessman who made his money in Russia. It is clearly documented that he still has huge assets there in the names of his relatives and business associates. This is worrying enough, but more recently there have been in the public realm 100 files of leading politicians, churchmen and diplomats, with the details of who their contacts are, who they support and any material that might be used for blackmail against them. That shows clear signs of collusion between Russian secret police and the Georgian police, the old KGB. This is a worrying situation; will the Minister ensure that the relevant bodies in the European Union are fully aware of this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I recognise the noble and right reverend Lord’s important work in support of Georgia over a number of years, not least since 2008. He raises some important issues of concern, and I will of course take them away. He spoke about sharing them with the important authorities on the ground; we do work very closely with others, including the EU. If there is more detail I can share with him, I will certainly do so.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I served for six years on the Venice Commission, where we had many problems with Georgia. Will the Minister use all his influence to encourage the Georgian parties to work together? Part of the fundamental problem in Georgia has been the inability of the political parties within its Parliament to co-operate on even the most basic things, such as the election of speakers and chairmen of committees.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure my noble friend that I am all for cross-party co-operation when it comes to good governance in our Parliaments. Despite our different perspectives and challenges, I think your Lordships’ House and the other place reflect that genuine desire to ensure good governance in Parliament. Of course, I take on board what my noble friend said. It is important that all parties work in the common interests of Georgia and ensure that the current occupation and annexation of these breakaway republics is addressed centrally, because this is a violation of its sovereign territory.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have raised with the Minister several times the threat to human rights in Georgia, particularly attacks on workers, trade unions and LGBT people. Can he tell us what steps the Government have taken to engage with civil society? As we often hear, civil society is the main guarantor of human rights when Governments fail to ensure them, so what are we doing to engage with it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I agree with him totally, not just in the context of support for civil society in Georgia but generally. Civil society is core to any progressive, inclusive, functioning democracy. We are providing support in Georgia; for example, through a range of projects focused primarily on confidence-building dialogue, funded by CSF funding. That also helps Georgia take forward public administration reform, parliamentary capacity building and good governance, and includes some of the work we are doing with civil society. On the specific groups we are working with and direct engagement, if I may, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Georgia has reported that there will actually be some economic growth in its economy because of the influx of over 112,000 young professionals who have fled Russia. In June, the European Union gave Georgia pre-application status to move towards membership of the single market and customs union, alongside Ukraine and Moldova. Will any of the technical support that the UK is providing to Georgia enable it to move closer to the European Union economic markets?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
How Georgia chooses to move forward with the EU is very much a matter for Georgia. However, I can say that we are working very closely with our European colleagues on, first and foremost, the monitoring done within Georgia, particularly vis-à-vis the breakaway republics. Our ODA funding has also grown and that is helping Georgia take forward certain reforms that I have already alluded to. Specific UK funding is also helping it to build its cyberdefences, which, in the current climate, is extremely important.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Given that Vladimir Putin is an unprincipled opportunist, can we take it that the Government are aware of the danger that the exodus into Georgia of Russians apparently wishing not to serve in the Russian forces may well include a fifth column placed there under Putin’s instructions? Will we try to ensure that such a fifth column does not do what some Russians were doing in Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first and foremost, on the issue of Russians fleeing forced conscription, I think that it is a recognition that the people of Russia themselves do not support what Mr Putin is doing, in his continued violation of the rights of the Ukrainian people. On the specific issue the noble Lord raises, on whatever perspectives may be taking place, and whether some coming through those borders may pose a direct threat, that is why the UK is cognisant of this. That is why we are investing in cybersecurity; I am sure that will help to build the intelligence base as we work with our Georgian partners.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, my question very much relates to that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Do we still have troops or observers on the South Ossetia-Georgia border, which was very much being controlled by Russians on my last visit? I wonder how much has changed since the war with Ukraine.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s final point, there has of course been a refocus on the occupation and break away of the republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. That shows that Russia, back in 2008, had malign influence, which, as well as the territorial significance of the two breakaway republics, demonstrates what Russia’s intent was both in Georgia and indeed in Crimea and Ukraine. On the specific issues, the EU monitoring mission is in Georgia and tracks the breakaway regions. We work together with our NATO allies: there is a liaison office in Tbilisi, and the UK, along with Romania, will take over as the point embassy in Tbilisi from January 2023.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, referring back to the original Question, have the Government made any assessment of how corrupt wealth is being laundered to get around sanctions in Russia by pushing the money through places such as Georgia?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, with the implementation of our sanctions policy, we are acutely aware that there will be attempts to circumvent measures taken on both individuals and organisations. Of course, we work with our key partners, including the European Union, to ensure that once sanctions are imposed, they are applied universally. Georgia itself, as the right reverend Prelate will know, has applied to become a member of the European Union, and these kinds of things are also assessed in its reporting. Whether it is here in London or indeed in Tbilisi or elsewhere in the world, we must always remain vigilant towards those seeking to circumvent sanctions policy or, indeed, launder money or illicit finance.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government should now make it clearer to the British public that the outcome of the Ukraine conflict has implications for the future of Georgia, Moldova and the various bubbling conflicts in the Balkans, where Russian influence in Serbia and Serbian Bosnia has been very strong? The larger implications of any sort of outcome in Ukraine are not really well understood by our own public. The Government need to lead in informing them.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord has valuable insights on these matters and I agree with him. The situation in Transnistria and Moldova is of extreme concern to us, particularly with the Russian influence and presence there. Equally, with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the influence remains very clear. We need an outcome where Russia withdraws from the occupied areas of Ukraine and where the breakaway republics are allowed to rejoin the sovereign territory of Georgia. Of course, regarding Transnistria—Moldova is a very small country; I have seen the challenges it faces quite directly in discussions that I have had—we need to ensure that Moldova is equally assured of its territorial sovereignty and integrity.
GPs: Anti-depressants and Alcohol
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will review the purpose, effectiveness, and the cost, of GPs prescribing anti-depressants to patients who continue to consume alcohol.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
Decisions about what medicines to prescribe, and in what circumstances, are rightly made by the clinician caring for the patient. At the same time, NICE guidelines are clear that anti-depressants should not be used to treat alcohol dependency. Prescribers must be free to make their own decisions, based on their clinical judgment and discussion with their patients, with the appropriate care for the individual always being the primary consideration.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. As we face public expenditure cuts and as the College of Medicine has estimated that 110 million items prescribed every year are wasted at a phenomenal cost, what steps are the Government going to take? Will they have discussions with GPs about the ways in which we can cut back on wasting money on useless prescriptions?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree with the premise of the question. Clearly we want the most efficient use of our resources. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, there is a national review of overprescribing, which is looking at precisely these sorts of guidelines to make sure that medicine is used only when it is needed.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, there is clear evidence that the prescribing of activities, particularly cultural activities, is very effective in treating depression in many cases. What steps are being taken to encourage the prescribing of culture and other activities, as opposed to expensive drugs?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree that the first step should normally be cognitive talking-type therapies. As the House will be aware, we have been investing quite considerably in the mental health space. We have had a 25% increase in referrals to talking therapies, to 1.8 million in the past year alone. I very much agree that there should always be action to see whether we can help with those cognitive behavioural-type therapies first before resorting to prescribing drugs.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
For some patients talking therapies and CBT may be an appropriate treatment for depression, as discussed, but for others next-generation SSRIs may be quite literally life-saving, and I am sure that no one in this Chamber would want to shame or discourage any patient who has been appropriately prescribed such a therapy. The Minister, I know, would want to suggest that GPs should be spoken to before any such action would be taken.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend and agree. It should always be down to the GP, working closely with the patient, to decide the best form of treatment, whether talking therapies or drugs, and that is why we are quite clear in the guidance that first and foremost it has to be the local clinician who makes the decision.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, made the very important point that there are differing results with different anti-depressants and different reasons for depression. A 2007 study showed that the use of anti-depressants reduced alcohol intake in those who drank a lot while they were very depressed. However, a 2011 study showed that SSRIs and alcohol often produced disinhibition. The one thing those two studies both showed was that where the physician was able to talk to the patient and explain, the patient reduced their alcohol. When will more time be available for GPs to talk these things through properly with patients?
Lord Markham (Con)
We all agree that GPs are best placed to do this. I think the House is aware of our commitment to increase the number of GP appointments by 50 million, and we are well on course to meet that target. At the same time, we have the independent review of drugs by Dame Carol Black, which looks at mental health, drugs and drink and how they are closely related, to make sure we have the best advice. First and foremost, I totally agree that the best-placed person is a GP talking to their patient.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports that the number of anti-depressant prescriptions is twice as high in the most-deprived areas compared to the least-deprived, with the differential even more marked when it comes to severe conditions. With the long-promised health inequalities White Paper now seemingly sunk without trace, where is the Government’s strategy to change the conditions that affect mental well-being in the most deprived areas?
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, as set out in the draft mental health Bill, mental health activities are very focused on where help can be given in areas of inequalities. As to the position in the White Paper, I am afraid that the answer is the same as in the previous case: I do not have any information at the moment on any date.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, the medication for mental health conditions, including addictions, can be vastly improved in outcome and the proper use of that medication if the doctor is able to test the DNA of the patient to marry up the correct medication. When is genetic testing going to become an integral part of the NHS?
Lord Markham (Con)
We all see the great promise in genetic testing, and I know that this is something very close to my noble friend Lady Blackwood’s heart. It is a progressive area, where we are seeing new treatments all the time that can be helped by the use of genetic testing. As they come down the stream, this is very much on the agenda of NICE as well to make sure that those are available as required.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, regardless of the misuse of alcohol with drugs, is there also not a danger of patients taking anti-depressants, painkillers and sleeping medication, such as codeine, becoming addicted over time? Is this carefully monitored?
Lord Markham (Con)
First and foremost, it is the role of the GP and the local clinician to monitor that. Again, the guidance given by NICE is that we very much back up and work with the NHS performance teams to make sure that things are integrated. Not only is there the meeting of the patient with the GP in the first place, but these are reviewed very frequently, on a six-monthly basis, to ensure that exactly the issues mentioned by the noble Lord are controlled.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the Government can help to reduce the use of anti-depressant drugs by tackling the root causes, which are anxiety, insecurity and poverty inflicted by the Government’s own policies. Will the Minister tell us when the Government will be in a position to reduce the NHS waiting lists back to the numbers they were at in 2010?
Lord Markham (Con)
I believe that the House is very aware of our plan for patients. It is very much the focus of my activity. I was just talking to the NHS and the CFO this morning on where we are on the recovery of the elective treatments and the plan for that, so it is very much in the front of our minds.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s initiative on environmental prescribing, particularly for depression and mental illness. Will the Minister say what assessments they have made of the success of that programme so far, and whether they will promote it further?
Lord Markham (Con)
On this occasion, that is probably a question about which I need to write back to the noble Lord to give him the detail on it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, alluded to the fact that sometimes patients would be more effectively treated through social prescribing, or cultural and arts prescribing. What advice is given to GPs to make them aware of cultural, art and music therapy in solving or tackling depression?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree that we have to make sure that GPs are equipped with the full range of tools for the job and the full range of knowledge. We are probably all aware of some instances of GPs who are very aware and progressive in this space, and others where they do not have that same level of information. We are putting a £2.3 billion increase in 2023-24 into the mental health space to treat an extra 2 million people. We need to make sure that we have a range of help that we can put in place for these people.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I echo the words of my noble friend that GPs are absolutely critical to sorting out these issues, and the Dame Carol Black review on overprescribing presumably will look into that too. Does he agree that one of the problems that urgently needs to be sorted is the pension issues that are driving our GPs to retire early? Might we look forward to some early resolution of that problem?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am very aware of the issue. Funnily enough, just today I had a meeting on this with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It is something on which we are working closely with Treasury and other officials.
Avian Flu
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they ensure that there is a regular exchange of information with other countries on the prevalence and spread of avian flu in migratory bird populations; and what steps they are taking in this regard to protect the health of seabirds and waterfowl.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, international collaboration and knowledge exchange is facilitated through the World Organisation for Animal Health by the UK Chief Veterinary Officer and the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s international reference laboratory. The UK’s membership of the Ospar-Helcom-ICES joint working group on birds and the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement are also key forums for improving collaboration, monitoring and information sharing on avian influenza in migratory birds. Defra has commissioned Natural England to assess the vulnerability of seabird species and recommend actions.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
I thank the Minister very much for his reply and for putting in place a wild bird avian influenza strategy to assess the impact of this desperately damaging disease. In view of the fact that the United Kingdom and European nations are in the grip of the worst ever outbreak of bird flu, will he now consider widening and strengthening the Government’s current measures to create a fully comprehensive avian flu response action plan, working in co-operation with the devolved Governments? This plan could include improved seabird site protection measures and the encouragement of research and development on more effective vaccines for domestic birds.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right to raise the importance of an international response to this. I assure him that there is almost daily collaboration across the devolved Governments and through international fora such as the ones I just mentioned. We are also consulting our European colleagues in the European Food Safety Authority closely; we have two officials on the panel working on this. This requires an international response. The impact it is having on our wild bird population and on domestic birds in poultry farming and other settings is tragic. We are working really hard, with a sense of real emergency, to try to find solutions, but it is a very difficult one to solve as it is now endemic in the wild bird population.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, as we have heard, avian flu is causing devastating disease in wild birds but also in our domestic fowl population. Is the Minister aware of recent research using gene-edited chicken cells in culture, which has created cells that can resist avian influenza? Does he agree that gene editing offers great hope that in future we can control the disease, at least in domesticated birds?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do agree. On Monday we will debate the Second Reading of the precision breeding Bill. It will take a number of years for the measures in that Bill to become effective, but it will undoubtedly have an impact on this kind of disease, to which we will be able to improve resistance in plant and animal species.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, some strains of avian flu are transmissible to humans. Some are very mild but others are more aggressive. Of 868 cases of human infection recorded between 2003 and October 2022, more than half—456—resulted in death. The traditional flu season is approaching. Those with flu-like symptoms tend to self-isolate and not visit the GP. How will the Government accurately assess the level of avian flu among humans in the UK and record the number of resulting deaths?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The medical advice we have received is that although this is a zoonosis and can therefore be transferred from birds to humans, the risk is low. There was one case in the UK last year, in an elderly gentleman who recovered. We give clear guidance on how to work with birds, whether in a domestic fowl setting or in picking up carcasses of birds that have died of avian influenza. There is very clear guidance on this and members of the public should be wary of getting into close association with sick birds.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, have the Government estimated, with stakeholders in the poultry business, of how long supermarket rationing will last? Is it a case of weeks or months?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There have been a number of reports of difficulties of supply. I can say that my fingers and toes are crossed when it comes to turkeys for Christmas. On egg supply, about which there has been a bit of publicity today, I can tell the House that there has been a 4.11% decrease in production, not entirely due to avian influenza. It is worth reporting that we have 38 million laying hens in this country, around 812,000 of which have died or been culled since the beginning of October. That is a 2.1% reduction in the population, with a 4.11% effect on egg production. We think that is okay. There is no need to dash to the supermarket to get eggs. We believe that the supply is safe but we are monitoring the situation on the daily basis.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that these diseases are likely to increase because of the effect of climate change? I declare my interest as chairman of the Climate Change Committee. Is he really sure that his department has adequate resources and adequate people working not just on avian flu but on the other pests and diseases that we are likely to have to face?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I invite my noble friend to join me in my monthly security meeting, which draws together people from across Defra and its agencies, looking at the risks coming from near and far. That can be quite a sobering experience. He is absolutely right that a combination of climate change and the globalised movement of people is bringing greater risks to our shores. I am full of admiration for the work that is done, and I assure him that an enormous amount of horizon-scanning goes on in trying to see where the next risk is coming from and what we can do to mitigate it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, breeding seabirds have been badly hit, particularly great skuas. Last winter on the Solway Firth, the disease killed over 16,000 barnacle geese. Seabirds are long-lived so they take longer to reach breeding age and have fewer chicks. They are already under massive pressure from climate change, a lack of prey fish and deaths from entanglement in fishing gear. What surveillance and testing systems exist for seabirds? Earlier the Minister mentioned dead birds and public health. What guidance is there on carcass removal and disposal for wild birds? What are the Government doing to prioritise and fund seabird conservation?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that this is a tragedy for populations of particular seabirds. Bass Rock, just south of Edinburgh, has been white for centuries but is now black; that is a visual reminder of the impact the disease is having.
I assure her that we are working hard. Information is available on the GOV.UK website about what people should do if they find a bird or are concerned about one. We are calling in the best advice. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has been commissioned to set up an advisory recovery group on monitoring data and evidence on whether existing conservation interventions are working and new conservation interventions that may help.
As I said, we are working internationally through the European Food Safety Authority. Our chief vet is in regular contact with colleagues in Ireland and elsewhere, including of course in the devolved Governments. We have a clear strategy, which is available for people to see, to resolve the issue.
Dealing with the disease in poultry settings is vital but it is harder to deal with among wild birds. Still, we have a clear strategy to try to mitigate it. Some possible good news is that there is evidence that some birds are developing degrees of resistance to avian flu, but it is too early to say why that is or quite what the effect will be.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, early in this outbreak there were gaps in the collection of wild birds’ carcasses, between local authorities, landowners and Defra. Is the Minister now convinced that those gaps have been filled and that lessons have been learned for inevitable future outbreaks of avian flu?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I cannot tell the noble Lord that there will never be any problems. I can report that yesterday, for example, there was a park in a town where the council said that it was not its job to pick up carcasses, it was the Environment Agency’s—which said that it was someone else’s job. These things happen. We are trying to be as clear as we can with the guidance. There should be no silo thinking here. We need these matters resolved as quickly as possible. I can assure the noble Lord that if he has any reports of where there are difficulties, I will take it up and we will try to iron them out, but there are clear processes. This is an emergency that we are dealing with on a national scale.
Parliament: Deferred Peerages
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cormack
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to recommend the conferring of deferred peerages on sitting Members of Parliament.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, it is a common-law principle that Members of the House of Lords cannot sit as MPs and, as such, would need to stand down from the House of Commons. The Government are aware that there is some precedent for individuals delaying taking up their seats, but this is limited and largely related to their personal circumstances.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Well, my Lords, we are all grateful for that Answer as far as it goes, but perhaps I might suggest to my noble friend that these rumours and stories in the press—which have the real sniff of authenticity—could, to mix my metaphors, be nipped in the bud. Does my noble friend agree that it would be very wrong for the Government to place the monarchy in an invidious position, and that it would be very wrong to create what would, in effect, be a precedent: to have a list consisting of a number of Members of the other place? Would my noble friend come forward later with a much more emphatic Answer that does indeed put an end to all the speculation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will start by saying that we do not comment on leaks and rumours—but I agree that it is a core constitutional principle that the monarch is never drawn into party politics. I think we all very much agree on that. As far as individual proposals and speculations are concerned, no list has been confirmed and I will not go any further in adding to the speculation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is one thing, as the Minister says, when someone, for personal reasons, genuinely cannot take up a seat in the House of Lords that they have been awarded, but will she recognise that it is completely unacceptable, if the rumours are true, to create a situation where four Members of Parliament hang onto their seats in the other place but can jump into this House at a time of their choosing, or at a time that is more convenient for their political party? The Prime Minister could stop this in its tracks: will he?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not think I can add to what I have said already. It is very important not to believe what you read in the newspapers; sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. A list has not been confirmed, and it is not appropriate or fair for the Government to speculate—or encourage speculation—on names that may or may not have been nominated or vetted. We need to be fair to those being considered.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in the last manifesto that the Conservatives came up with, there was a commitment for a commission on the constitution to consider questions such as the future of the House of Lords and the next stage of reform. By the time of the coming election, there will be room for another 20 to 30 net Conservatives being nominated, so clearly the House would become unbalanced again.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I mean unbalanced in favour of the Conservatives, of course. What does the Minister think might be in the next Conservative manifesto about the next stage of necessary reform of the House of Lords?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I cannot even speculate on the next Conservative manifesto, but I can of course point out that, in spite of winning elections since 2010, the Conservative voice is still underrepresented in the Lords.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As of November 2022, the Conservative party still has only 34% of the seats and recent appointments have not moved the dial. Indeed, I should point out that, when lists are brought forward, potential Peers from other parties are also considered, as was the case when they were included on the recent list, and I am very happy to welcome some of these fresh faces to our Chamber to help with our debates.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I have nothing whatever to do with whether there are too many of which party in the House. If the Minister cannot comment on the future, perhaps I can go back over the history of, say, the last 25 years. Has the time perhaps come when the exercise of the royal prerogative by the Prime Minister should be subject to some sort of legislation? If it is not subject to some sort of legislation, who on earth is ever going to control him or her?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The way this works is that the Prime Minister, of any colour, is democratically accountable and appointments to the House of Lords are a matter on which he or she advises His Majesty the King. In my view, and this is the Government’s view, appointments should not be decided by, for example, an unelected body.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, when Caligula appointed his horse as a consul, it was in order to discredit the institution. Is there not a danger that this is happening here?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My noble friend always comes to my rescue in the most extraordinary way. Of course, we are grateful for the views and exchanges being expressed today, but I come back to my first point: it is important not to speculate on what is put forward in newspapers and so on. I always remember when I was in the newspapers because I was going to be appointed director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, when I had not even put my name forward. There is a matter of fairness and appropriateness that we need to take into account—despite the fun we are obviously having in debating this today.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this is a serious legislature; this is not a playground for former friends of former Prime Ministers to come here at a moment of their convenience. We have had the Burns report and know that we should be smaller to do our job properly. Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister to meet the Burns committee—I have not asked committee members whether they would be willing—to concentrate on the important thing, which is enabling us as a serious legislature to do our job properly, with fewer Members, rather than having people waiting to come in after the next election?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The Burns committee did of course report and the Prime Minister of the day, Theresa May, decided not to sign up to its recommendations—although, as has been said, there was a manifesto commitment to look at the role of the Lords, with any reform needing careful consideration and not being piecemeal. We obviously also have the very important House of Lords Appointments Commission. Upon taking office, it is the normal thing for the Prime Minister of the day to meet the chairman of HOLAC, as he or she values the advice of the commission, which obviously includes Members of this House.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain this concept of “deferred peerages”, which is completely baffling to me? The position is surely that you become a life Peer only when Letters Patent are issued. If you are a sitting MP, Erskine May declares quite clearly that you have to give up and cease to be an MP from the moment that Letters Patent are issued. Is it simply the case that this furore is because a Prime Minister has said to various colleagues, “You’ll become a Peer at the next general election, whenever that might be”? If that is the case, surely there is no obligation whatever on any incoming Prime Minister to abide by a decision a previous Prime Minister has made?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is for the Prime Minister of the day to advise the sovereign on proposals for peerages, as the noble Lord has said. If the House will bear with me, I could mention two obvious precedents if that would be helpful. One was my noble friend Lady Davidson of Lundin Links—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
She was an MSP—but the point is that she was nominated in Boris Johnson’s Dissolution List of 31 July 2020 and her Letters Patent, to respond to the noble Lord, were issued on 16 July 2021. She was introduced to the House later that month.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The point I was making right at the beginning, which I will reiterate, is that the Government are aware that there are some precedents for individuals delaying taking up their seats. However, this is limited and related, as in this case, to particular circumstances.
Higher Education (Widening Access and Participation) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 16th November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Order Bill
Wednesday 16th November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 61-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (16 Nov 2022)
Baroness Chakrabarti
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes the lack of a reasonable excuse a component part of the offence of locking on, thus placing the burden of proof upon the prosecution.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I will rise slowly to allow the mass exodus from the Chamber of noble Lords who are fascinated by the civil liberty implications of this terrible draft legislation. The exodus is nearly, if not quite, complete.
I have the unhappy duty of opening the first detailed debate on this Bill, which has so many problems. One of them is that it criminalises innocent, legitimate activity in a way that is so vague and broad it risks a great deal of potential injustice. It is really not appropriate for legislators in either place to allow this kind of shoddy work to pass, risking the liberties of our people, many years into the future.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I am sorry to interrupt at such an early stage. My noble friend rightly said that she has the unhappy duty to move this amendment. It is astonishing that we are considering the Bill and these amendments today. My noble friend has been very much involved in the detailed discussions in relation to the Bill. In view of the outright opposition, right across the country, to some of the provisions in the Bill, have the Government given my noble friend any indication that they propose not to proceed with the Bill? It is outrageous that we continue to consider these details and amendments, and I am sure that my noble friend would agree with me. Surely the Government have had second thoughts on this by now.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend, who has been a parliamentarian of distinction in both Houses, over many years, and who cares a great deal about our constitutional climate and integrity in this country. I regret to inform him that I have heard no such cause for comfort or indication of any reflection on the part of the Government in relation to the Bill. I agree with my noble friend that that is a matter of enormous regret. As it happens, I have not heard even a hint of potential listening or movement around the Bill’s detail, let alone what my noble friend and I would prefer, which is that this terrible attack on British liberty is dumped by a Government who have seen reason.
A case in point is the new proposed criminal offence of locking on. As noble Lords will remember, a person commits this offence if they
“attach themselves to another person, to an object or to land … attach a person to another person, to an object or to land, or … attach an object to another object or to land”.
That is very vague and broad. The Bill also says that a person commits this offence if
“that act causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption”—
it does not define this—
“to … two or more individuals, or … an organisation”,
and if they “intend” the act to have that disruptive consequence or
“are reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.”
By the way, noble Lords in the Committee will remember the rather colourful and entertaining speech of my noble friend Lord Coaker when these provisions came this way the first time, before the current reheated version. It was either my noble friend Lord Coaker or my noble friend Lord Kennedy who talked about two people linking arms as they went down the road together. It was a rather colourful example of the two of them linking arms and going down the road together, which caused some amusement on all Benches in your Lordships’ House—they would perhaps take up a bit of space, if I can put it like that. But the idea that that simple, innocent act would potentially be impugned by an offence of the breadth that I have just set out is not a laughing matter, despite the amusing example.
The only crumb of comfort that the draftsmen and policymakers in the Home Department have offered is a defence—not part of the criminal offence itself—if the person charged proves that they had a “reasonable excuse” for this attachment, be it human to human, bicycle to railings or whatever. So the burden is put upon the accused person, rather than residing where it should in our criminal law: with the prosecution.
This is a terrible offence. The principle of burden flipping—reversing the burden of proof—is in relation to the new proposed offence of “locking on”, but it is present elsewhere with other offences. I object per se to reverse burdens; they are inherently very dangerous. They are sometimes necessary, but, when they are necessary, the actual conduct being impugned must be very tightly limited. It would be one thing to have an offensive weapon without a “reasonable excuse”—because you can license the holding of offensive weapons; that would make sense to me—but it does not make sense to include attaching yourself “to another person” or to property, linking arms with your chum, attaching your bicycle to railings, et cetera. These are all examples of conduct which can be potentially impugned by this criminal offence, and for which one could go to prison for nearly a year. This is totally outrageous and unacceptable.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to the other amendments in this group. If noble Lords will indulge me, as is usual with the first group of amendments, I will remind them why we have arrived at this point. The Government had already included draconian anti-protest measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—including giving the police power to place restrictions on meetings and marches if they might be too noisy, including one-person protests—when, just before the Conservative Party conference in 2020, Insulate Britain began a series of protests, including dangerously and recklessly blocking motorways. Allowing a sentence of imprisonment for highway obstruction was proposed and agreed by this House, and now many Stop Oil protestors have been either sent to prison or remanded in custody pending trial.
However, the then Home Secretary felt that she had to say something to appease Tory supporters at the Conservative Party conference: that she would introduce even more draconian anti-protest measures. Despite the PCSC Bill having already passed through the Commons, the Government introduced these even more draconian anti-protest measures, those we have before us today, as amendments in Committee of the PCSC Bill in this House. Apart from custodial sentences for highway obstruction, this House rejected all these measures on Report of the PCSC Bill.
Apart from the new stop and search powers, which some police officers and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services suggested the Government might introduce, but which the Home Office left out of the original PCSC Bill, none of the measures that we are being asked to agree to today in this Bill was requested by the police, none of the measures was supported by HMICFRS, and some that were considered, such as serious disruption prevention orders, were rejected as contrary to human rights, unworkable and likely to be ineffective.
I have Amendments 8, 29, 40, 55 and 60 in this group, which all relate to reasonable excuse. We saw, with the arrest and detention by the police of a journalist who was reporting on recent protests, the potential danger of only allowing a reasonable excuse defence to be deployed once charged, as the Government propose in this Bill. In other legislation, a person does not commit an offence if they have a reasonable excuse, and therefore cannot be lawfully arrested and detained. I might not go as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in saying that it should be for the prosecution to prove that the protestor did not have a reasonable excuse. I am reminded of the wording of Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, where
“Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence”.
If the Government are looking for compromise, as they should in the face of the opposition already expressed to these measures in this House in its consideration of the PCSC Bill and in the views expressed on this Bill at Second Reading, maybe this should be an option that they consider.
This is even more important than the offensive weapon example, in that these are basic human rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the rights of expression and assembly. To allow people who are exercising their human rights, who have a reasonable excuse for what they are doing, to be deprived of those rights by being arrested and detained, as the Government propose, but where the reasonable excuse for exercising their rights can only be considered once they have been charged, cannot be right.
In Clause 3(2), for example, the proposed legislation says, in relation to tunnelling,
“It is a defence … to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for creating, or participating in the creation of, the tunnel.”
Clause 3(3) says,
“a person is to be treated as having a reasonable excuse … if the creation of the tunnel was authorised by a person with an interest in land which entitled them to authorise its creation.”
I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I have this wrong but, say a landowner instructs workers to build a tunnel on her land, which she owns, before it is subject to a compulsory purchase order to facilitate a development, in order to disrupt the development, which she objects to, she and her workers can be arrested, detained and charged, and only then can they deploy the reasonable excuse defence that the Government provide for in the Bill. How can that be right?
In relation to the obstruction of major transport works, the Bill provides specifically, in Clause 6(2)(b), that if the action
“was done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute”,
the person has a reasonable excuse, but Clause 6(2) says that
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence”.
Again, the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but does that mean that lawful pickets, on a picket line, can be arrested by the police, detained, and charged and can deploy the reasonable excuse defence only once charged? The Minister may say that the police would not arrest those engaged in lawful picketing—even though the proposed legislation would allow it—but, presumably, the Minister also believes that a mainstream journalist, with an accredited press pass, reporting on a protest, would not be arrested and detained for five hours by the police, and would also deny that. Similar arguments apply in relation to Amendment 60 to Clause 7.
We have seen from the arrest of the journalist that the police cannot always be trusted in every circumstance to use their judgment and not use the powers given to them in legislation. If someone has a reasonable excuse for their actions—we will come to a discussion of what amounts to a reasonable excuse in the next group—such as an accredited press card holder reporting on a protest, they should not have a defence once arrested, detained and charged, but the police should not be allowed to arrest and detain them in the first place. That is the desired effect of the amendments in this group and we strongly support them.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 1 and 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I support to similar effect Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which coincides with that proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. They relate, of course, to the locking-on offence in Clause 1, which, as the noble Baroness said, is an offence for which the actus reus is extraordinarily broad. You do not have to attach yourself to railings to commit it; it is enough to “attach an object”—any object—
“to another object or to land.”
Nor is there any requirement that serious disruption be caused; it is enough that the act
“is capable of causing, serious disruption”,
a term undefined, at least so far, and that you are “reckless” as to whether it does so.
When I raised this point at Second Reading, the Minister was good enough to say that he would write to me on it, and I thank him for doing so. He makes the point in his letter that the defendant has personal knowledge of the facts, making it reasonable for him to have to establish them. I agree with that: no one, I understand, objects to the evidential burden resting on the defendant, and I apprehend that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was just saying, but it is clear from the letter that the Government’s intention is to go further and to place the legal burden on the defendant of proving lawful excuse.
The letter explains that there are times when the evidential and legal burden of proof may legitimately fall on the defendant, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence. One of those times, as the Minister said, is when you are carrying a bladed article in a public place. You may then be expected to prove that you had good reason to avoid conviction under Section 139(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. But as the court said in the relevant case, L v DPP:
“There is a strong interest in bladed articles not being carried in public without good reason”.
The public interest in objects not being attached to other objects is less strong, to put it mildly, particularly against the background of the fundamental right to protest.
As Lord Bingham went on to say in Sheldrake, now the leading case on reverse burdens, security concerns do not absolve the state from its duty to observe basic standards of fairness. There are cases not referred to in the Minister’s letter, such as DPP v Wright, a Hunting Act prosecution, in which it was held to be oppressive, disproportionate, unfair and unnecessary to impose a legal burden on the defendant. Then there is the point well made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights: if the reasonable excuse is an afterthought, rather than an ingredient of the offence, protesters will be liable to be arrested whether they had a reasonable excuse or not. It is undesirable in principle for the possible defence to arise for consideration only after arrest or charge.
The curious thing about this debate, it seems to me, is that it is unlikely to affect the ease of conviction one way or the other. Once it is accepted that a protester may legitimately be asked to bear the evidential burden, then the legal burden, whatever the legal significance of the point, will rarely matter much in practice. The court will take its own view on whether the excuse is reasonable or not and not usually spend much time on the technical issue of burden of proof. Indeed, that was another point made by Lord Justice Pill in the L v DPP case, on which the Government relied in the Minister’s letter to me. In other cases where the Government have overstepped the mark by putting a legal burden on the defendant when they should not have done so, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act has come to their rescue, by enabling the reverse burden to be interpreted as a merely evidential burden that does not get in the way of the presumption of innocence. That emergency cord will not be available to the Government if the courts rule against them on reverse burden after the Bill of Rights has removed Section 3, as appears to be their intention.
I approach this issue in a spirit not so much of crusading zeal as of some bafflement that the Government would take such a legally risky course for so little practical advantage. I suggest that the orthodox approach to these offences is also the fairer approach for members of the public, and the safer approach for police, prosecutors and the Government. The prosecution should simply have to prove its case in the normal way.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I am happy to add my name to the group of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in perhaps a more crusading spirit than the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
If asked, most people would say that the most important principle in our legal system is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. They would be surprised, and should be alarmed, by the extent to which this principle has been steadily eroded in our legal practice, of which this clause is a good example. As the clause stands, a defendant would have to prove in court that they had a reasonable excuse for committing the offence specified in Clause 1(1)(a).
Our amendment is designed to ensure that the police must prove in court that the defendant had no reasonable excuse for committing the offence. In other words, the police would need to prove that A and B, charged with walking down a street linking arms, had no reasonable excuse for doing so. As the burden of proof will fall on the police, they are less likely to arrest and charge people indiscriminately without a reasonable cause for doing so.
It is a very important point. The effect of this amendment will be to diminish the number of people detained and arrested for no offence. If we can achieve that, it will be an important thing to have done.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hendy has added his name to Amendment 60. In his unavoidable absence, I will speak to that amendment in words which are largely his, although I support and endorse all the amendments in this group.
The purpose of Amendment 60 is simple: to make more effective the protection the Government intend to provide for those with a reasonable excuse or those engaged in a trade dispute in the current version of Clause 7. I will focus specifically on trade disputes, with which I have some affinity.
By way of preliminary, it should be noted that the phrase
“in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute”
originated in the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is now found in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, where is also found the definition of a trade dispute. For the purposes of today’s debate, it is sufficient to say that trade disputes encompass disputes over terms and conditions of employment and certain other industrial relations matters.
As drafted, Clause 6 recognises that obstruction or interference, which constitute the offence in subsection (1), may well be applicable to those picketing in the course of a trade dispute. Clause 6(2) seeks to exclude pickets from being found guilty of the subsection (1) offence. However, the way the subsection is drafted means that a person in such a situation, as we have heard, may be arrested, charged and brought before the court. It is only when presenting their defence that the trade dispute defence will achieve the protection afforded by the Bill.
Those who have signed this amendment and the rest of us who support it hope that, if someone is acting in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, they will not be liable, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to be arrested, charged or brought to court for a subsection (1) offence. The defence should kick in before that point.
It is important to bear in mind three points. First, the right to picket in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute is a statutory right, now set out in Section 220 of the consolidation Act of 1992 but with its origins in the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875. The price of the right to picket was that no protection was given for the offences created by the 1875 Act, such as “watching and besetting”, fascinatingly; nor has it been given for the array of other potential offences such as obstructing a public highway or an officer in the exercise of his duty, or more serious offences.
Since 1875, the right to picket has been regulated and restricted by many amendments to the relevant law, the latest being several requirements imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016, now found in Section 220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This leads to the second point: the amendment seeks only to strengthen the protection against this specific offence; all other potential offences which might occur in the course of a trade dispute remain open to charge. The amendment does not seek to enlarge the right to picket.
The final point is this: a picket in the course of a dispute is not a secret activity; it is not one of which local police will be unaware. The very purpose of a picket—and I can attest to this from having stood on many of them myself—in the words of Section 220 of the 1992 Act is that of
“peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working.”
To this end, pickets draw attention to themselves, to their union, and to the dispute they seek to further in the hope of persuading others not to cross the picket line. Your Lordships will be familiar with images of picket lines, and over the last few months, perhaps even familiar with actual pickets. The police will have no difficulty in recognising those acting in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute long before they, no doubt vociferously, proclaim it.
More than that, under Section 220A, a picket supervisor must be appointed by the union. She or he must be familiar with the very extensive Code of Practice on Picketing, and, most importantly for our purposes, she or he must take reasonable steps to tell the police his or her name, where the picketing will take place, and how he or she may be contacted. The section also requires that the picket supervisor must be in attendance on the picket or able to attend at short notice. She or he must be in possession of a letter of authority from the union which must be produced on demand; significantly hedged about, therefore.
It is right that in the creation of this new offence the Government have not sought to encroach on the protection of the right to picket in industrial disputes, a right which is also protected by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and hence the Human Rights Act 1998. This amendment is exceedingly modest: it asks that the protection be made effective by preventing a picket from being charged with a new offence.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and even more of a pleasure to reflect on the words of our good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. Before he came into this House, I do not think that we had quite the same level of wisdom and knowledge about the details of trade union legislation.
I too rise to ask that the Minister gives serious consideration to accepting Amendment 60; all it does is make it quite clear that a person, picket or trade union does not commit an offence under the clause by removing the words:
“It is a defence for a person charged with”—
they should not ever be “charged with”. This is a perfectly legitimate action undertaken by people in pursuance of a trade dispute, and quite reasonable. So I ask the Minister to look very carefully at Amendment 60, and when it comes back, to see whether this amendment cannot be accepted, because it is a very sensible amendment.
One could make virtually the same speech on many of the clauses in the Bill. I do wonder: what are we trying to achieve? Most of the things in the Bill are already offences. If we have a problem, it is that the police do not seem to think that it is worth prosecuting them—of course, we saw in the last few days that glorious picture of 11 rather bewildered policemen standing in the middle of the M25, gazing at a gantry.
This is not a sensible way to make laws; I am not sure that it appeals even to the Daily Mail. A lot of the Bill is reflex action stuff. It is man-in-the-pub stuff: “Oh, we don’t like this”—of course we do not want people to stick themselves to the pavement, but the law already exists. Between now and Report, I ask the Minister to have a very careful look at what we are trying to achieve, whether the Bill achieves it and, in particular, Amendment 60 and the Bill’s effect on the trade union movement—I probably should have declared that I am the president of a TUC-affiliated trade union —and its many voluntary workers who spend their leisure time trying to improve the lives of their colleagues. Please can the Minister have another look?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. I absolutely agree with his fundamental point that here we are trying to create offences which are not necessary because there are already adequate offences to deal with these situations. I do not understand why the police have not used those existing offences in entirely appropriate situations.
I apologise for not having been able to speak at Second Reading, and I will try to be very brief now as a result. We have a situation here in which we are responding to someone else saying to us, “Something has to be done.” There are often situations in which, when we hear those words, the answer should be, “No, it doesn’t; we just need to do the things we have rather better”, and not produce a load of speciality legislation that will barely be used.
Sitting just behind me is a former Director of Public Prosecutions, my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. I have heard him, very recently in fact, talk in another setting of the discretion not to prosecute that is vested in prosecutors. I apprehend that in many of the cases we are thinking of here, the police will NFA—no further action—a lot of them. If they do get to the Crown Prosecution Service because the police have not NFAd them, Crown prosecutors will NFA them using the second part of the CPS code test; namely, the public interest. It is very important, is it not, for us and the authorities which we invest with these powers to be proportionate in their use of them?
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others who have said that it is much better in principle for the whole burden and standard of proof to fall on the prosecution. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Anderson that there is a bit of dancing on pins about that; it does not really make much difference in the end.
We should not be creating offences where, if they are summary offences, lay magistrates are going to find it very difficult to square their consciences with convicting people charged with them, and where—this is the worst possible scenario—if they are triable by jury, the jury may refuse to convict when there is overwhelming evidence that the offence was committed. Juries have done that recently, not least in relation to the Colston statue case in Bristol.
If your Lordships will allow me one quotation, I return in the end to some of the very wise words of Dr Martin Luther King, who said:
“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
That does not mean that a member of Just Stop Oil has the right to block the M25; the just or unjust law they would be dealing with is not the Government’s policies on oil but whether it should be a crime to obstruct the highway, so it will not actually help them very much in those cases. What I really want to say is that I think we will spend many hours today talking about issues that we really should not be troubling ourselves with at all.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I shall follow up on precisely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just made about whether we are wasting our time on something which we should not really be discussing because the offence is already there. As a non-lawyer, I tread with some trepidation in this area, as the Committee will understand, but I would like to have clarified the extent to which the law to deal with this problem already exists. This has concerned me.
I took part at Second Reading and I was very interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who has operational experience in dealing with problems similar to this, if not this particular problem. No doubt there were similar efforts of a similar kind before this business of locking on to block roads. In his remarks, he said that until recently,
“obstructing the highway has always been a simple offence—an absolute offence. No intent required”.
That had been the position, apparently. However, I gather from his speech that subsequently the Court of Appeal was overruled by the Supreme Court, which said that, if a protest is obstructive, the circumstances of that protest should be taken into account. The noble Lord also said:
“Crucially, it means that protesting in a way that obstructs road users is not automatically a criminal offence.”—[Official Report, 1/11/22; col. 174.]
Therefore, as a lay man, it seems to me that some doubt has been bought into the question of whether an ordinary police officer, acting as he thinks sensible, has the right to stop someone obstructing the highway, even if he thinks the cause is just. There seems to be some doubt, so I hope that when he comes to wind up my noble friend can clear this up. If there is no doubt here, why are we discussing all this? If there is some doubt, there is every reason to have the Bill and this clause. It seems to me that in that situation we need clarity.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
If I am to be corrected, I am, but may I just offer a view? It is an offence to wilfully obstruct the highway. Of course, if you obstruct it because a person in your car is having a heart attack and needs attention, there will probably be a reasonable excuse for the obstruction and that is a defence. However, it is a summary offence to obstruct the highway, punishable by imprisonment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Before the noble Lord continues, I ask him to point to the provisions in this Bill that make up for the problem relating to highway obstruction that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, identified. Having read this in detail, my understanding is that nothing in the Bill addresses the noble Lord’s concern. Therefore, the question remains: why are we discussing this?
Lord Horam (Con)
The Bill addresses this point, but we could spend for ever on that. None the less, I understand that the Bill is designed to bring clarity to the issue of whether a police officer is within his rights to deal with an obstruction, for whatever cause that obstruction may occur. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile; clearly, in the situation he outlined, the police officer would exercise his common sense and would not arrest the person in question. Therefore, it seems to me that, if we seek clarity, the more we add bits and pieces to the legislation that put down reasons why people may have a right to protest—for some reason which they bring forward—we simply fudge the whole issue and deduct from the clarity that we need. At the end of the day, people really do want this clarified: they want to know what the rights and duties of the police officer are, and that they are accordingly following those thoroughly.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, the extent to which there are gaps in our current legislation that require filling by this legislation is a substantial question. I, for one, will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say about this, because it seems to me that it is incumbent on the Government to point out what those gaps and loopholes are, and where those gaps and loopholes are being exploited. If the reality is that we have sufficient legislation in place but it is simply not being rigorously applied, that is no argument at all for new legislation: it is an argument for the current legislation to be properly applied. I am absolutely confident that we have legislation to deal with people who climb up on to motorway gantries and cause 50,000 or 60,000 cars to be blocked from travelling around the M25. With respect, I defy the Government to argue with any persuasive force that we do not have legislation to deal with that.
So far as the point made by the noble Lord on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Ziegler is concerned, that reasoning would of course apply to every clause in this legislation. All that the court was saying was that when individuals are arrested for an offence in circumstances where they are exercising their Article 10 free expression rights, a proportionate examination has to be undertaken by the court as to whether the inconvenience, for example, that they are causing is so minimal that it is overwhelmed by their Article 10 rights to protest and that they should therefore be allowed to do so. Of course that is right and it would apply to every clause in the Bill. If the disruption is significant, it will almost always, in my judgment, overcome any Article 10 defence. But I ask, particularly in respect of the offence of locking on: where are the gaps that the Government say exist that need filling by this clause and subsequent clauses in the Bill?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I shall open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for setting the scene and the background to this group of amendments. I agree with the way that he set out the history of this group of amendments. I also thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for the way she set out her amendments and commented on the other amendments. I agree with her assessment that the Bill, as drafted, is vague and broad—and that it is vague and broad in a dangerous way. I agree with those central points.
Throughout the Bill, a number of clauses state that it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under the clause to
“prove that they had a reasonable excuse”
for their actions. As we have heard, the JCHR flagged this as a reverse of the burden of proof, so that rather than the prosecution having to prove that a person’s actions were done without a reasonable excuse and so were unlawful, it is for the defendant to prove, after they have been charged, that they had a reasonable excuse for their actions. This is in contrast to an offence such as obstruction of the highway, which we have just heard about, where the prosecution must prove that the defendant did not have lawful authority or excuse for their actions. For the new locking-on offence, the burden of proof would be on the defendant to show that he or she had a reasonable excuse.
Such a reverse burden of proof may be inconsistent not only with Articles 10 and 11 but with the presumption of innocence—a central principle of criminal justice and an aspect of Article 6 of the ECHR and the right to a fair trial. This is because requiring the defendant to prove something, even on the balance of probabilities, may result in a conviction despite there being an element of doubt, and it is hard to see why a reverse burden is necessary or appropriate in this case. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, gave the example of a bladed article and the reverse burden of proof in that context. It is of course a defence I am very familiar with as a sitting magistrate in London. It is of course right that the court will take its own view on whether the reverse burden of proof is reasonable in these circumstances.
I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that the better situation is that a police officer, when considering whether to charge, at that point takes into account whether there is a reasonable excuse, rather than it being subsequently resolved in a court case—although I also acknowledge the legal point made by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Anderson, that it is not always simple to distinguish between the two. Nevertheless, the point is that the police officer should take into account a potential reasonable excuse defence before deciding whether to charge.
To summarise this debate, two noble Lords made points that I thought were particularly resonant. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked whether this was speciality legislation for ever more exotic offences that can be extremely annoying to the general public. As many noble Lords have said in this debate, there is existing legislation to deal with those offences, and there is scepticism that the police are feeling able to use the legislation that is already within their power. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, challenged the Minister to give examples of the gaps in the existing laws: in fact, he defied the Minister to go ahead and give those examples.
I also want to comment briefly on my noble friend Lady Blower’s speech on Amendment 60, which of course I agreed with. I also agreed with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that in the case of industrial action it should not be a reasonable excuse. The offences should never be charged in the first place. It is the same point, in a sense, that the potential use of a reasonable excuse should be taken into account right at the beginning of the process rather than once you get to a court case.
Although the amendments focus on particular detailed provisions in this Bill, I think a challenge has been laid down to the Minister to give examples and to say why this is necessary when we have a plethora of laws which are being used. The demonstrators on the M25 have moved on partly because of the sentences that have been given to them, so what is the necessity of pursuing this legislation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, to which I have listened carefully. Before I turn to the specific amendments in the group, I shall start by setting out the case for Clauses 1 to 8 and why I disagree with the general thrust of many of the amendments that we are going to discuss today that seek to make these offences less effective.
Before I do that, I shall go on to a couple of general points. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that this House had already rejected these measures, but one of the main criticisms that noble Lords made during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was that the measures had not been debated in the House of Commons. The elected House has now had an opportunity to scrutinise this legislation and vote on the Government’s proposals and has supported its move into the House of Lords.
A number of noble Lords mentioned compatibility with the ECHR. I reaffirm that it is the Government’s view that the measures in this Bill are compatible with the ECHR, namely the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association. However, these rights are not absolute. They do not extend to wreaking havoc on the lives of others. Of course, however, as with all existing public order powers, the police will absolutely need to act compatibly with the human rights of protesters when using those powers.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
It appears from his general introduction that the Minister is going to proceed with this Bill. Surely, in the light of the overwhelming view on both sides of the House that existing legislation is entirely adequate—with one slight hesitation from the noble Lord, Lord Horam—it is a waste of the Minister’s valuable time and this House’s time to proceed with this. Will he now quickly have a rethink and withdraw this Bill?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Well, I thank the noble Lord for that, and the answer is, of course, no.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
That is a very clear answer. I wonder whether the Minister could give, perhaps, a sentence or two of explanation as to why he does not think that it would be a wise move to withdraw this Bill, since all its aspects are already covered by existing legislation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is reasonable to say at this point that we are about to have two days of quite detailed explanation on that, so I am afraid that that is as far as I can go on this.
Returning to the more general points that have been made so far in this debate, particularly as to why the police need these powers, what existing powers they have, and so on and so forth, we will be returning to this in a much later group, and I intend to speak in much more detail on it. From a general point of view, recent protests were clear that they had as their aim the intent of causing as much disruption as possible through the use of what can only be described as guerrilla tactics. These measures give the police the proactive powers necessary to respond to these dangerous and disruptive tactics quickly. We are going to work closely with our partners in the police to ensure that they have the support and resources in place that they need to use these powers.
Again, as my noble friend Lord Horam remarked, too often we have seen protesters acquitted on grounds of technicalities or get penalties that do not reflect the harm that they have caused to others. We want simple, stand-alone offences that ensure that those who cause this level of disruption and misery can be convicted and receive a penalty proportionate to the harm that they have caused. I will return more specifically to the legislation in a later group; I hope that will be acceptable.
To give one example of this type of behaviour, just two Just Stop Oil activists climbed the suspension cables of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge in the early hours of 17 October this year. They caused its closure for more than 36 hours. Once discovered, the Essex Police attended and closed the carriageway so that officers could safely leave their vehicles in an attempt to engage with the activists. It was later advised by National Highways to keep the road closed for the safety of the protesters, road users and responding partners. The closure of the carriageway meant that the entirety of the clockwise traffic from Essex to Kent that usually utilises the QE2 bridge had to be diverted through the east bore of the Dartford Tunnel, halving the usual counter-clockwise Kent-Essex traffic capacity that would normally use all the tunnels at the Dartford crossing. This had a number of knock-on impacts in terms of the emergency services and local communities and businesses. I am sure that we are all familiar with what those were.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised a hypothetical example of a landowner in respect of a tunnel.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Before the Minister continues, can he point to which part of this Bill would be deployed against the two Just Stop Oil activists who climbed on the QE2 bridge?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Well, we are about to go into a good deal of discussion about things such as serious disruption, key national infrastructure and so on, which form essential parts of this Bill. I am not a policeman, but I imagine that the police are perfectly capable of utilising those aspects of the Bill.
I come to the hypothetical example of the landowner that the noble Lord raised earlier. It is worth pointing out, in relation to the entire Bill, that the threshold is “serious disruption”. In the case that the noble Lord outlined, that is clearly not the case, so there would be no case.
I move on to the measures in Clauses 1 to 8. As well as the measures we will discuss next week, the police will have the proactive powers necessary to respond quickly to these dangerous and disruptive tactics.
I turn to the specific amendments in the group. Amendments 1, 7, 8, 24, 28, 29, 35, 39, 40, 55 and 59, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, seek to move the burden of proof for a reasonable excuse from the defendant to the prosecution, making it a key element of the offence. We will debate the subjects that the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, raised with regard to trade disputes in the fourth group today, so I will defer specific answers to those questions until the debate on that group.
Whether or not someone has a reasonable excuse for their actions is very specific to each particular incident, so we see it as entirely appropriate that the defendant, who has committed the offence in the first place and has personal knowledge of these facts, is required to prove them. It is also the case that the burden of proof resting on the individual is not a novel concept. There are multiple offences where this is the case, including—as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out—the defence of good reason for possessing a bladed article in a public place under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, raised the example of linking arms. Of course linking arms itself is not an offence; it is an offence and applicable only if the act
“causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to … two or more individuals, or … an organisation”.
Groups of protesters linking arms and obstructing roads or buildings can cause just as much disruption as those who use other equipment to lock on. For example, it is not right that groups of people who glue themselves to roads may fall under this offence but those who link arms and cause just as much disruption do not.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on why the burden of proof being on the defendant is in the public interest, we have seen people cause so much serious disruption and then continue to burden the prosecution with more and more requirements to prove things. Surely it is right that, where people have caused this kind of disruption, they should demonstrate that they had a reasonable excuse.
With these offences, the prosecution will still need to prove all the elements of the offence to the criminal standard of proof, including that the act
“causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption”,
as I just explained, and that the defendant intended or was reckless as to serious harm disruption. For those reasons, I respectfully disagree with the amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, we will come back to that in some detail in the debate on a later group. The amendments have been grouped thematically today so there will be a bit of overlap, for which I apologise. For now, I respectfully disagree with these amendments and ask that they not be pressed.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Will the Minister at some point explain to us why Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, introduced by this Government, does not meet exactly the requirements discussed in this Bill? It is not an ancient Act of Parliament but a new one, and it seems to me to fit the bill proportionately.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I commit to doing that in the debate on a later group.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Can the Minister address the issue of people being arrested and detained, and being allowed to deploy a reasonable excuse defence only once charged, as opposed to someone not committing an offence if they have a reasonable excuse, which is the normal process with most legislation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think I have gone into reasonable detail on the reasonable excuse situation, so I will rest my comments there for now.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am sorry to disagree with the Minister, but he addressed the issue of whether the burden of proof was on the prosecution or on the defence. He did not address, in any shape or form, police being allowed to arrest and detain people and their being allowed to deploy the reasonable excuse defence only once charged.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
If the Minister is going to come back to my noble friend, could he do so in this Chamber? That question is absolutely fundamental to the discussion on the Bill. To have the answer in writing, available in the Library if one goes to look for it, is in our view not adequate.
Lord Paddick (LD)
This is Committee, so we are allowed this sort of debate. I want to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said about Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. It says:
“A person commits an offence if … the person … does an act, or … omits to do an act that they are required to do by any enactment or rule of law … the person’s act or omission … obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large, and … the person intends that their act or omission will have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (b)”.
That covers, completely and perfectly, the people on the gantry of the QEII Bridge. The maximum sentence for that activity is up to 10 years in prison. None of the provisions in this Bill goes anywhere near 10 years in prison. Why do the Government not rely on existing legislation rather than creating all these other offences?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think I have already gone into that. As I say, the Bill creates another set of offences designed to deal with evolving protests, but I will come back on the specific point about the PCSC Act.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am almost speechless. I do not blame the Minister, but those briefing him really need to consider what we have been discussing today; we are talking about the rights and freedoms of people in this country, and it is a very serious issue.
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate on the first group. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for, as always, bringing his policing expertise as well as his parliamentary skills to the debate. I also thank him for mentioning Charlotte Lynch, the LBC journalist who was arrested last week beside the M25 with a valid press card and with a microphone that was clearly branded with the name of her broadcaster. She offered her press card to the police, who then slapped handcuffs on her. They took her mobile phone from her and started scrolling to see who she might have been speaking to. Perhaps she had been tipped off about the protest by protesters; that is what journalists do in a free society. She was subjected to a body search and taken to Stevenage police station. She was detained in the police station in a cell with an open toilet and a simple bed for five hours, and was eventually let go without a police interview. Records show that they arrested her for the offence of “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance”. That happened under the existing law.
Now, without addressing concerns about incidents of that kind, and in the wake of what happened to Sarah Everard and all the crises there have been in public trust in policing in this country, the Government are proposing this suite of new offences—yet the Minister has not been able to identify the gap that those offences are supposed to address. That is a matter of considerable concern—a concern which was mentioned by almost every speaker in this debate, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and the Minister himself. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, called for clarity in the law, but I am afraid I was not totally clear which provisions or amendments he was addressing.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, gave a master class on issues of burdens of proof and reverse burdens, which are sometimes used in law. However, I remind the Minister that, when they are used in law, it is in relation to very tight offences that are problematic per se, such as carrying a blade or point in a public place. Most members of the public understand that that is not innocent activity; it is incumbent on somebody to explain why they needed to be carrying that knife in the street. That is not the case with carrying a bicycle chain or linking arms with a friend. That is innocent activity per se that is rendered criminal in certain circumstances, and so it is particularly dangerous to flip the burden of proof. Further, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, it is essential that the person should be able to say to the police officer before they are arrested—not seven hours later, in Stevenage police station—that they have a legitimate reason for what they have done. I ask the Minister to think about Charlotte Lynch when he reflects on the powers that he is being asked to justify by others in this Chamber.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I suggest to my noble friend that it also leads to juries being less and less likely to convict because they see these offences as being very spurious.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. Again, it echoes something that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said. He will forgive me if I summarise his excellent contributions: let us not bring the law into disrepute—not in this place. We are not an elected House, but we are a scrutinising Chamber; we have the time and expertise to make sure that we do not bring our statute book into disrepute. That is where we agree, across the Benches and across this Committee.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, that having proportionality in our law is not a problem; it is a benefit. Ministers should not work so hard to squeeze out the judgment and proportionality that must be employed by decision-makers, including police officers and courts.
I will stop there, save to say once more to the Minister that he has not been well served in some of his briefing. Respectfully, it is perfectly legitimate for Members in this Committee to begin by asking the Government to justify why they are legislating and where there is a gap in the existing law, because that central point has not been addressed in this hour of debate. If we do not address it, there will be more cases like that of Charlotte Lynch, and others who are not journalists—in some cases they are bystanders and in some cases they are peaceful dissenters. There is plenty of police power on the statute book and some of it has been abused. There are plenty of criminal offences and some of them have not been used when perhaps they might. It really is for the Government to justify interfering further with the spirit of British liberty. With that, I will—for now only—beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, before calling Amendment 2, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendment 3 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 2
Lord Paddick
Member's explanatory statement
This would limit the offence to an act that causes serious disruption.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2 in my name I will speak to the other 12 amendments in this group. Amendment 2, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is related to the offence of locking on. I remind noble Lords that the Government’s Explanatory Notes suggest that
“Recent changes in the tactics employed by … protesters have highlighted some gaps in … legislation”,
of which this is one. Suffragettes chained themselves to railings, so to suggest that this is a gap in legislation as a result of recent changes in tactics employed by protesters is nonsense. I expect the Minister will challenge such an assertion, but we can debate that when he responds.
This amendment would narrow the offence of locking on where such actions—attaching themselves or someone else to another person, an object or the road, for example, to cause serious disruption—by removing the wider offence of an act that
“is capable of causing, serious disruption”.
Can the Minister explain what “capable of causing” actually means? If someone locks on in a minor side road or at the entrance to a cul-de-sac, causing little or no disruption, but had similar action been taken on a busy major road it would have been capable of causing serious disruption, would they commit an offence in such circumstances? If they block a busy major road at 3 am when there is no traffic, whereas had it been 10 am they would have caused major disruption, does that amount to it being capable of causing serious disruption in another place and time? Amendment 2 seeks to restrict the offence of locking on to incidents where serious disruption is actually caused to probe what “capable of causing” means and how widely the offence would be applied.
Amendment 25 in my name would again remove “is capable of causing” in relation to the offence of tunnelling, for similar reasons. Can the Minister explain what sort of tunnel might be capable of causing serious disruption but does not actually do so? Why, in that case, does it need to be criminalised? Similarly, Amendment 36 in my name, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Fox of Buckley, seeks to remove “is capable of causing” in relation to the offence of being present in a tunnel. Again, can the Minister explain how someone’s presence in a tunnel might be capable of causing serious disruption without actually doing so?
Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which we support and is signed by my noble friend Lady Ludford, similarly seeks to limit the scope of the offence by removing the reference to causing serious disruption to two or more people and replacing it with
“serious disruption to the life of the community”,
as suggested by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We support this amendment.
Amendment 4, in my name and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Skidelsky, seeks to restrict the offence to cases where there is an intent to cause serious disruption—not merely, as currently drafted in Clause 1(1)(c), being
“reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence”.
Can the Minister give an example of when someone who does not intend to cause serious disruption should be guilty of the offence—in this case, of locking on —when they are simply exercising their right to protest?
Amendment 26, in my name, similarly seeks to narrow the tunnelling offence to cases where there is an intent to cause serious disruption, rather than where someone is merely “reckless” as to whether their tunnel might cause serious disruption. Can the Minister give an example of reckless tunnelling that might fall within the scope of the offence as drafted?
Similarly, Amendment 37, in my name and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, seeks to narrow the definition of the offence of being present in a tunnel to cases where there is an intention to cause serious disruption. Would a journalist who goes to interview protestors in a tunnel be guilty of an offence of being reckless as to whether her presence in the tunnel might cause serious disruption, for example? Can the Minister provide any reassurance?
Amendment 6, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, quite rightly attempt to place a definition of serious disruption on the face of the Bill, rather than asking us to sign a blank cheque where such a definition is decided by the Secretary of State subsequently by statutory instrument.
Similarly, in relation to the tunnelling offence and the being present in a tunnel offence, Amendments 27 and 38 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, seek to provide a definition on the face of the Bill of serious disruption in relation to tunnelling.
Amendment 17, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and supported by my noble friend Lady Ludford and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, seeks to define
“serious disruption to the life of the community”
in Amendment 3.
Finally in this group, Amendment 54, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lady Ludford, to which we give qualified support—subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, will say in explaining the amendment—seeks to provide a definition of serious disruption to major transport works, as suggested by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, we have concerns over the inclusion of “reckless” in this definition, for reasons I have previously explained.
I think noble Lords will see the complexity of this Bill and the problem we have in trying to cram so many amendments into one group. If the Minister is able to respond to each and every remark I have made, I will be astonished. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, my name is to Amendments 6, 27 and 38, which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. They answer a question which was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who asked if there is a definition of “serious disruption” in the Bill. There is not, and my amendments seek to provide a definition. I am concerned about the meaning of words, which is always crucial in Bills of this kind.
I am a member of the Constitution Committee and in our scrutiny of the Bill we noted that the clauses which use the phrase “serious disruption” create offences which could result in severe penalties. Most of them may be taken summarily before a magistrate, but then they lead on to other things. They could, in due course, lead to a serious disruption prevention order and all that that involves. The committee took the view that a definition should be provided.
We looked at Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred, but, in our view, if one has to go down the line of designing a new offence, that definition was not tailored to the offences that we are talking about in the Bill. Therefore, the committee’s recommendation was that the meaning of “serious disruption” should be clarified proportionately in relation to each of the offences where the phrase arises.
In regard to locking on, I seek to say that “serious disruption” means
“a prolonged disruption of access to places where the individuals or the organisation live or carry on business or to which for urgent reasons they wish to travel”—
a hospital appointment, for example—
“or a significant delay in the delivery of time sensitive products or essential goods and services.”
So I have tried to design something that is very specific to the locking-on offence described in Clause 1.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I cannot sit still any more. I am starting to feel sorry for the Minister, who is on a very sticky wicket because this is clearly rubbish legislation. I do not understand how it got through or who directed the civil servants to write it. It is absolute rubbish. We have heard all of the arguments about how it is so broadly written and will criminalise too many people—many more than the peaceful protesters whom the Government are trying to target. I just wonder where the idea came from. This is so right-wing; it is not an appropriate Bill for a democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has beautifully laid out the lack of a definition of “serious disruption”, and I cannot better that. But, for example, what about arresting the Government for serious disruption to the NHS over the last 12 years? I would support that. But we would obviously have to know exactly what “serious disruption” meant.
The criminal courts in this country are crumbling and cannot cope with the number of cases that they have at the moment. Yet here the Government will insist on more cases, sometimes on very specious grounds, which will clog up the courts even more and make life even more difficult for people who care about justice and law. I beg the Minister to meet with some of the more learned noble Lords here and perhaps start either to clarify the Bill or to scrap it altogether.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will make a very serious request of the Minister, who is dealing with this difficult Bill with great courtesy and who is very amenable to comment, even if he disagrees. I ask him to take the trouble, before he replies to this debate, to read Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022—it is only one page, and I will lend him my iPad if he needs it. In this country, we have training for magistrates and judges, which is provided by the Judicial College— certainly for judges; indeed, I see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, nodding that this is the case for magistrates as well. One of the reasons why this training is provided is to ensure consistency between courts around the country.
If there are two sets of legislation—this Bill and Section 78 of the 2022 Act—the Government cannot control who charges whom with what. It is quite likely that, in “Lonechester”, the police will charge someone who glued themselves to the passageway of the cathedral with this new law, while in “Scuddersfield” they will charge them with Section 78 of the 2022 Act. They are quite different: the Bill is basically a summary trial on these offences and has very low sentencing powers, but the 2022 Act, which we have already passed, has a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said. We cannot expect police officers to know these differences when they are busily rushing around trying to save the public from being stuck on the M25 for seven hours. But they can expect the law to make life easier for them by ensuring that it has that consistency. At the moment, we are breaking the rules which we generally set ourselves to scrutinise legislation so that we do not create ambiguity and inconsistency. In the context of what we are discussing now, nothing in the Bill is not covered under Section 78 of the 2022 Act, which has already had the scrutiny of your Lordships’ House.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, in the absence of my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Albans, who is a signatory to Amendment 17 but unable to be present in the Chamber this afternoon, I am pleased to speak in its support, as it provides much- needed clarity to the law. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for explaining the amendments with such clarity at the beginning of this group.
I will make two main points. First, the Bill, in its present form, fails to provide a definition of what constitutes “serious disruption” to the “community”. I strongly support providing a strict statutory definition of this; it will give clearer guidelines to the police as to what is acceptable, as well as to those wishing to engage in lawful protest, and will provide much-needed democratic oversight to the Bill. Under the current law and the Bill as drafted, there is no clear definition of what disruption to the community means, and it would be subject to the discretion of the police themselves. A lack of clarity is not helpful to either the police or the community. As reported in evidence to the Bill Committee in the other place, many police officers have expressed a desire for clearer statutory guidance, and many are concerned that they will be asked to make decisions on matters which they do not have the confidence to make. If we are to reflect on the consequences of the amendment, we can see that it would mean that protesters would rightly be prevented from disruption to essential services—schools, hospitals or places of worship—but the right to reasonable democratic protest would still be protected.
Secondly, it is important that proposed new paragraph (c) in the amendment upholds the access to “a place of worship” as an essential service. I am very pleased that this amendment would enshrine freedom of religion or belief as a central part of the Bill. As we have been reminded over the pandemic, churches and other religious buildings offer essential services for their local community. Access to these buildings and the pastoral work of the clergy and other faith leaders should not be unreasonably hindered.
Churches are not unfamiliar with protests. Indeed, they have sometimes been a catalyst for good and even forthright protest inspired by principles of faith in the interest of the common good. The example of Jesus is a challenge and, I believe, an inspiration in this regard. Sadly, there have also been times when churches have been the focus of reasonable protest, challenging the Church when it and society have failed to exemplify the values that underpin faith. Either way, many protests over the centuries have happened inside or within the vicinity of our buildings. Churches are public buildings, places of sanctuary and refuge, there to serve all in their community. They are therefore to be considered essential places for people to meet, to worship and to nourish their faith, and for all who are seeking spiritual comfort or hope, often in difficult times. The right to attend a place of worship is therefore a vital human right enshrined in law in our country, and it is important that this law makes that clear. I once again express my wholehearted support for this amendment.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 2 and 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 2 is designed to raise the threshold required for the committing of the offence of causing a disruption. The clause leaves what is capable of causing disruption to purely subjective judgment, which is not satisfactory. I do not think that I have ever made a speech that insults members of the audience; I hope I never have. But such a speech may be reasonably deemed to be capable of causing a serious disruption—at least maybe in the other place, if not here. In other words, an event has to happen that is provocative in order to make it reasonable for the police to come to that conclusion. Whether it is provocative is the test of whether it is capable of causing disruption. Perhaps I can make a constructive suggestion here: every time the words “capable of causing disruption” appear, why do not the Government put in front of them “It is reasonable to believe that it is”?
On Amendment 4, the purpose is to make the intention to cause serious disruption the test of an offence. I strongly support that. I have become increasingly suspicious of the growing tendency to treat reckless speech—and suspicious, in fact, of the word “reckless” —or action as a criminal offence in itself, regardless of the intention of the speaker or actor. Of course I should consider the consequences of my words and actions—everyone should—but the line between reckless speech and free speech is a delicate one, and I would prefer to err on the side of free speech and peaceful protest.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I support most, if not all, of the amendments in this group seeking to circumscribe the new powers over “serious disruption”, especially Amendment 23. I do so not to offer the kind of forensic advice and analysis that many much more eminent noble Lords have already given today, but to offer a general and a more personal view, because I think the Bill takes the state’s power to restrict the right to protest to unprecedented levels. Many of the clauses in the legislation bear a striking resemblance to anti-terror laws. Surely, this is no way to treat those exercising their fundamental rights to dissent in the liberal democracy that the Government claim the UK to be. It is more like a police state Bill, in my view, than a liberal democracy one; more something that Beijing’s autocracy would favour, as opposed to London’s democracy.
Noble Lords need not take my word for it. Please read the recent Financial Times article by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish of Little Venice, who elegantly but devastatingly demolishes the case for the Bill and its many clauses, including those we are discussing right now. The noble Baroness is no leftie: she was a policy adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron. Under this Government, the trajectory of public order legislation has slowly chipped away at people’s fundamental rights, weighting the balance of power heavily towards the state and its agencies. These amendments are trying to redress that a bit, but the legislation advances that trajectory, despite the ink barely being dry on the recently passed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. It is a constant ratcheting up of restrictions at the expense of our freedoms and the health of our democracy.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 36 and 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I could also have backed a number of other amendments. The noble Lord clearly explained lots of problems with the clauses discussed in this group. The only thing that I did not agree with—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, also said this—was when he compared present-day protesters with the suffragettes. The suffragettes were democrats without the vote; Just Stop Oil are anti-democrats with the vote. There is a real distinction there.
Although I have very serious reservations about this Bill and think it is unnecessary, we need to approach the discussion and debate going on outside this House with a little more humility. On the first group, a number of noble Lords raised the point that the country was up in arms about the Bill. I do not recognise that description; actually, many people in the country are up in arms about the Just Stop Oil protesters. They are so frustrated that we have people ruining their daily lives and getting in the way and that not enough is being done about it. My argument with the Government is that this is a crisis of policing, which they will not tackle and instead have introduced a whole new set of laws that we do not need.
As legislators, I understand the need for a definition of “serious disruption”, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, explained the difficulties around defining it. But the people we are talking about who are locking themselves on, tunnelling and so on, boast that they are seriously disrupting things. They say, “What choice have we got? We’re involved in serious disruption.” They do not have a definitional problem; they say, “We’re trying to seriously disrupt the ways of life of everyone until we get our way and until you agree with us”.
So in some ways it is important that the Government do not exploit the fact that we have protesters who say “Our job is to seriously disrupt the lives of ordinary people” and ordinary people who are completed frustrated that nothing is being done about these people seriously disrupting their lives, and say that we need all these laws—because this is not the solution to that problem. It is a con, as I said in my Second Reading speech. An answer should be given to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that, if the Government’s argument is that we do not have laws on the statute book that can deal with very specific issues, they have to be very clear about exactly why the laws do not work at present. If it is the Supreme Court, then say that—but at the moment there is a muddle on that question.
On the specific amendments dealing with “serious disruption”, given that we have protesters—I think they are more people who indulge in stunts, rather than protesters—who admit that they intend to cause serious disruption, I am concerned that there should be some intent to cause serious disruption, which is why Amendment 37 is important. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made a hugely important point about the way that the term “reckless” will be used to clamp down on this; the idea that your intention is read into it as being reckless indifference is one of the great ways that censorship is happening in this country. I am very nervous about having in law a situation where, whatever you intend, the law can decide that you intended something. That is why I support Amendment 37.
Amendment 36 would limit the offence to an act that actually causes serious disruption, rather than one that is capable of causing serious disruption. It seems to me that if something does not cause serious disruption, it is not serious disruption. It seems blatantly ridiculous for a Bill to criminalise something that is not seriously disruptive because it could be seriously disruptive at a different time and a different place.
I rather liked the example of what happened recently in Germany, where people locked on in the Volkswagen museum. They did not cause any serious disruption because the curators turned the lights out, turned the heating off and went home, leaving them there. As it happens, the protestors response to this was to complain that they had been left in the cold and that they could not order in food. Instead of draconian and criminalising bills, perhaps what we need is a bit more of that kind of attitude, both from the police and from institutions, which seem to stand by and do nothing as disruption occurs. However, I do not want the law to compensate for that spinelessness either.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, having not spoken at Second Reading, but having listened to the debate, I want to contribute one thought which I think follows rather well from what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. This debate on the definition of the word “serious” is really pretty sterile. Talking about the word “serious” is rather like talking about whether a work of art is good or not good. What we are really talking about is judgment, and the judgment of many different groups: of the demonstrators, of the police, and of the courts and within the courts—juries, magistrates and all the rest of it. All we are striving to do is to get what the people as a whole—who are demanding something better than what is happening at the moment—want: better solutions when things happen. I do not believe that we can be precise in laying down in law what is serious or not serious, but that does not mean that we cannot use the word “serious” as shorthand for the collective judgment of all those interests involved.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, with his proud record of disruption, cautioned us against forensic critiques. I am afraid that he is in for another one, but in my defence, I will make it very short.
The Minister hinted at the end of Second Reading that he would give thought to a definition of “serious disruption”, which I think would be useful. That is certainly what police witnesses suggested in another place, and what some of us, including my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, suggested at Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for the opportunity to discuss it yesterday.
I put my name to Amendment 17, recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is based on part of the definitions in Sections 73 and 74 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Having now had a chance to review Amendments 6, 27, and 38, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, I am minded to jump ship—I hope that does not make me a rat—because I think his amendments may be better adapted to the purposes of the Bill.
The particular merit of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope’s approach is to recognise that the offences in Clause 1 on the one hand and Clauses 3 and 4 on the other are very different in nature. Disruption consequent on locking on is liable to be caused to any individuals or organisation based or carrying on business in the locality, and it is right that the definition should acknowledge this. Equally, it seems right that the threshold should be a very high one: “prolonged disruption of access” to homes, workplaces or other places to which there is an urgent need to travel, or
“significant delay in the delivery of time sensitive products or essential goods and services.”
That latter condition about significant delay appears in Sections 73 and 74 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 but has, for some reason, been omitted from the JCHR definition.
The tunnelling offences are of a different nature. The serious disruption that they seek to address is to “construction or maintenance works” or related activities. Amendments 27 and 38 appropriately reflect that narrower scope.
If the Government are going to come back with a definition, or definitions, of “serious disruption”, I hope they will see the force of doing it in this way. My noble and learned friend Lord Hope modestly suggested that they might be able to manage something more proportionate and carefully phrased than he did—all I can say is, good luck with that.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, as a former prosecutor, I commend Amendment 6 to the Minister. I have no doubt at all that a definition along the lines of that pressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, would be of assistance to the police in judging their response to these sorts of events. A definition would certainly be of assistance to prosecutors in coming to a determination about what the appropriate charge is. It would assist judges in summing up cases to juries, and it would certainly assist juries in coming to fair conclusions by judging the conduct of defendants against an intelligible definition. If we do not have a definition, the danger is that people will be more at sea than they need be.
I have one other point. People who are proposing to go out and demonstrate are entitled to understand and to be able to predict with some confidence whether what they are proposing to do will be lawful or unlawful. This is an important aspect of the rule of law: that the law is predictable and the consequences attendant on the behaviour that demonstrators seek to engage in are predictable. This important aspect of the rule of law is clearly undermined by a lack of certainty in the Bill in the absence of a definition of one of its most important concepts—that of “serious disruption”.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is unable to be in her place for this group, which affords me the opportunity to speak to Amendment 23, which would include in the Bill a definition of “serious disruption”—a single definition, in contradistinction to the ideas proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
Much turns on this phrase; it appears a grand total of 132 times, acting as a core component to several new and extremely broad criminal offences. As things stand, the consequence of “causing or contributing to” serious disruption of varying kinds could result in a prison sentence, unlimited fines or a variety of conditions imposed through what many are calling protest banning orders, including GPS ankle tagging, bans on internet usage, prohibitions on associating with certain people and, again, imprisonment—yet, as we all now know, nowhere in the Bill is “serious disruption” defined.
The former Minister, Kit Malthouse MP, claimed at Second Reading in the other place that
“the phrase ‘serious disruption to the community’ has been in use in the law since 1986 and is therefore a well-defined term in the courts, which of course is where the test would be applied under the legislation.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/22; col. 106.]
I am afraid that I do not think that explanation suffices. The test to which the former Minister refers is that set out in the Public Order Act 1986, which is now almost four decades old. It relates to the imposition of conditions on public procession, assemblies and one-person protests. This Bill is very much wider, and that framework does not necessarily neatly map on to what is before the House today.
I add that it is surprising that the Government should be content to allow legal uncertainty and let the courts, through lengthy and expensive litigation, rather than through Parliament, set the parameters of what actions they wish to criminalise. The lack of a definition of serious disruption in the Bill is an obvious and, in my view, critical deficiency and one which Members on all sides of this House and those in the other place have identified on several occasions.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights remarked in its report:
“It is unclear who or what would need to be seriously disrupted, what level of disruption is needed before it becomes serious and how these questions are meant to be determined by protesters and police officers on the ground—or even the courts.”
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made apt reference to both the Joint Committee report and the evidence to the other place from West Midlands Police, who called for
“as much precision … as possible”—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 9/6/22; col. 58.]
in defining serious disruption. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who has much experience of police operations in response to protests through his time as Metropolitan Police Commissioner echoed this call for clarity. In another place, Sir Charles Walker condemned the overall thrust of the Bill, no doubt worsened by this vague and all-encompassing term, calling it “unconservative”.
Therefore, it was heartening to hear at Second Reading the Minister recognise the House’s “strength of feeling” on this issue and that
“a clear definition could bring benefits”.—[Official Report, 1/11/22; col. 204.]
This amendment would deliver such benefits, giving legal certainty and precision to what are otherwise vague and, frankly, highly draconian offences. It does so by clarifying that before the Bill’s offences are engaged, significant harm must be caused to persons, property or, per the Public Order Act 1986, the life of the community. It sets the bar at an appropriately high level, stating that “significant harm” must be
“more than mere inconvenience, irritation or annoyance”.
The example of people joining arms to walk down the street has already been given, so I will not repeat that. Under the amendment’s proposed definition, these ordinary everyday behaviours would be rendered safe from undue criminalisation. The definition also requires that significant harm must be
“of a kind that strictly necessitates interference with the rights and freedoms curtailed by proportionate exercise of a power, or prosecution for an offence, provided for under this Act.”
We have seen the police exercise existing powers inappropriately and disproportionately—I will not go into the case of Charlotte Lynch yet again, but it is one such.
This amendment is designed to prevent the future misuse of any new offences and powers created. Its benefits are threefold, giving guidance to the police in exercising their powers; safety to the public, who should be free to enjoy their right to protest free from prosecution; and clarity to the courts when they must interpret the law.
The criminal law acts as a powerful and coercive tool by which dividing lines are set between conduct Parliament has deemed acceptable or unacceptable. As the former senior Law Lord and eminent jurist, Lord Bingham, posited in the 2003 case, R v H and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, its purpose is
“to proscribe, and by punishing to deter, conduct regarded as sufficiently damaging to the interests of society”.
Clear definitions are therefore indispensable, for without them, how is the public expected to understand what is proscribed, from what they are being deterred or what Parliament has concluded is sufficiently damaging to the interests of society?
I strongly believe that the Bill should be voted down in its entirety. It represents a dangerous and authoritarian boost to the state’s power to curtail the vital right to protest peacefully. However, this amendment’s definition would go some way to remedying one of the Bill’s many critical flaws. I therefore commend it to the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker. This debate has been about the threshold for committing an offence, the meaning of the phrase “serious disruption”, which is not defined in the Bill, and the need for the intent of an offence for an offence to be committed. The key overarching issue is the drafting of good law and not broad, poorly defined offences and powers which the police then have to try to navigate.
I turn first to Amendment 3, as drafted and recommended by the JCHR. It would change that threshold to causing serious disruption to the life of the community. This is supported by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which in its written evidence stated
“In addition, we believe using the definition of ‘serious disruption to the community’ may be preferable to ‘two or more people, or an organisation’, as the former is more widely understood and will allow more effective application consistent with human rights legislation.”
In the Commons Committee stage, the Minister, Kit Malthouse, referenced disruption to the life of the community as the threshold for the offence of locking on. He said that some behaviour
“would not necessarily cause serious disruption to the life of the community, and would therefore not necessarily constitute an offence under the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 14/6/22; col. 93.]
So it seems that the Minister already agrees that there may be a more appropriate threshold.
Moving on to Amendment 17, this is a JCHR recommendation that goes hand-in-hand with Amendment 3 to provide a definition of serious disruption to the life of the community in the Bill. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has jumped ship and is supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I reserve my judgment; I may do the same at a later stage but, for the moment, I will press ahead with Amendment 17. It is one option, as drafted by the JCHR. It replicates the definition eventually added by the Government to the PCSC Act but, as we have heard, this group contains multiple possibilities for how the necessary level of disruption could be appropriately and clearly defined.
Turning again to the evidence submitted by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, it has requested clarity to allow it to respond operationally, saying:
“Within public order legislation ‘serious disorder, serious damage to property and serious disruption to the life of the community or intimidation of others’ is a key phrase. The elements of serious disorder, serious damage and intimidation are accepted and clear. However, the term ‘serious disruption’ has been subject to much discussion and debate. Within any new legislation we would welcome clarity or guidance about the threshold and interpretation of this to allow operational commanders to best apply their operational responses.”
This amendment is about clarity, as well as passing laws that can be easily understood by both the public and the police.
Amendment 23, spoken to very powerfully by my noble friends Lady Blower and Lord Hain, would provide a definition of serious disruption as actions
“causing significant harm to persons, property or the life of the community.”
It specifies that serious harm must mean
“more than mere inconvenience, irritation or annoyance”
and be action
“of a kind that strictly necessitates interference with the rights and freedoms curtailed by proportionate exercise of a power, or prosecution for an offence”
provided here. I support that amendment as well.
Amendment 54 is again a JCHR recommendation. It adds, first, a threshold of causing serious disruption, and secondly, a requirement that there was an intent to cause serious disruption to the offence of obstructing major transport works. The JCHR said that
“there is no requirement that the offending conduct could be capable of causing significant disruption and there is no requirement that these actions be carried out with any particular intention of causing obstruction or disruption. This means that inadvertent actions could result in arrest or even a criminal penalty.”
Across this group of amendments, the question of intent is integral to the debates that we have been having. The question of whether it is intended or reckless is really key to these debates. Can the Minister say something more about what recklessness covers? It is a phrase that is used in many other aspects of law, but how will the police be expected to prove that a person has been acting recklessly or not?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I once again thank your Lordships for all the contributions made in this debate. We turn to a series of amendments which seek to raise the threshold for the corresponding offences. Amendments 2 and 4 target the lock-on offence; Amendments 25 and 26 target the tunnelling offence; Amendments 36 and 37 target the offence of being present in a tunnel; and Amendment 54 targets the offence of obstruction of major transport works.
Before I deal with some of the questions concerning those amendments, I will just say two things. First, on the subject of the suffragettes, I entirely agree with the distinction the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made between the protesters we see now and the suffragettes. Secondly, while we are slightly off the subject, I will make a few comments about the journalist who was arrested, who has been referred to twice. Clearly, the arrest of journalists lawfully reporting on events should not have happened—I want to make that very clear. I understand that an independent investigation into the arrests has been commissioned by the relevant police force. However, we do not agree that more powers will lead to further arrests of journalists: the issue lies with the training of journalists—a subject to which we will return.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The training of police— I am sorry.
The scope of the offences is drafted as such to ensure that all kinds of behaviour that protestors engage in to cause misery and disruption can be captured. Amendments 2 and 4 would mean the offence would not account for situations where, for example, a person has locked on to a dangerous structure but is removed by the police before maximum disruption can be inflicted. Amendments 25 and 26 would mean the offence would not account for situations where, for example, a person has started creating a tunnel but is removed before maximum disruption can be caused. Amendments 36 and 37 would not account for situations where, for example, a person is present in a tunnel with the intent to cause serious disruption but is removed by the police before the tunnel can reach the designated area where maximum disruption can be inflicted.
Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, seeks to add a threshold of causing “significant disruption” to the offence of interfering with key national infrastructure. I am not sure whether the amendment should say “serious” disruption rather than “significant” disruption, as I note that the JCHR’s own explanatory statement stated the former. That would echo the threshold for other offences in the Bill. If Amendment 54 is intended to add a threshold of serious disruption, I would argue that while we assess that it is right for the lock-on offences and certain other protest-related offences to include serious disruption within their scope, we do not see it as necessary here.
As I have stated already, protestors have been able to cause huge damage to major projects such as HS2. While much attention has been focused on how protest activity across HS2 sites causes massive disruption to the project, protestors have also engaged in many more minor disruptive acts, such as disrupting ecological surveys, damaging construction vehicles or blocking access points to construction sites. While some of these acts may not meet the threshold of serious and/or significant disruption, they still have a significant impact on the project and its costs. The Government view such actions as serious and completely unacceptable criminal activity. The offence as drafted seeks to deter individuals from targeting these projects while giving the police powers that are more sufficient in order to respond.
Before I get onto the amendments dealing with serious disruption, I accepted the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to read Section 78, and I will have a go at answering. Because many Just Stop Oil protesters have been arrested for public nuisance and obstruction of the highway, it has been asked why, in light of that, we need to introduce the measures in the Bill. The fact is that we are not solely interested in the process on the M25: the Bill was conceived before Just Stop Oil protesters were dangling off gantries. There are other unjustifiable protests, such as those targeting HS2, which I have just discussed. The criminal offences in the Bill extend to private land; currently, those who lock on or tunnel are only committing aggravated trespass, which carries a relatively low sentence. As it is a broad offence, I am sure that many here in the Chamber today would not welcome the sentences for aggravated trespass being increased. Finally, the pre-emptive measures in the Bill will improve the response to criminal protest. They were in fact conceived following discussion with the Metropolitan Police Service on what would have improved their response to Extinction Rebellion-style protests.
Amendments 3, 6, 17, 23, 27 and 38, all seek to provide a definition of serious disruption. I thank all noble Lords for these amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—although I note that he is potentially deserting his—for our constructive engagement so far. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his thoughtful contribution to this debate.
I assure the House that I absolutely recognise the benefits that a clear definition of serious disruption could bring. However, we have faced some difficulties when trying to define serious disruption. That is because being too prescriptive in our definition risks creating a loophole which would provide those intent on causing as much disruption as possible an opportunity to evade arrest and prosecution. I would also say that, as drafted, some of these amendments offer a narrower definition of serious disruption than the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act provides for under
“serious disruption to the life of the community.”
None of that is to say that I dismiss the principle of these amendments. There is a balance to be struck between a definition which is too broad and one which is too prescriptive. We will consider these amendments in detail to ensure that they accurately reflect the disruption that the Government seek to target while providing clarity to the police and others, as many noble Lords have mentioned, and we will continue to work with all interested noble Lords on this important matter.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Is there a prospect of the Minister coming up with definitions in time for Report, to prevent us having to discuss this all over again? It would be a great help if he could come forward with his definitions, if he is going to proceed along this line.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will certainly endeavour to—I can make no promises. I am sorry: the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me about recklessness, which I forgot to answer. The definition of reckless is to capture those for whom we cannot prove that they intended to cause disruption but who were clearly happy to cause it. I hope that clarifies the matter to some extent. For now, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made some very important points. He is a member of the Constitution Committee. He said that convictions for these offences could lead to more serious consequences such as serious disruption prevention orders and that some of the conditions that could be imposed under those orders are quite draconian, such as 12 months of electronic tagging. He made the important point that because the offences are very different in nature, there should perhaps be a tailored definition of serious disruption depending on what offence we are talking about.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, made a very important point about creating ambiguity between the provisions in this Bill and Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Minister’s attempt to explain why Section 78 could not be relied on does not hold water. He started talking about offences of aggravated trespass and having low sentences, but Section 78 has a far more serious penalty than any of the offences contained in the provisions here, so I do not understand why we need new offences that have serious sentences attached to them when Section 78 can provide much stiffer penalties than any offence in this Bill. That does not seem to make any sense.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham made an important point about places of worship. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, made an important point too. I greatly respect the role that he played in overturning apartheid in South Africa, but I am not sure he can say with confidence that what he did amounted to serious disruption when we do not have a definition of serious disruption in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, supported by the Minister, talked about suffragettes and how they were very different from the protesters at this time, but that was not the point I was making. My point was that suffragettes locked on and the Government are saying that this new offence of locking on is a response to new tactics employed by protesters. Well, that is what the suffragettes did. That is the only point I was trying to make.
As for nothing being done, the police have been arresting stop oil protesters even before they have caused serious disruption. They have been arresting them for conspiracy to cause public nuisance. Whether it is for causing public nuisance under the famous Section 78 or highway obstruction, for which they can now be sent to prison, protesters are being remanded in custody by courts which are not confident that they would not go on to repeat the offences for which they have been arrested. Some of them have been sentenced to prison for highway obstruction. So I do not think it is the case that the police are not doing anything, or that existing legislation cannot be used effectively by the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, supported the idea of tailored definitions, hence his wavering, if I can put it that way, in terms of his own amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, reinforced the point about clarity and predictability. People need to know whether they are going to break the law if they do something, which is why we need these definitions.
The infamous Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act talks about serious harm, rather than serious disruption, but it is defined in the Act. So, if the Government can define serious harm in that Act, why can they not define serious disruption in this legislation? The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, talked about what the Minister said in the other place about there being a definition of serious disruption under the Public Order Act 1986. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is out of date and dubiously applicable in the circumstances set out in this Bill. Even the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talked at Second Reading about the importance of clarity, and police witnesses at Committee stage in the other place said that as much precision as possible is desirable, yet the Minister seems completely ambiguous about whether the Government are going to define serious disruption in the Bill in response to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said that the National Police Chiefs’ Council is in favour of the definition of serious disruption to the life of the community put forward by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so surely there is at least a lead for the Government to follow.
“(1A) In this section, “attach” means to connect by mechanical means, and does not include circumstances where persons, objects or land are merely touching, holding or being held, or seated or placed upon each other.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the definition of “attach” in the Clause 1 offence of locking on, and whether it includes for example holding hands or sitting down.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am not going to describe all the amendments in this group. I am hoping that noble Lords will introduce their own.
I have one point to make about the arrest of Charlotte Lynch. I had the dubious pleasure of sitting on a panel with David Lloyd, the PCC for Hertfordshire, who seemed to suggest that it was the journalist’s fault and that journalists should not report on protests. He believed in a free press, but not always, so I was slightly worried about the Minister’s reaction, but he said that he used the wrong word.
All these offences deserve to be probed because they are so badly drafted, so broadly drafted, that we cannot be sure what they mean. For example, the Bill names the offence of locking on, but the definition is much broader. The Bill talks of a person attaching themselves or an object to another person, another object or land. What does “attach” mean? Does it mean people linking arms or holding hands? What if they were tied together by a ribbon with a loose bow that you could undo? Would that be attached? Exactly what does it mean? If it is easy to remove the attachment, does it count? Is it still criminal? It seems that these offences are absurd. I do not understand where the threshold is for criminal conduct. It makes the whole Bill worthless if we cannot be sure what it means, and certainly the courts are going to have a field day with this. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised the absurdity of the locking-on offence and the problems that will arise, which are addressed by some of the amendments in this group.
I want to introduce the Minister to an issue he may not be familiar with—perhaps it does not happen in his part of the country. Quite a lot of young couples go about carrying padlocks. Why do they do that? It might not be immediately apparent to a constable that they are wishing to pledge their lifelong devotion to each other. They go to a place such as the High Level Bridge in Newcastle, and they attach the padlock to the bridge; they then throw the key into the water. Explaining that that is what you are about to do might be pretty difficult when your average police constable says that you are carrying a padlock, obviously intending to lock on to somewhere. But they do not lock on to anything—except perhaps each other, and they might be caught by that, as the noble Baroness just pointed out. That is simply one example.
Another obvious example which has been raised by noble Lords before is that of bicycle padlocks. People have to carry them whenever they are going to use their bicycle. Again, these are pretty obvious cases for the locking-on offence as the Government have conceived it.
These are things that just happen in ordinary life. When you compound the offence created in the Bill with the offence of obstruction of a constable, you can see really difficult situations arising, where citizens with no intention of creating serious disruption are nevertheless caught because they are carrying such things in the vicinity of somewhere where serious disruption might be about to arise, or might be known to be about to arise.
I really think that the Government have got to clean up this Bill if they want to proceed with it, and remove from it things that drag ordinary citizens into conflict with the criminal law when they have no criminal intent at all—and do not need to have for the purpose of some of these offences—and are not involved in serious protest. Serious protest is itself, of course, an often justifiable activity, as the courts have demonstrated in some recent cases. Quite apart from the problems faced by those who want to engage in legitimate protest, we should not be passing legislation that simply confuses ordinary citizens as to what they are allowed to do.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, on Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, we agree that there needs to be far more clarity as far as the offence of locking on is concerned.
On Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to which I have added my name, we agree that the scope of going equipped for a locking-on offence should be limited to where the person intends to use the object for locking on, rather than including an object that may be used for locking on. There is a real danger of innocent people carrying innocuous objects being drawn into this offence, as my noble friend Lord Beith has just illustrated.
If we look at a similar offence in Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968, “Going equipped for stealing, etc.”, we see that the wording is:
“A person shall be guilty of an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary, theft or cheat.”
There is no mention of any article that may be used in the course of or in connection with the substantive offence. Can the Minister explain why there is a difference in this case from the Theft Act’s “going equipped” and these “going equipped” offences?
Amendment 19 in my name, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, probes what “in connection with” means; in this case, “in connection with” locking on. Can the Minister give an example of where an object can be used in connection with locking on but is not used to actually lock on? Similarly, Amendment 48 in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, seeks to establish what “in connection with” means in relation to offences of going equipped to tunnel. Can the Minister give an example where an object can be used in connection with tunnelling but is not used to actually construct, or even to be present in, a tunnel?
Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and signed by me, includes the question around the term “in connection with” but extends to whether it should also include items for use by someone else, through the term “by any person”. This is the substance of my Amendment 21, signed by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which would replace “any person” with “them.”
As in the Theft Act example, surely it makes no difference if the person carrying a pair of handcuffs with the intention of committing an offence of locking on is the person who is actually going to chain themselves to the railings. If the thief and his mate go looking to break into cars, but the person carrying the crowbar is not the thief who is actually going to use it, the thief’s mate is still guilty of the offence of going equipped to steal. Why then is it necessary to include “by any person” in this offence when it is not present in the offence under Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968?
Similarly, Amendment 49 in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, seeks to understand why “any person” is included in the offence of going equipped for tunnelling when there appears to be no need for this widening of the offence.
Amendments 51 and 52 in my name, and supported by noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seek to understand what would be caught within the offence of obstructing major transport works by including Clause 6(1)(a)(iii), which includes obstructing someone
“taking any steps that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of facilitating, or in connection with, the construction or maintenance of any major transport works”.
This seems to be extraordinarily wide, to the extent that it is almost impossible to understand what would or would not come within the remit of the offence. For example, if a construction worker working on a major transport works is prevented from filling her car with petrol the day before she is due at work—a car she uses to get to work—is that caught within the remit of this offence? Where is the line drawn? Can the Minister give a clear understanding of what is included in the offence, and if not, how does he expect protestors to know whether they are going to be committing an offence?
Amendment 53 in my name, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seeks to probe why Clause 6(1)(b) is necessary. It refers to interference with apparatus, for example. Can the Minister explain how interfering, moving or removing apparatus relating to the construction or maintenance of any major transport works would not amount to obstructing the construction or maintenance, an offence under Clause 6(1)(a)? If it did not amount to obstructing the construction or maintenance, why should it be a criminal offence?
Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and signed by me, seeks to narrow the scope of the criminalisation of interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure to cases where the use or operation of the infrastructure is prevented to “a significant” extent, rather than to “any extent”. In other parts of the Bill, reference is made to serious disruption, so why is there no such caveat in this part of the Bill? Would teenagers involved in horseplay, for example, where one throws the other’s mobile phone on to the train tracks, resulting in staff temporarily halting trains so that the phone can be retrieved, be guilty of an offence under this section as drafted?
Amendments 66 and 67 in my name are intended to probe what Clause 7(5) means. It states that
“infrastructure is prevented from being used or operated for any of its intended purposes … where its use or operation for any of those purposes is significantly delayed.”
That makes sense, and that would be the effect of Amendments 66 and 67. Can the Minister explain how adding “The cases in which” at the beginning of that subsection and “include” in the middle of the subsection extend the offence beyond the specific example of significant delay? What else would count as preventing its use or operation?
We support Amendments 69 and 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to probe whether “broadcasting and telecommunication services”, as well as “newspaper printing infrastructure”, should be included in the definition of “key national infrastructure”.
We also support Amendment 70 from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I have signed, to narrow the definition of “road transport infrastructure” to A roads rather than both A and B roads, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Highway obstruction is already an offence for which a custodial sentence can be given, and the enhanced penalties for this offence should be limited to key roads such as motorways and A roads.
We support Amendments 71 and 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I have also signed, recommended by the JCHR, to probe the extent of “rail infrastructure” and “air transport infrastructure”. Does “rail infrastructure” include, for example, the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch railway, a narrow-gauge steam service used solely for tourism purposes? Does “air transport infrastructure” include small, private airfields or airstrips with little or no air traffic? In what way are they part of “key national infrastructure”?
We also support Amendments 73 to 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I have signed, to probe what facilities would be considered as being used “in connection with” infrastructure, in relation to
“harbour infrastructure … downstream oil infrastructure … downstream gas infrastructure … onshore oil and gas exploration and production infrastructure … onshore electricity generation infrastructure”.
Finally in this group, my Amendment 79 seeks to probe whether all periodicals and magazines should be included in the definition of “newspaper”. Noble Lords will be able to think of several disreputable or trivial titles that should not be considered part of “key national infrastructure”.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name to a number of amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, read out. He has largely explained my reservations and why I put my name to, in this instance, Amendments 19 to 21. This is the focus on what equipment is “intended” to be used for.
I think it extraordinary that the Bill would criminalise somebody holding equipment that “may be used” for something. Completely innocent objects can be interpreted in the most malign way, and it seems far too speculative. Everyone should remember that, while we have in our minds locking on and Just Stop Oil, this piece of legislation does not mention Just Stop Oil. Therefore, anything that speculates about what people might be about to do with an object could be used to criminalise any range of behaviours. That is one of my concerns. It feels as though, rather than being proactive policing, as the Minister discussed earlier, it allows people to be scooped up just in case they use any object in a particular way.
Amendments 48 and 49 focus on the offence of “being equipped for tunnelling” and the requirement for the object to be used not specifically by the person with the item but by “any person”. My concern is that this puts into law a kind of guilt by association. Somebody has not committed a crime and there is no indication that they have, but somebody else has used an item that they had and then committed a crime. It reminds me of the worst of the joint enterprise laws that led to so many injustices for all involved. I would really like to see that go. In fact, I would like the whole thing to go—but if we are going to have it, et cetera.
Finally on Amendment 65, which focuses on key national infrastructure, this is one of the things that the public most worry about—that key national infrastructure will be targeted by these kinds of stunt protesters. Somebody described it as guerrilla warfare, and it sometimes feels like that. We all know how important key national infrastructure projects are to any country. That is why Russia targets them in Ukraine. You know that the maximum number of people will suffer if you attack the things that keep any country going at any given time. So I am very keen that we protect them, but it is about the wording on the extent to which they are attacked and the illustrations that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, gave. Again, it is not only Just Stop Oil. We have to keep getting that out of our minds, because this affects anyone who does anything to possibly disrupt a key infrastructure project.
Perhaps I might echo, in a glib way, the comments made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in relation to the NHS. I thought she had a point there. In this instance, when I read about “key national infrastructure”—
“road transport infrastructure … rail infrastructure … air transport infrastructure … oil infrastructure … gas infrastructure”,
et cetera—I thought, “Who needs Just Stop Oil?”. Most of that infrastructure does not work. I spend most of my time not being able to get trains, and the energy system is in total crisis. If noble Lords want to know what is likely to create the greatest threat to most of the national infrastructure projects in the forthcoming months, I can tell them: it is not Just Stop Oil but austerity cuts coming from the Government. Although that is a slightly glib point, it indicates why using these things in the law, if you are not precise about exactly what you describe as “disruption”, can get you into hot water.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to which I put my name. The principle it seeks to uphold is that the offending person must be the one committing the offence or intending to commit the offence, rather than somebody else connected with that person. That is a very important point, because “in connection with” is another of these vague phrases that have crept into this kind of legislation. It is also there in counterterrorist legislation. How connected? Friend, lover, colleague, co-religionist? What is the nature of the connection? All these things are undefined. What counts as a malicious connection? That is why we want this amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who have supported the various amendments in my name. I very much supported the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made when she opened the group. Similarly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his support and the arguments he put forward on the various amendments. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. She made some very good comments about “serious disruption” and “key national infrastructure”.
This is the first contribution I have made. The Minister said that the Government had listened to the House of Lords by withdrawing amendments when they came up in the Bill at the beginning of the year, putting them through the Commons and then bringing them to the Lords, that constitutionally that was the right way of doing things, and therefore that the Government had correctly brought the Bill forward to the Lords. I say to him that we as the Lords have a constitutional right to review legislation that comes from the Commons, to say where we think it is wrong, to put forward amendments and to seek clarity where there is none.
That has been the purpose of all the amendments put forward here this afternoon as we go into the evening. Each amendment put forward has sought that clarity of definition—what the Government actually intend and mean—so that as this law goes through and the Bill passes, as it will, it will be a better Bill that delivers what the Government want. That is what we seek to do with all the various amendments.
The key question that will keep coming back to the Government is: why is the Bill necessary? There is no dispute in this Chamber—we all totally and utterly feel that the Just Stop Oil protesters went too far, and that was serious disruption that was unacceptable. It is an Aunt Sally, or whatever the politically correct term is, to say, as the Government sometimes do, that they are in favour of the great British public who object to having their lives disrupted while there is a group of others, in this Chamber or elsewhere, who seek to be on the side of the protesters instead. We are all on the side of the public. We all agree that there is a right to protest but that there should be limits to it, and there will be a debate about where that should come.
The third group deals with the scope of the offences. Again, there is a series of questions for the Government in this group about where we are with the drafting and the scope of the offences. As I say, we keep coming back to the need to draft good law and the need for clarity, not offences so broad that they impinge unreasonably on the British public’s rights and are unenforceable. Other key issues include focusing police resources on where they actually matter, not criminalising lawful behaviour or peaceful protest by members of the British public who are causing minor disruption. Our various amendments seek to probe the Government so that we can consider what to bring forward on Report.
Amendments 18 and 20 deal with being equipped to lock on. Currently, Clause 2 provides that an offence of being equipped for locking on takes place where a person is carrying an item that “may” be used “by any person” in the course of a locking-on offence or “in connection with” such an offence, or which may be used “by any person” in the course of or in connection with a locking-on offence. The amendments that I have tabled and others in the group would narrow that scope so that an offence was committed only where a person was carrying an item with the intention that it “will” be used to commit an offence by the person carrying it. As I say, those amendments are to probe the scope of the offence. Why is the word “may” there, not “will”? Why is the phrase “in connection with” used?
What does “by any person” mean? Any person in the group? Any person standing next to them? Any person who happens to be standing nearby? We heard from my noble friend Lady Armstrong about the difficulties one has where you just imply that someone in the group may be associated with a particular person, and the problems that causes. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said to me, there is already a well-used piece of legislation containing the offence of being equipped. He would know, as a magistrate. Why does that legislation not work here? Time and again, the Minister has been asked to say why the current legislation is inadequate to deal with such situations.
Last Friday when Just Stop Oil called off its protest, I heard one of the protesters say on Radio 4—it was the “Today” programme, and the Minister can go back and listen to it—that among the reasons why they did so were the number of people who had been arrested and the number who were in jail or on remand. They said that was having an impact on the ability to carry out protests. Is that not part of the existing legislation dealing with these problems? Maybe it should have been used or enforced quicker but that is a process issue and a policing issue, not a legislative one.
Under current drafting, if an item is not used and absolutely no disruption is caused to anyone, has the person committed a criminal offence because something in their possession may have been used by someone else—not even themselves—to lock on? Is that a criminal offence or not? What does “in connection with” a locking-on offence mean? What activity does that cover?
The classic example that we have all used is a bike lock. We keep coming back to that because it has not been properly addressed. If a person walks through Parliament Square with a bike lock, they could be caught by that clause—is that not the case? Will it be up to that member of the public to prove to a police officer that they have no intent even though it might be used by someone else, not even to commit locking on but for an action that is somehow connected to it? Again, clarity is needed in the law because that police officer will be required to enforce it.
It is worth noting that the clause does not include a reasonable excuse defence. In practice, that is what happens when someone has a reasonable excuse, such as they work close by and own a bike. How is that going to work if there is no reasonable excuse defence available in the clause. Or have I misread it? Asking these questions is, after all, the purpose of Committee.
Amendment 52 concerns the obstruction of major transport works. Clause 6 makes it an offence to obstruct any actions that are
“reasonably necessary … in connection with”
constructing or maintaining transport works. The amendment would remove “in connection with”. Again, this is to probe what actions that may cover. Clause 6 currently provides that it is an offence to obstruct a person
“taking any steps that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of facilitating, or in connection with, the construction or maintenance of any major transport works”.
What does “in connection with” mean? Imagine the list of activities that could be considered as any step that was reasonably necessary in connection with maintaining a transport work. If a local protest prevents a person from painting a railway generator for a few hours, is that now a criminal offence? As the JCHR said:
“For example, the offence would be committed by moving any apparatus that ‘relates to’ construction or maintenance of major transport works (such as a shovel, a broom or a traffic cone) or, indeed, moving any apparatus (even if unrelated to the works) that belongs to a person acting under the authority of the person in charge of the works.”
Is the JCHR wrong to have used those examples? As I say, poor, open-ended drafting will make these offences unusable, casting the net so wide that it means that in no way is the Bill focused on the small number of highly disruptive protesters who are purposefully breaking the law.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this shortish debate. I have already spoken about the damage and disruption that these offences can cause. Narrowing the scope of these offences, as the amendments in this group seek to do, would restrict the ability of the police to stop individuals from causing unjustifiable amounts of disruption and harm.
Before I get on to the amendments, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the scrutiny that this Bill deserves in this Chamber. I was merely clarifying an earlier point when I referred to its passage through the other place.
Amendment 5 provides a definition for the term “attached” in reference to the locking-on offence. We are fundamentally interested here in the disruption caused. The range of equipment used for locking on is extensive and ever changing. So, aside from bike locks, chains, cable ties and glue, police have also seen sophisticated devices that have been deliberately designed to be difficult and time-consuming to remove. Arm tubes involve protesters putting their arms through pipes containing concrete, steel or other materials that can either be released by the protester at will or require the police to use machinery to cut them free. Sometimes, such devices are designed to inflict harm on anyone who tries to remove them, placing the police in harm’s way. These devices are constantly evolving and designed to waste as much police time as possible. Given this, equipment that could be used in the course of, or in connection with, a locking-on offence is in scope. This could include locks and chains and large objects used to lock on, such as the bamboo structures that have featured in many protests. Specific equipment is not listed in the legislation as protesters can easily create new methods of locking on. Instead, referring to the act of locking on, and the serious disruption it causes, ensures this clause will remain relevant going forward.
Amendments 18, 19, 20, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77 seek to remove those acts which are taken “in connection” with these offences. I recognise the sentiment behind these amendments, but it is our view that it is vital that the full range of disruptive tactics that can be, and frequently are, deployed are captured to ensure our major transport works are protected.
With respect to the tunnelling offence, removing “in connection” would mean that those who carry items that are not strictly necessary for the construction or occupation of a tunnel are not in scope of this offence. The aim of the tunnellers is to cause disruption by delaying their removal for as long as possible. To achieve that, they will often create obstructions that will include, for example, coils of wire mesh and even nooses attached to the tunnel’s door to tie around their own necks. Items to make these are not themselves necessary for the commission of the other tunnelling offences, but I am certain that many in the House would agree that anyone carrying these items for these purposes should be in scope of the offence.
To use the obstruction of major transport works as an example, as I have already said, while many noble Lords will be familiar with the larger-scale protester action, many will be less familiar with the more minor acts of disruption that can start before construction even begins. Whether that is disrupting ecological surveys, removing or interfering with apparatus that is needed for construction, or blocking access to construction sites, all have a significant impact and can cause significant delays and additional costs to these works. For that reason, the scope of the offence is drafted as such to ensure all highly disruptive action are included in the scope.
Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seeks to narrow the scope of the offence of interfering with key national infrastructure to include only those who interfere to a “significant” extent rather than “any extent”. Again, I understand the core sentiment behind this amendment, but I would like to remind noble Lords that the types of infrastructure regarded as key national infrastructure are those that this Government have identified as playing a vital role for the nation. This is also the infrastructure that is being targeted by protest groups who are intent on causing disruption of any kind. As such, it is important that key national infrastructure is protected using the existing threshold of the Bill.
In a similar vein, Amendments 66 and 67 seek to narrow the scope of what it means to prevent the use of, or operation of, key national infrastructure, so that it only refers to instances where significant delay is caused for the use or operation of the targeted infrastructure. As I have touched on already, there are many circumstances beyond significant delay that should be captured within this offence. For example, should protesters successfully reduce the output of oil from an oil terminal but not delay its delivery, we could still see heating switched off as supplies dry up. We therefore see it as wholly necessary that the full range of disruptive behaviours and acts are captured.
Amendment 68 and 78, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would replace “newspaper printing infrastructure” with the term “communications” in the list of key national infrastructure on the face of the Bill. The list of key national infrastructure is based on sites that protesters have or are likely to target through their current tactics. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to add “communications”, as defined by the noble Baroness, into the list of key national infrastructure at present. However, as the noble Baroness will know—and we will definitely come to consider this in group six—the Bill does contain a delegated power that will allow us to amend this list as tactics and infrastructure evolve.
Amendments 70, 71, 72 and 79 seek to narrow the scope of the interference with key national infrastructure offence by altering the definitions provided for in Clause 8, including by removing B roads from the list of infrastructure in scope or by narrowing the definition of “printing presses”. The scope of the offence as drafted reflects the importance of the continued operation of the infrastructure as defined in Clause 8. Some B roads are lifelines for small towns and villages, and we see it as entirely right they should be included. Printing presses have been included to protect the distribution of print media and news. There are many publications which serve that purpose which are not newspapers.
Finally, I would probe noble Lords on what they deem as “essential” and “inessential” elements of infrastructure. Many elements that some deem inessential, such as signs along railways and roads, provide important information to train and car drivers and may be necessary to ensure the high standards of safety we expect in this country.
For those reasons, I disagree with these amendments and ask that they be withdrawn.
Lord Beith (LD)
Can the Minister help the Committee by saying how he would answer this question, and if he has asked himself this question? If he were one of the people carrying something that a constable challenged him for—maybe the padlock that I talked about earlier that a young couple were going to put on a bridge, or maybe a packet of cable ties—what would his answer be to the constable who challenged him? Does he think it would result in him not being charged?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, these things are judged on a case-by-case basis. It would depend entirely on where I was, what I was doing and also the intention as described in Clause 2 of the Bill.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I listened with great interest to the Minister’s reply to the Committee’s discussion on this. Could he explain why, rather than trying to define all these activities—this happening, that happening and this piece of equipment and so on—has he not sought to do it in terms of intent, and a requirement that before an offence is committed intent to cause disruption is demonstrated?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is captured. As I say,
“A person commits an offence if they have an object with them in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of an offence under section 1”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On this issue of intent, Clause 6 creates a criminal offence of obstructing “major transport works” but the Constitution Committee notes that unlike Clause 1, 3, 4 and 7, intent or recklessness are not required for an act to constitute an offence under Clause. Can the Minister explain why?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Not at this point, I will have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Bearing in mind the number of amendments, I worked out that the Minister spent 17 seconds per amendment in his response. I gave the example of a mobile phone that ended up on railway tracks interrupting national infrastructure and whether that was within the scope of the Bill. Does the Minister feel that his response has been comprehensive enough, on the very detailed questions he’s been asked?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I have really enjoyed it and I think we are expecting some better answers in the future. The Minister said something about probing us on what we thought, but it is our job to probe him about what this legislation means. So far, it is not coming out very well.
Personally, I hope it gets thrown in the rubbish bin because, quite honestly, we are spending an awful lot of time and energy debating it when we know it is awful. It is not as if we can see a glimmer of hope that it might solve some problems. The Minister talked about the damage and disruption that these protesters are doing. In fact, the Government have done more damage and disruption to our social fabric than XR, Insulate Britain or Just Stop Oil could ever do. They have had 12 years and made the most horrendous mess.
Getting back to the Bill, the Minister did not answer my question about “attach”. I still do not know what “attach” means. I am happy to wait and hear a longer answer, if he has one, on another occasion.
“(2A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) that their actions were likely to avoid greater disruption or were otherwise in the public interest.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates a defence for actions that are in the public interest or which avoid greater disruption.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Again, I will just talk to my two amendments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I are probing the Government from both ends with our amendments. I am probing on the basis that the offences are so broadly drawn that they require equally broad defences to protect innocent people from being criminalised. I imagine that the noble and learned Lord is being rather more forgiving on the drafting of the offence, and therefore trying to ensure that it works by not making the defences overly lenient. I am happy to be corrected, but both perspectives can be true. That is why the drafting is so bad. These issues will not just detain us here—she says, bitterly—but will create hours, days and weeks of legal arguments in the courts, which is very much to be avoided.
There is an opportunity in this legislation which I might explore later: that fossil fuel companies and other environmentally destructive actors could be prosecuted and convicted for locking on. For example, if a fracking company attaches a drilling rig to land, that potentially causes serious disruption to two or more individuals. It could leak or cause earthquakes; it could contribute to climate change, or two people might have wanted to walk through that field but now there is a rig in the way. Local people could be seriously inconvenienced by having to protest against the fracking rig, rather than pursuing their hobbies such as birdwatching.
The Government probably do not mean to criminalise fracking and other oil and gas extraction, but this is a logical consequence of such broadly drafted offences. I rather suspect that people such as those at Greenpeace or the Good Law Project might enjoy some time in court with private prosecutions of that kind. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 11, 30, 34, 41, 57 and 63. That may seem a bit of a mouthful but they are all in exactly the same terms. They refer to the reasonable excuse defence in Clauses 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. Perhaps I should preface my remarks, particularly in the light of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, by saying that I very much subscribe to the view that these measures are not needed at all. These are laws we do not need and they may cause confusion, but I have to take the Bill as it is. I am making my remarks with reference to the Bill as we find it, not as I would like it to be.
The Constitution Committee examined the phrase “reasonable excuse” and its implications, and said that it is
“constitutionally unsatisfactory to leave to the courts the task of determining what might be a ‘reasonable excuse’ without Parliament indicating what it intends the defence to cover”.
There are two points in particular: first, it invites argument over whether certain, but not other, political motivations might constitute an excuse—how serious they are and their consequences, and so forth; secondly, and perhaps even more important, is whether the defence of reasonable excuse should be available at all in cases where serious disruption has been caused. This is exactly the other side of the argument that the noble Baroness put forward a moment ago. The committee’s recommendation was that unless a precise definition of reasonable excuse is provided, the defence should be removed from Clauses 1, 3, 4 and 7 altogether.
The point is really this: if the wording remains in the Bill as it is, it opens the door to arguments that bodies such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil use to justify their actions. I recall the lady who was sitting up on a gantry when she was interviewed on television. With tears in her eyes, she said, “I know I’m causing terrible disruption to many people”—you could see all the cars stuck behind the police cordon—“but I’ve got no alternative. Look at the serious disruption that climate change is giving rise to; that’s my case. We’ve got to do something about it, so I don’t mind how much disruption I cause to however many people because I’ve got to get that message across.” The problem with the reasonable excuse defence is that it opens up that kind of argument.
The committee’s recommendation was, as I say, that unless a precise definition is provided it should be removed. My amendments propose that the question
“is to be determined with reference to the immediate interests or intentions of the individual, not any public interest which that person may seek to invoke”.
The immediate interest point would cover the case of the journalist Charlotte Lynch, who was arrested by the police. In her position, she could obviously say that as a journalist she was doing her job. That would undoubtedly be a reasonable excuse if she was having to defend a charge in this situation, and one could think of many other examples, so the opening words of my amendment are designed to deal with people of that kind. But they are intended to meet the very point on which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, focused on so clearly: the position of protesters who are protesting because of climate change, for example, or other big public interests that people feel it necessary to protest about.
There are various problems with leaving the words as they are. The offences described in Clauses 1 and 6 are to be tried summarily before magistrates. I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is here with his experience but I suggest that leaving it to magistrates to decide whether a particular public interest excuse is reasonable, without any guidance from Parliament, is not satisfactory. There is a risk of inconsistent decisions between one bench of magistrates and another but there is another problem, too. These arguments, if they are to be raised in a magistrates’ court, may take up a great deal of time. I have heard at second hand of a case where one of these issues was raised in a magistrates’ court and it took hours and hours as people deployed their arguments. The magistrates’ courts are not equipped for that kind of interference in their ordinary business, so one has to have regard to the consequences of leaving it to them to decide issues of this kind. That important factor needs to be borne in mind.
Lord Beith (LD)
Could the noble and learned Lord explain whether he thinks that phrasing the clause in this way dispenses with the proportionality issue, which was so important in the Supreme Court judgment in the Colston statue case?
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord because I am coming on to deal with exactly that. Indeed, it leads me into the next paragraph in my notes. I am just making the point that one has to consider the practical consequences for prosecutors and the police of leaving this expression as wide as it is and without qualification of some kind. Of course, I am pointing to a particular qualification that needs to be made.
The Supreme Court, in a well-known case called Ziegler in 2021, held that protesters had been rightly acquitted of obstructing a highway when protesting about an armament fair. That is not an easy judgment to read or understand, not helped by the fact that there were two dissents in a court of five, but it has been thought to support the view that invoking the public interest defence in that context is acceptable. However, a series of decisions in the Court of Appeal have narrowed the window that Ziegler left open. The point is that we are dealing now, in the offences that we are considering in the Bill, with offences that require proof of serious disruption. The Court of Appeal’s point is that that changes the balance between what is proportionate and what is not, which is at the heart of this issue. The proof of serious disruption was not a necessary element of the offence of obstructing the highway considered in Ziegler, but it is important to notice that in our offences it is a vital and essential element.
The Colston case was the subject of the most recent Court of Appeal decision, which is Attorney-General’s reference no. 1 of 2022. The court was asked to rule on what principles judges should apply when determining whether the convention rights are engaged by a potential conviction for acts of damage during a protest, and when the issue of proportionality should be withdrawn from the jury. The court held that the convention did not provide protection to those who cause criminal damage during a protest that is violent, not peaceful. That was the Colston case.
However, it went on to say that a conviction for causing significant damage to property, even if inflicted in a way that could be called peaceful, could not be held to be disproportionate either. The prosecution in the Colston case was correct, both because the toppling of the statue in that case was violent and, as a separate issue, because the damage to the statue was significant. The words “serious disruption”, which appear in these offences, seem to fall into the same category. In other words, a person who engages in criminal conduct that causes serious disruption cannot take advantage of this defence.
It has been pointed out that a case raising this issue is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court before Christmas. I think there are problems with that. The judgment is not likely to be given until well into next year because the court takes a considerable time to consider all the issues. I think one would be fortunate if the judgment were out before the early summer. This is a problem that needs to be solved now, and I will come back to the question of the magistrates’ court and the problems that could arise there.
I stress again that the offences we are dealing with here all require proof of serious disruption. That is why the reasonable grounds defence should be removed altogether or qualified in the way I am suggesting, to confine it to circumstances that affect the position of the individual on the ground at the time he or she is causing the disruption. That qualification would be welcome, and undoubtedly useful, in many cases. Without it, I suggest that the whole defence be removed.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I am very sorry that I was not able to speak at Second Reading. I shall be very brief. I share the various arguments presented to the Committee about the vagueness of this legislation and the ineptitude of the drafting that leaves so many criminal offences so vaguely described. I support the basic premise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. We are about to legislate in a situation where there is a decision of the Supreme Court, with two dissenting judgments out of five; further decisions of the Court of Appeal are rowing back from the majority decision in Ziegler; we have the Colston decision, which will have to be reconciled with Ziegler; and we know that the Supreme Court is looking at the issue again.
What on earth are we supposed to do when we have the opportunity to make it clear what the answer is to these problems, revealed by the number of cases to which I have referred? We have the opportunity, and we should take it. We really should not just say, “You carry on sorting it out”. How many more times does the issue have to be examined in higher courts? If the issues are being examined in magistrates’ courts, there will inevitably be references to cases stated and so on. If we do not accept the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, or at least the thrust behind it, we are sending a slightly chaotic situation back to the courts when we could clear it up.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I hesitate, as a non- lawyer, or even as someone who has never been a judge or magistrate, to enter this debate. I have amendments 34, 56 and 62 in this group.
Amendment 34 seeks to ensure that only those people present in tunnels created under Clause 3 are criminalised—in other words, illegal tunnels, or tunnels dug by protesters—rather than those present in tunnels such as the London Underground tunnels. The drafting of the offence appears to capture people causing serious disruption in the London Underground tunnels, which I am sure was not the intention. In meetings with Ministers before today’s debate, there was an undertaking to recognise that and address it. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what conclusions the Government have come to, bearing in mind that they have been given prior notice.
Amendments 56 and 62 reflect the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights that particular regard must be had to the right to peaceful protest under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights when deciding whether someone has a reasonable excuse for their actions that would otherwise be an offence of obstructing major transport works and interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure.
On the other amendments, I admire the ingenuity of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her Amendment 9. I shall leave it at that.
With regard to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the reasonable excuse defence is clearly very difficult. One can understand and sympathise with Extinction Rebellion or the Just Stop Oil people who say, “You’re destroying the planet by giving out more licences for oil and gas exploration”. What more reasonable excuse could you think of for causing this sort of disruption? My only concern is that the Government will take the noble and learned Lord’s first option of doing away with the reasonable excuse defence altogether in these offences, rather than adopting the approach that the noble and learned Lord has suggested.
In the case of the journalist who was arrested, the alternative suggestion in the noble and learned Lord’s detailed amendments would clearly be something that she could use in her defence. I hesitate to say what would happen to her if there were no reasonable excuse for these offences. As the noble and learned Lord said—and with no disrespect to the noble Lord who is a serving magistrate—these are very difficult decisions. If the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court disagree, and if you have two judges even on the Supreme Court dissenting, how can a Bench of lay magistrates grapple with these difficult issues around reasonable excuse? So there certainly needs to be clarification and clarity around reasonable excuse, and I hope that the Minister can help us with these issues.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. I will come to the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but I will deal with my Amendment 42 first, because it deals with an important specific ask of the Government. I will then come on to the more general point about the reasonable excuse defence.
My Amendment 42, for which I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would insert a defence for a person who is present in a tunnel or is undertaking acts
“wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.”
The amendment probes situations where all or part of a person’s workplace is within a tunnel, such as the London Underground.
Currently, other clauses, such as Clause 6 on obstruction of transport works, include a reasonable excuse defence for people causing disruption as part of a trade dispute, and I think we all welcome the Government’s inclusion of that. But have they considered whether that defence needs to be replicated for the new offence of being present in a tunnel? What is covered in the definition of a “tunnel” under the Bill? Does it include the London Underground or the Channel Tunnel, for example? Under the Bill, the definition of a “tunnel” is simply
“an excavation that extends beneath land”.
So some clarification of that would be helpful, and I would be grateful for answers on my Amendment 42.
Aside from that amendment, we have had an interesting, almost philosophical, debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is right to say that you cannot just leave this to others to debate. There is a very real debate here: how far is protest justified by people who say, “My reasonable excuse is that there’s such a climate emergency and, if only people realised it, they would realise that we’re the people who are being sensible and reasonable”? This is a very difficult debate and discussion, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has challenged Parliament to have it. The Government may need to think about this and come back on Report with something that seeks to explore the whole issue.
This example is not the same, for obvious reasons, but the Chartists would have been regarded in their time as unreasonable extremists. Many of the suffragettes were imprisoned and force-fed. You can say that this is different and we are in a different time, but you see the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is getting at: what is a reasonable protest, and how far should someone go? In other words, where is the balance in a protest that will inevitably cause some disruption? I have been on protests and demonstrations that have caused disruption. But where is the balance and where do you draw the line? We never debate or discuss this—
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
The crucial point that I was trying to make is that we are dealing here with serious disruption. I have been trying to get a definition of what that really means. These two points meet: you have to identify what you mean by “serious disruption”, and you reach a point where the proportionality tips against the person who is causing the disruption. That is what we need to get at and why the language in the Bill needs to be more precise to enable that to be determined.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I could not agree more; the issue of proportionality is exactly right. But this is difficult. I have been on demonstrations that caused serious disruption that we regarded as perfectly reasonable, but I am not sure that everybody else would have thought they were perfectly reasonable.
So I support what the noble and learned Lord’s amendments seek to do, which is to get the Government to justify where they think that line should be and say—I am not a lawyer, but I often hear the lawyers here say this—that it should not be left to the courts to determine and try to guess what the Government’s view was and what Parliament was seeking to do. It is Parliament’s responsibility to try to define and clarify what the law seeks to achieve. The courts then interpret that, which is right in a democracy. But we abrogate our responsibility if we do not even seek to discuss this.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is exactly right, but my question to him is: where does it tip? One person’s view of what is proportionate may be regarded by someone else as weak and not strong or determined enough to challenge the system. The system might need more challenge, not less, to bring about the change that is needed.
So the debate is necessary, but quite where that takes us and how you put forward an amendment, other than the interesting amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is really important, as is how the Government respond to it. This important point should not be lost. It is almost a philosophical debate, but its practical implications for protest in our society are immense.
Speaking as an individual, I would put up with some disruption because I recognise the need for people to protest. When I drive into London and sometimes cannot get into Parliament, I remind myself that I have done similar things to people in other circumstances—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
And worse. Well, not quite worse, but I have done similar things, and that is the price you pay for democracy. Where you draw the line —before anyone takes me on, I suggest that the Just Stop Oil protesters have acted disproportionately—is an interesting debate and discussion to have, and the noble and learned Lord has done the Chamber great credit by bring it forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very interesting debate on this set of amendments. Before I begin, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who is not present in her place, in respect of the comments made at the end of group 1, particularly those relating to the reasonable excuse defence being available before arrest and the recent specific case of the arrest of the journalist Charlotte Lynch. I repeat the words of my noble friend Lord Sharpe: this was clearly wrong and should not have happened. Hertfordshire Constabulary has confirmed that additional measures are now in place to ensure that legitimate media are able to do their jobs.
More generally, I make clear that, to arrest someone, the police need to have reasonable grounds to suspect that they have committed or are about to commit a crime. Of course, we would expect the police to consider the likelihood of someone having a reasonable excuse when making arrest decisions. But the police must be able to intervene early to deal with serious disruption, without having to go through bureaucratic hurdles.
Turning to the group at hand, we have already discussed the reasonable excuse defence at some length today, and I will not detain noble Lords for too much longer. Specifically in relation to Amendments 9 and 10, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for giving me the opportunity to make it clear that trampling on the rights of the public in the name of environmental activism is not by default a reasonable excuse for locking on; nor does legitimate activity by the highly regulated energy sector constitute a criminal offence.
Turning to perhaps the most interesting part of the recent debate—regarding Amendments 11, 30, 41, 57 and 63—I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his amendments, which seek to ensure that the reasonable excuse defence is assessed by the courts with reference to an individual’s direct intentions, rather than with reference to any type of public interest they claim to be pursuing through an offence. This would prevent someone using an argument of public interest as a reasonable excuse for committing an offence. I also thank him for his excellent contribution to the debate.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
Before the arrival of the Minister in the Chamber, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that he would return to my point about picketing in the response to this group of amendments. Clearly this is what is happening now. However, I am afraid I did not really understand what the Minister was putting to us about other things in the Bill. Could he recap a little on what is intended by
“furtherance of a trade dispute”
in that context? I am sure it is entirely my own fault, but I just did not understand this.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Certainly, and I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is important that we have clarity because this is clearly a very important point. In the Bill, the pursuit of lawful and legitimate industrial action constitutes a lawful exercise of that right and is not criminalised. However, that provision in the Bill does not read across, if you like, to all the other offences, and in particular is not found in any tunnelling offence. That is the point where I differ from the speech the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, gave moments ago. The reason for that—
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He just said that, in other parts of the Bill, somebody engaged in a trade dispute is not criminalised by the offences contained in this Bill. However, we had a discussion in the Minister’s absence about the fact that it was a reasonable excuse defence once charged. In other words, somebody engaged in a trade dispute could be arrested, detained and charged by the police, which I would describe as being treated as a criminal, and it is only at the point after a charge and an appearance at a court that this defence is available. I guess that the Minister is technically right, in that somebody is not criminalised until they are convicted by a court, but we are really arguing semantics here. So the way that the Minister expressed himself—saying that, effectively, somebody involved in a trade dispute would not be in danger from the provisions of the Bill—is not actually accurate.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
In Clause 7, “Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure”, one can see that, in subsection (2), “a defence” is provided
“for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that … (b) the act mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection was done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.”
I am sure the noble Lord can see how the protection for the right to be involved in a trade dispute is protected by that drafting—and that is certainly the clear intention of the Government.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Is the Minister saying that you cannot lock on in the furtherance of a trade dispute but you can picket in the furtherance of a trade dispute?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the provisions of the locking-on offence do not expressly contain the same provision. Therefore, it is correct to say that the Bill envisages a defence for the involvement in industrial disputes in relation to key national infrastructure, but there is no need for such a like provision in respect of locking on. I will obviously clarify that with my officials and respond to the noble Lord in on that.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I just seek some clarification. In response to the speech I made earlier about picketing, and since there is no intention in Amendment 60 to expand picketing, or any rights in relation to picketing, is the Minister therefore saying that, on everything that has been permitted by law in terms of picketing—which is already hedged with quite a lot of regulation and requirements—there is no intention in this Bill to make any alteration to the lawful carrying out of picketing in furtherance of a trade dispute? I believe that is what I am hearing the Minister say, and I hope that is the case.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Can I confirm with my officials and write to the noble Baroness in respect of that point? My understanding is that that is so, but I want to check that before I confirm.
Lord Judge (CB)
While the Minister is conferring with his officials, can he suggest to them that they look at Clause1(1) and put in some new words? After
“A person commits an offence if”,
he should add “without reasonable excuse”, if (a) they do this, (b) they do that and (c) they do the other. Then he should get rid of subsection (2).
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I hear what the noble and learned Lord says, and I will certainly ask them.
I think that I had reached Amendment 61. It similarly seeks to strengthen the defences available. As I have said already, whether or not someone has a reasonable excuse for their actions is very specific to each particular incident, and we see it as entirely appropriate that the defendant, who committed the offence in the first place and has personal knowledge of those facts, is required to prove them.
I turn lastly to Amendments 56 and 62, which seek to make it an explicit requirement for the police and courts to pay regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR when determining whether someone has a reasonable excuse for the offences of obstructing major transport works and interference with key national infrastructure. Although I understand the sentiment behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I do not see it as being necessary. It is of course right that the courts and other public bodies are already obliged to act compatibly with the ECHR by reason of the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Therefore, there is already legislative protection for the consideration of such rights, and it is not necessary to repeat that in this Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Can I just seek clarification on what the Minister said earlier about tunnels not constructed by protesters and people causing serious disruption in those tunnels? My understanding is that the Minister is saying, “Don’t worry, trust the police.” I know that that is what the legislation says about someone causing serious disruption in a London Underground tunnel, maybe London Underground workers operating a picket line in a tunnel constructed by London Underground: “Don’t worry about it, the police are reasonable people; they wouldn’t use the law in that way and, at the end of the day, the courts wouldn’t convict.” However, as the journalist who was trying to report on a protest found—the case that the Minister started his remarks with—we are still faced with the possibility of being arrested and detained for five hours by the police and of the police being unreasonable; that is by their own admission now. It seems an onerous experience for a completely innocent person to go through that, and to have to rely on the fact that, at the end of the day, the courts will not convict them, when they have been completely innocent from the start.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The short answer is that these cases are always going to be fact-specific. If there was a serious disruption in a London Underground tunnel, I suspect that there would potentially be many offences being committed other than those under this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe has already said, this situation will be considered and we will come back to the noble Lord. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I enjoyed the critique of reasonable defence from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I was delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has come into the debate. However, I ask both of them not to be helpful to the Government—I just want to vote against everything in this Bill and they are making it difficult.
Social Housing Standards
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, Members across the House and people across the country will have been horrified to hear about the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Awaab died in December 2020, just days after his second birthday, following prolonged exposure to mould in his parents’ one-bedroom flat in Rochdale. Awaab’s parents had repeatedly raised their concerns about the desperate state of their home with their landlord, the local housing association, Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. Awaab’s father first articulated his concerns in 2017, and others, including health professionals, also raised the alarm, but the landlord failed to take any kind of meaningful action. Rochdale Boroughwide Housing’s repeated failure to heed Awaab’s family’s pleas to remove the mould in their damp-ridden property was a terrible dereliction of duty.
Worse still, the apparent attempts by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing to attribute the existence of mould to the actions of Awaab’s parents was beyond insensitive and deeply unprofessional. As the Housing Ombudsman has made clear, damp and mould in rented housing is not a lifestyle issue, and we all have a duty to call out any behaviour rooted in ignorance or prejudice. The family’s lawyers have also made clear their view that the inaction of the landlord was rooted in racism and cultural prejudice.
The coroner who investigated Awaab’s death, Joanne Kearsley, has performed a vital public service in laying out all the facts behind this tragedy, and I wish to record my gratitude to her. As she said, it is scarcely believable that a child could die from mould in 21st-century Britain, or that his parents should have to fight tooth and nail, as they did in vain, to save him. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Awaab’s family for their tireless fight for justice over the last two years. They deserved better and their son deserved better.
As so many have rightly concluded, Awaab’s case has thrown into sharp relief the need for renewed action to ensure that every landlord in the country makes certain that their tenants are housed in decent homes and are treated with dignity and fairness. That is why we are bringing forward further reforms. Last week, the House debated Second Reading of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. The measures in that Bill were inspired by the experience of tenants that led to the terrible tragedy of the Grenfell fire. The way in which tenants’ voices were ignored and their interests neglected in the Grenfell tragedy is a constant spur to action for me in this role.
However, before I say more on the substance of those reforms, I would first like to update the House on the immediate steps that my department is taking with regard to Awaab’s death. First, as the excellent public service journalism of the Manchester Evening News shows, we are aware that Awaab’s family was not alone in raising serious issues with the condition of homes managed by the local housing association. I have already been in touch with the chair and the chief executive of Rochdale Boroughwide Housing to demand answers and that they explain to me why a tragedy such as Awaab’s case was ever allowed to happen, and to hear what steps they are undertaking immediately to improve the living conditions of tenants, for which they are responsible.
I have also been in touch with the honourable Member for Rochdale, who has been a powerful champion for his constituents, and will be speaking shortly to the honourable Member for Heywood and Middleton to discuss finding suitable accommodation for tenants in Rochdale who are still enduring unacceptable conditions. I also hope to meet Awaab’s family, and those who live in the Freehold estate, so that they know that my department is there to support them. It is right that the Regulator of Social Housing is considering whether this landlord has systematically failed to meet the standards of service it is required to provide for its tenants. It has my full support in taking whatever action it deems necessary. Finally, I know the coroner has said she will write to me, and I assure the House that I will act immediately on her recommendations.
Turning to the broader urgent issues this tragedy raises, let me be perfectly clear, since some landlords apparently still need to hear this: every single person in this country, irrespective of where they are from, what they do or how much money they earn, deserves to live in a home that is decent, safe and secure. That is the relentless focus of my department. Since the publication of our social housing White Paper, we have sought to raise the bar dramatically on the quality of social housing, while empowering tenants so that their voices are truly heard. We started by strengthening the Housing Ombudsman service so that all residents have somewhere to turn when they are not getting the answers they need from their landlords. In addition, we have changed the law so that residents can now complain directly to the ombudsman, instead of having to wait eight weeks while their case is handled by a local MP or another ‘designated person’.
One of the principal roles of the Housing Ombudsman service is to ensure that robust complaint processes are put in place, so problems are resolved as soon as they are flagged. It can order landlords to pay compensation to residents whom they have mistreated. It can also refer cases to the regulator of social housing, who will in future be able to issue unlimited fines to landlords they find to be at fault. All decisions made by the ombudsman are published in the public domain, for the whole world to see which landlords are consistently letting their tenants down.
It is clear from Awaab’s case, which did not go before the ombudsman, that more needs to be done to ensure that this vital service is better promoted and reaches those who really need it. We have already run the nationwide Make Things Right campaign to ensure that more social housing residents know how they can make complaints and easily access the Housing Ombudsman service when things are too slow. We are now planning another targeted multi-year campaign so that everyone living in the social housing sector knows their rights, knows how to sound the alarm when their landlord is failing to make the grade, and knows how to seek redress without delay.
Where some social housing providers have performed poorly in the past, they have been given ample opportunity to change their ways and to start treating their residents with the respect they deserve. The time for empty promises of improvement is over, and my department is now naming and shaming those who have been found by the regulator to have breached consumer standards, or who have been found by the ombudsman to have committed severe maladministration.
While there is no doubt that this property fell below the standard that we expect social landlords to meet, Awaab’s death makes it painfully clear why we must do everything we can to better protect tenants. Our Social Housing (Regulation) Bill will bring in a rigorous new regime that holds landlords such as these to account for the decency of their homes and the services they provide. At the moment, the system is too reliant on people fighting their own corner, and we are determined to change that. The reforms we are making through the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill will help to relieve the burden on tenants with an emboldened and more powerful regulator. The Regulator of Social Housing will proactively inspect landlords and will have power to issue unlimited fines. It will be able to intervene in those cases where tenants’ lives are being put at risk because landlords are dragging their feet in actioning repairs. In the very worst cases, it will have the power to instruct that properties are brought under new management.
Landlords will be judged against tenant satisfaction measures, allowing tenants and all of us to see transparently which landlords are failing to deliver what residents expect and deserve. The right of everyone to feel safe in the place that they and their loved ones sleep at night is universal. That is why both our levelling-up and private rented sector White Papers set out how we will legislate to introduce a legally binding decent homes standard in the private rented sector for the first time. We recently consulted on that and are reviewing the responses so we can move forward. It is a key plank of our ambitious mission to halve the number of non-decent homes across all rented tenures by 2030, with the biggest improvements in the lowest-performing areas.
Through the legislation we are bringing forward, we hope no family ever has to suffer in the way that Awaab’s family has suffered. We will end the scandal of residents having to live in shoddy, substandard homes, such as some on the Freehold estate. We will restore the right of everyone in this country, whatever their race or cultural background, to live somewhere warm, decent, safe and secure—a place that they can be proud to call home. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement from the other place. I am sure we all agree with Secretary of State Michael Gove that Awaab Ishak’s death, after months of living in a mouldy home, is an unacceptable tragedy, so we support the Government in bringing forward legislation to ensure that housing associations responsible for social housing are held to account. Yet I also draw attention to the Housing Ombudsman, who has recently drawn attention to “a dramatic increase” in cases of damp and mould. Last month, it issued a special report on Clarion Housing in which it says:
“The landlord’s approach was often inconsistent, which seriously impacted residents. It did not have a sufficiently robust and detailed policy in place, and the policy aims that it did have were not met in practice.”
It says that recurring themes included
“a failure to accurately diagnose the cause of damp within a reasonable timeframe, poor communication with residents, and failures to update residents on inspection findings and the actions to be taken.”
So, sadly, this case is not an isolated one. This attitude by housing associations is clearly unacceptable and must be tackled urgently.
I have a number of questions for the Minister on these issues. New regulation is clearly important and welcome, but there is also a funding crisis for local authorities, which need to invest in their social housing stock, and this will be a roadblock to improvement if not addressed. What are the Government doing to support investment in social housing, and the monitoring of standards and enforcement? Every year, £38 million is spent on treating damp and mouldy homes. With energy bills shooting up, this winter will likely lead to a further spike in mould problems. Damp is also more likely in homes that are excessively cold and more expensive to heat. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to retrofit and insulate older social housing stock? Will she commit to sufficient new resources being allocated to the regulator to allow it to effectively perform its inspection role and any new duties that will arise from the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill?
While this Statement mainly focuses on social housing, there are equivalent concerns about private rented properties. One in four private renters is living in fuel poverty. Generation Rent research has found that, for every three serious hazards that councils identify in private rented homes, local government inspectors issue just one formal enforcement notice. The majority of tenants are simply not being protected.
The Government have said they will apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector, which we strongly support. The consultation on this closed on 14 October, so can the Minister tell your Lordships when the results of the consultation will be published and when we are likely to see the long-promised renters reform Bill? Will she confirm that the Government will commit to the abolition of Section 21 to give tenants greater confidence to complain about unsafe conditions, to ensure minimum standards and landlord registration so that landlords are truly accountable for the properties they let out, and to give stronger powers to councils to take action against landlords who break the law?
When a local authority has a selective licensing scheme, it is more proactive in enforcement. However, it concerns us that the Government seem to be taking a very cautious approach to these schemes. Can the Minister explain why, when they clearly seem to be having a positive impact on standards?
Finally, I draw attention to the Statement’s very welcome recognition of the serious matter regarding the way in which the housing association behaved towards the family. As the Statement says, their lawyer said that racism and cultural prejudice played a role in their treatment and the handling of their complaints, which is clearly disgraceful. Recent government statistics show that white British households were less likely to live in damp conditions than other ethnic groups: while the figure for white British households is 3%, mixed white and black Caribbean is 13%, Bangladeshi is 10%, black African 9% and Pakistani 8%. I am sure the Minister recognises that this is a serious matter. Does she agree that this is a clear problem of inequality that must be addressed and that these complaints about racism must be thoroughly investigated?
We are pleased that the Government refer to support for this. It is the response we need, but we also need action. We expect the Government to stick to their promise that they will act immediately.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am standing in for my noble friend Lady Pinnock, who cannot be here tonight; I have 15 years of experience in chairing a housing association, so I hope that I can contribute some constructive points.
This Statement follows a personal tragedy for the Ishak family in Rochdale. We should convey our sympathy and support for them, but the best thing we can do is reduce the possibility of this happening again. However, in my experience, social housing is not easy or straightforward, but complex. Some of the housing stock is far from up to standard, some tenants have very complex social needs and investment in this sector is switched on and off with each change of government, which also has further implications. The regulation regime and regulators also change frequently—three times during my 15 years—which means a loss of experience and knowledge of housing associations and a weaker regulator as a result.
Sadly, one of the problems is that too many tenants in social housing feel a lack of respect. They are demoralised. Anyone who has canvassed such housing knows that one of the biggest problems is getting them to vote, with the consequence that they do not get the all-round, cross-party political attention that they should.
I will make three points relevant to this case. First, maintenance is always a variable expenditure, depending on the state of finances of housing associations. It is easily switched off and the consequences follow much later. This is why, in looking at the funding of social housing, the Government need to look at not just new development and building, which is already inadequate, but at what is being invested in improving and maintaining the stock. I always had to fight in the housing associations that I chaired; investing in development is attractive but the stock is the most important thing, because the tenants are often paying for the new developments through their rents and therefore they need improvements too. That must always be respected by housing associations and the Government.
Complacency culture is a problem. There are some fantastic people working in the housing sector, to whom we should give respect, but there are a minority of housing associations and managers who are inadequate. It is too easy for the bad associations to run themselves for the convenience of staff and not tenants. In every housing association I have been involved in, whether you like it or not, you have to fight to make people think that it is simply not good enough to say, “This is good enough for them.” You need higher standards than that. Tenants need to be at the forefront and have respect.
Finally, we always need to learn from mistakes and seek to improve, but there is a danger with blame culture. It is very easily politically to say, as the Statement does,
“The time for empty promises of improvement is over, and my department is now naming and shaming those who have been found by the regulator to have breached consumer standards”.
I agree that we should expose that, but we also need to be aware of the unintended consequences. If that stops an openness and a willingness of people to admit mistakes, we will have a worse situation.
It is important to ask why the Regulator of Social Housing, after two years of this case, is only now considering whether the Rochdale association is up to scratch. Where has it been? Did the housing association in Rochdale alert the regulator at an early stage that it had a severe problem, and what has it done over the past two years to address these issues? That seems pretty important. I accept that naming and shaming has a role, but not if it leads an organisation to cover up and disguise mistakes. I give the example of the airline industry: we would never be where we are in the airline industry if we spent all our time naming and shaming rather than trying to deal with mistakes and errors and improve the safety record.
So I would like to end with three questions to the Minister. First, is there enough social housing stock in the system to allow housing associations to move people where improvements are needed on the existing stock? I would identify that as almost certainly a major problem that needs addressing. Secondly, are the Government happy with the speed of the Social Housing Regulator in intervening in this case? Did it wait until the end of this case before it intervened? Surely it should have been involved at a much earlier stage, and somebody, if they were running a housing association, should have alerted the housing regulator to the problem. If the Manchester Evening News was involved, I cannot believe that it was not in contact with the regulator—so what has it been doing over the last few months such that we are now waiting for it to make its judgement?
Thirdly, will there be much more attention paid by the Government to improving our housing stock in all sectors, rented and owner occupation, to phase out outdated housing? Surely, we need to do this as part of the insulation programme, but it is fundamental to the problem that we are talking about today that not enough attention has been placed on improving existing housing stock.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I can hear the passion from both noble Lords opposite and I think it is completely appropriate. I wish to add my voice to those who have shone a light on the failings of the housing association, although I understand that the blame culture does not always work; you always have to have with it the support to do better. I have a huge amount of respect for the regulator, and when the regulator has the new duties when the Bill goes through, I am sure that they will do the shaming, if necessary, but they will also do the supporting where necessary as well.
We cannot allow families such as Awaab’s to live in housing that is not fit for human habitation, where there are clear signs of neglect, damp, and mould, and where the family fears for the children’s health. Living in a decent home is a right, and the Secretary of State has been quite clear that the Government will not rest until every single household feels safe in their home. Addressing a number of things that have been brought up, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, quite rightly talked about the issues of the Housing Ombudsman. I do think that this is the way forward for individuals, the way forward for the regulator to get to know issues that are becoming systemic in any area, and the way forward for individual issues to be dealt with in a very timely manner. But we do need—the Secretary of State mentioned this in his Statement—to get out to the tenants to tell them how to do this, and that needs to be done sensitively, because having English as a second language can be a barrier to that, as can other things. We need to make sure that we are doing everything we can, and the Secretary of State said that we are going to go into another country-wide communications project on this—the ombudsman is part of the key to making sure that this does not happen again.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, mentioned building. We know that there is, I believe, £11.5 billion in the affordable housing building fund, and some of that is for social housing. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that there is never enough housing stock to do what we really want to do. This has not just been the case recently; it has always been a challenge, and it is a challenge that you have heard the Secretary of State say that he is up to delivering. We just have to keep going with building the necessary housing stock in this sector that is required.
Energy—once again from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—is always something she challenges the Government on, and quite rightly. As I have mentioned before, there is a government programme of support and money available to retrofit all housing stock, and we also have to remember that the social housing sector is the most energy efficient sector in the country—but we cannot be complacent, and we need to move on this as well.
On private rented sector properties, I have not got the timeline yet, but the review has been done and we are working on getting that through, because it is important. This was not a private rented sector house or flat, but we do know that these issues are just as difficult and complex in the private sector as they are in the social sector. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that I think there is an issue about culture in the housing sector as a whole, and I am hoping that the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill will start to change that culture. That was something that we brought out very early on when we announced the Bill—the fact that we wanted a cultural change within the sector. That is extremely important. I have been involved in the sector a little bit—not as much as some noble Lords, but I have—and there is a cultural issue that does need changing. The regulator knows that, and will spend time working with the sector to change that culture.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, on maintenance and stock improvement, and I will take that back to make sure that we are encouraging all social landlords to make sure that the maintenance is agreed. I know from the local authorities delivering social housing that this is something that is always important to them; certainly, when I was involved, we had planned maintenance—it was good planned maintenance, and the money was there to do that. But there is always a bit of a pull and push on this—whether it goes into maintenance or new properties—and that is an issue too.
I will look at Hansard and, if I have not answered all noble Lords’ questions, I will, as always, write. But what is important to me is that we continue to have a discussion, all of us, in this House, because this House has many of the answers and challenges us all. To any Peer—there are not many of us here—who wants to contact me following the debate to discuss this matter further, I say that my door is open, because it is an important matter and I want to discuss it. It is important that all of us. There is expertise and experience in this House, and I can see that there are noble Lords who know quite a lot about this sector with us today. We need to use that to ensure that nobody has to deal with what Awaab’s family faced ever again.
Before I sit down, I just want to say that our thoughts and prayers are with Awaab’s family through what must have been the most horrendous time—something that obviously they will never forget, and let us hope that we never forget it either.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, this is such a horrible tragedy. I join the Minister in sending sympathies to Awaab’s parents. To lose a two year-old child is just about as bad as it gets, and I feel very strongly about that. I know that the housing association itself is deeply troubled and upset by what has happened on its watch. The coroner said that this should be a “defining moment” for the housing sector. I spoke today to the chief executive of the housing association, Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, and there are some important lessons that the housing associations and we in Parliament and government can learn from this tragedy.
First, the Statement from the Secretary of State explains that the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, which we greatly welcome in this House—we have completed its stages here—will enhance regulation of social landlords and the role of the Housing Ombudsman. This new legislation is important, since I suspect that in this case there was no knowledge at all of the Housing Ombudsman. There was an opportunity to make a complaint and be listened to a lot earlier, but I think that opportunity was simply not known about in Rochdale at the time. We now have legislation that will strengthen the ombudsman, but we need to promote that ombudsman service really quite energetically, and I believe that this process has started.
In my ignorance, I did not understand that mould can actually kill a small child—it is as bad as that. Mould is a horrible thing to have in your house, but the fact that it can lead to death really brings home just how awful this plague is in so many houses where ventilation and heating in combination are not achieving a balance, and where condensation is causing this horrible mould. The urgency of doing something about this has now been magnified by this event and it means that all housing associations have to give priority to this. When they hear that a place has mould on the walls, they must take that very seriously. When a visit is happening for any other reason, staff need to be told, “Look out for mould as well; report that back to base. That is a serious issue”. Now that housing associations are very large enterprises, communications within them need to be good enough so that people share all the information and understanding they bring back from a visit or telephone call. That sharing of information needs to identify where mould is a problem so that something can be done about it.
My next point is that fuel poverty is also behind this. People are not putting the heating on and not making the place warm enough. They cannot be blamed for that; the cost of fuel is a major part of the house- hold budget. This will get worse with the current energy crisis and we will have more of these cases, not fewer. I am afraid that a lot of properties owned by housing associations—including pre-1919 street properties and 1960s and 1970s concrete buildings—need serious attention. They need insulating in a modern way that will cut those energy bills and mean that the lack of heating does not create the condensation that leads to the mould that leads to tragedies like this. We are going to have to invest in these older properties. We are ready for decent homes round 2; I hope the Government are up for this. These things are not just a matter of regulation; they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, also about investment. We all agree on that. The social housing decarbonisation fund coming through will be really helpful. The levelling-up funding should target the insulation of older properties. We can see where the priority really lies in terms of the resources we are going to put into properties: cutting down on fuel bills.
There are some important lessons here. There are lessons for government as well as for the housing associations. Let us hope that some real value can come from this miserable tragedy of poor little Awaab, and that this is indeed a defining moment for the housing sector.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It is indeed a defining moment. The Secretary of State has made it very clear that he thinks that this is a defining moment and that he is not going to let this go.
I was also surprised by how dangerous mould can be. I have concerns about the sharing of information in these cases, because a health visitor and a visiting midwife both noticed this mould. They put forward a report to the council, which did not seem to go as far as it should have. Sadly, communication is often an issue in these cases and we need to make sure that those problems are dealt with as well as the issues of the housing.
Obviously, this case was two years ago, but I am concerned about fuel—of course I am. However, I am mostly concerned about whether some of these tenants know what they can get from the Government to help them. I am not sure that they do. Through wearing my other hat as a Faith Minister, I am working very closely with the faith communities to make sure that when they talk to their communities and have their warm hubs and so on, they ensure that everybody knows exactly what the Government are offering to help them, because that sometimes is not the case. This case was not so much about heating but about ventilation, but that is another issue we need to look at across the sector, because mould often grows when ventilation is not correct.
Lastly, the noble Lord is absolutely right that not enough people know about the ombudsman. We had the Make Things Right campaign, which reached millions of social housing residents. This family obviously did not know about that, but I would then ask: where was the housing association to say that the family could go to the ombudsman when they first complained? There is more that we need to do, both the Government, in telling social housing residents about what they can get, and others who have contact with these families, by suggesting to them that the ombudsman is there to help them.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, mould was causing death to children when Charles Dickens explored the inequities in the rookeries, so it is particularly shocking that this should occur in our own century. My noble friend talked about the rights of tenants and their inability to understand the role of the ombudsman, but this tenant family did the right thing: they got legal advice and their lawyer approached the council. For some reason, the council thought that was a reason to do nothing and not to attend to the mould. Will my noble friend make it clear that this is not a reasonable excuse not to act to provide safe and secure housing? This is particularly important because she talked about the culture. There is a disturbingly high level of churn among officials doing this kind of work in housing associations, looking at maintenance and the like. You can get it right for a while and then someone else comes along. Can my noble friend be unambiguous and say that this is clearly a misunderstanding of how the law operates and not a reasonable excuse?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. When I read about this, I was also very surprised by the timeline: once Awaab’s father had instructed solicitors, the housing association then said it could do nothing further. I understand that many housing providers have a policy to routinely pause addressing complaints through their process when legal proceedings are commenced, and that this stays in place until agreements are reached between solicitors. I do not think that is right. We need to look at this. Repairs should not be stopped. When rehousing is necessary, I do not think that should be stopped. I understand that this is in the hands of the housing providers; if they want to keep going with maintenance, rehousing or whatever is required, they can. They have decided to have this policy, but personally I do not think it is acceptable.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, the Housing Ombudsman said earlier today that at the heart of little Awaab’s death lies the behaviour of the landlord, Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. As he said, for this landlord, and perhaps too many others in the social housing sector, there are issues with culture, behaviours and values. We know this. We have seen it time and again. So, while I commend the Government for all the actions they have taken since Grenfell, will they look again at including professionalisation in the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill? My noble friend the Minister has emphasised the importance of culture change, but without professionalisation it will be so much harder to change the culture, behaviours and values of those working on social housing.
My right honourable friend in the other place said that it is the right of everyone to feel safe in the place where they and their loved ones sleep at night. We know that many living in social housing would feel happier, safer and more valued knowing that the people responsible for their homes were qualified, just as those in other sectors with responsibilities to others are qualified. If this is to be a defining moment, let us not waste this opportunity. We have a real opportunity to do something about this now.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I wondered whether I would get that question from her or the Front Bench opposite. Noble Lords know that we recognise in the social housing White Paper the need to improve professional standards in social housing, so that all residents receive the high-quality services they deserve and, as importantly, in my opinion, are treated with dignity and respect by social housing staff.
We have carried out a review on professional training and development and, as a result, have amended the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill to allow the Secretary of State to direct the regulator to set standards on the competence and conduct of all staff involved in the management of social housing. The new competence and conduct standard will ensure providers take appropriate steps to ensure all staff have the right knowledge, skills and experience, and demonstrate the behaviours required for the delivery of high-quality and professional services for tenants. As my noble friend knows, the Bill is going through the other place at the moment. I am sure there will be more discussions on this, so we wait to see.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
I declare my interests in the private rented sector, as in the register. We have heard from a number of colleagues about the importance of the culture in social housing provision being improved. Would my noble friend agree that social housing landlords must do better to train staff to see the welfare of tenants as their responsibility, rather than seeing them as a problem to be managed?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. That is the culture change we need to embed in the sector and the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill is the catalyst for this. I know that professional qualifications are an issue, but the Government have made it very clear that they want the staff working in housing associations to have the right knowledge and skills, and particularly empathy with tenants. That applies in every sector. Training is necessary and will come. The regulator will certainly be looking at these issues as it moves forward to taking on responsibility for not just the financial issues within the sector but the consumer issues.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness said that she would look through Hansard and write to us. Could she look at when we are likely to see the passage of the renters reform Bill? We have talked about the importance of private rented housing compared with social housing and the Bill is critical to making progress, so I would be grateful for a response on that.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will. I am sorry; I forgot that. I will probably give an answer in the debate tomorrow.
Public Order Bill
Wednesday 16th November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 61-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (16 Nov 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment 12 is agreed, I will not be able to call Amendment 13 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 12
Baroness Chakrabarti
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, reduces the maximum sentence for the proposed new offence of “locking on” to a fine.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I now get the opportunity to congratulate and welcome the Minister —the noble Lord, Lord Murray—to this Committee. I have had the opportunity to welcome him in other ways before, but it is important to be engaged in detailed scrutiny of the Bill for the first time.
This group is about sentencing. Notwithstanding everything that I have said so far—and no doubt will say again, and make the Minister’s ears bleed with my position on the Bill as a whole and specific offences—it is also important to engage with the specific issues of appropriate and proportionate sentencing, how the sentencing framework and different offences in that framework fit together, and whether we in this country should be incarcerating more and more people, including for what may well be peaceful dissent. It is very difficult to separate the issue of sentencing from the other formulation of the offence. When I was young, I was a lawyer in the Minister’s department, and one of the things that we were responsible for at that time in the Home Office was looking at the overall sentencing framework. That may now belong in the Ministry of Justice, but none the less the point was that whenever a new offence was proposed by any government department, it needed to pass some gatekeepers in a little unit in the Home Office who wanted to be clear about the formulation of the offence—mens rea, actus reus, et cetera—but also about the sentence, because in government people look for levers for change and everyone has a new big idea about a new offence.
In particular, in this group, with my first and some other amendments, including those of other noble Lords, I am really probing whether the new proposed offence of locking on—the Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who is about to arrive in his place, was discussing that earlier—could even include people who, in a disruptive way, link arms. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made the argument that sometimes linking arms in big enough groups would be just as disruptive as gluing your hands to the road. Are we really suggesting incarceration for up to 51 weeks for an offence that could be perpetrated by people singing “Kumbaya” and linking arms? It is a probe, but it is important that there should be some probes about the sentences for these offences, and not just their intention and formulation. I think that it is very important that we consider how many people we are incarcerating in this country, the trajectory that we are on with imprisonment in this country, and whether we have a criminal statute book—including a sentencing statute book—that is proportionate and coherent to meet the needs of a very troubled and polarised society at the moment. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I look around in vain for anyone else who wants to speak. I agree with the principles that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has just spoken about. Amendment 13, in my name, is based on a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In its report on the Bill, the committee points out that the offence of locking on under Clause 1 is punishable with—as she just said—
“up to 51 weeks in prison.”
The committee states that:
“This sanction is significantly harsher than the maximum penalties that, until recently, applied to existing ‘protest-related’ non-violent offences such as obstructing the highway (level 3 fine) or aggravated trespass (3 months imprisonment).”
The committee notes that there is likely to be a low hurdle for prosecution—again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, just said. The amendment therefore questions whether the length of potential imprisonment —51 weeks—is proportionate to the offence that is committed. Amendment 13 suggests that this should be reduced to a three-month maximum sentence.
The remaining amendments in my name in this group relate to the level of fine that can be issued to a person who commits an offence under Clauses 1 to 7. They are similar to amendments that I tabled to the corresponding clauses of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—now an Act—when it was previously debated in this House. However, given the nature of the debate at that stage—in particular, in Committee, we started discussing those clauses at 11.45 pm—I believe that there is merit in discussing this issue again in this Committee.
Under Clauses 1 to 7, a person convicted of an offence may be liable to “a fine”. However, the Bill does not specify what the maximum level of such a fine should be. For each of these new offences, our amendments ask the simple question: is an unlimited fine proportionate for such an offence? In particular, is it proportionate that a person convicted of the offence of being equipped for locking on, for example, should be subjected to an unlimited fine? The Minister may argue that the level of fine suggested in our amendments is too low. At this point, they are simply probing amendments designed to make the principled point that an unlimited fine may be disproportionate for a number of the offences contained in the Bill. Finally, it would also be of benefit to the Committee if the Minister could set out how they intend fines to be applied consistently for these offences, if there is no upper limit as to the fine that can be imposed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief. I want to reiterate the final two points that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made. I speak as a sitting magistrate in London. I occasionally have to deal with unlimited fines, but it is far more straightforward as a magistrate, when you have a level set and an example of what the maximum fine might be for whatever offence one is dealing with at the time. For most offences that we deal with, levels are indeed set; we are given the parameters, if you like, of what would be appropriate. I was going to make the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick: if one wants some form of consistency across the country for these types of offences, it would be useful to have some level of guidance, perhaps setting a level of fine that may be appropriate.
The other point I want to make, which is slightly outside the scope of these amendments, is about the power of the court to set compensation. I have been in a case dealing with relatively minor offences, but the level of potential compensation was absolutely astronomical when we were talking about disrupting train services and things such as that. The level of compensation is a judicial decision but, certainly in my experience, the level of compensation can potentially eclipse the maximum level of any fine the court may give. I do not know whether the Minister is able to say something more about appropriate levels of fines—and appropriate levels of compensation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that short debate, and I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her warm welcome to this Committee. It has been a fascinating exercise to conduct my first Committee stage.
The general intention of this group of amendments is to reduce the maximum fines and the maximum sentences listed in Clauses 1 to 8. The maximum fines and sentences attached to these offences reflect, in the view of the Government, the serious harm and disruption that can be caused by these actions. It may be helpful if I set out just one example of that harm for the Committee. During the targeted and reckless activity by Just Stop Oil in August 2022, protesters dug two tunnels in an attempt to disrupt access to an oil terminal in Essex. This particularly dangerous protest tactic not only disrupted the operation of the terminal but had a knock-on impact on many others. First, it led to full and partial road closures impacting the public, local and private businesses and the council. Secondly, it resulted in ambulances and fire and rescue services being on standby due to the risk of collapse in the tunnel, thereby impacting on availability of those emergency services. Thirdly, it consumed a huge amount of police resources in responding to the operation, impacting on the police as well as the public, as officers had to be diverted from other duties.
Given this example and countless others, the maximum sentences and fines set out in the Bill are not only proportionate to the harm and disruption caused but necessary. It is worth saying that these are maximum sentences and it is plainly not the case that every person convicted under these offences will be given these sentences and penalties. Indeed, it is right to say that the maximum penalties are used only in the most egregious cases. The courts will consider the appropriate penalty in each case and, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, they will be considered on a case-by-case basis. For these fundamental reasons, I therefore respectfully disagree with these amendments and ask that Amendment 12 be withdrawn.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Will the Minister address the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and I raised about how consistency in the levels of fines being imposed, particularly by lay magistrates’ Benches, will be achieved when there is absolutely no guidance in the legislation on the level of fine that should be imposed?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is, of course, frequently the case in legislation that there is no guidance on the face of the Bill as to the likely sentences that are imposed. It is very common for there to be sentencing guidelines formulated in the usual way by the judiciary. No doubt that is what will happen in relation to these offences. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will agree, these are the guidelines to which prosecutors routinely refer the court before the court passes sentence.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this all-too-sparse and short, but very important, debate about maximum sentences for new offences that are incredibly controversial. To address the Minister’s response directly, I am concerned that a briefing pattern is developing in the course of this Committee, where the Minister is given an example of something that protesters did that caused a lot of disruption and harm and so on, but we have yet to really understand why existing criminal law is not capable of addressing that. What is not being offered to the Committee—and perhaps not being advised to Ministers—is where the need is, given the scale of the public order statute book as it is. Within that, specific to this group, we are not being given a picture of where these offences sit in the hierarchy of criminal offences and criminal sentences.
Instead, we are being given a story about something outrageous that some protesters did and told that this is why the whole Bill is justified. We really need to get into a bit more specificity when we are playing with the criminal statute book and potentially sending people to prison or bankrupting them and so on. That is no disrespect to the Minister, his noble friend, his colleagues, or even his advisers. What is more traditional—certainly in this place—is that when offences are offered, and sentences to go with them, we are given a picture of where they sit within the current ecosystem of the criminal law; then we can really drill down into both the formulation of the offence and the sentence. People who disagree with me and, perhaps, welcome the offences, can nonetheless improve them and make sure that they are proportionate in their formulation and sentencing.
That has not happened in this debate, and it really must happen for us to do our duty as a Committee. That really must start to happen during the passage of this Bill, and it certainly will have to happen on Report. Concerns about incarceration, bankruptcy and maximum sentences, as well as fundamental concerns about the formulation of the offences themselves and even prior concerns about the need for them, are going to keep coming, group after group, in this Committee, and they will come again as we go down the road of consideration. I hope, therefore, that Ministers will take that in good part. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I apologise in advance to the Ministers for making their ears bleed. A lot of what I have just said is relevant to this group as well. In previous hours in this Committee, noble Lord after noble Lord from around this Committee—from the Benches opposite, the Cross Benches, lawyers, lay people, people concerned with the balance between peaceful dissent and other rights and freedoms for the rest of the community—has been really concerned about these new offences and the justification for them. There was a real consensus that it is for the Government of the day, and those who propose new restrictions of whatever kind on liberty, to make the case. Particularly when we are talking about coercive police powers at a time when there has been a bit of a crisis of trust in the police, which is not what we want, it is really important that the justification for new offences, new police powers and so on be made before we sign these blank cheques. It is no disrespect to the police. Every day that I come into this place, I am grateful to our wonderful police, who stand out there and protect us all as legislators. I am so grateful to them. Of course, it crosses my mind that I am criticising expansive police powers and so on, but I still feel that is my duty.
I will not take up too much time, but the case for these new offences has not been made by the Government. I tried to make my point in response to the debate on the previous group. We need a statement from Ministers about the existing public order statute book, what these existing offences and powers do and do not do, and what the gaps are thought to be, so that noble Lords in this Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who knows a little about the criminal law—he and I have debated it over many years; sometimes we have agreed and sometimes we have disagreed—can bring their minds to this schedule, which hopefully the Government will provide, and ask, “Is there really a gap?”
That has not been done to date, despite the fact that these measures are largely defrosted and reheated from a previous Bill and have been through the elected House. That forensic case, that examination of the existing statute book and where the gaps are, has not been made. I do not vote on people’s liberties to protest, whether I agree or disagree with them, unless I see the case being made. That is why I have taken the step of opposing so many of the clauses—and I apologise if that seems rude in any way.
Make no mistake: I would be doing this if it was my party in government or whoever’s party in government. Sometimes, when it comes to civil liberties, whoever you vote for, the Government get in. As legislators we have duties to be a little more careful and forensic before adding to the very expansive public order statute book, with people concerned for their basic protection—yes, from each other, but also from abuses of power. With that, I do not have to say anything more.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and in the widest sense I agree with her—but I come at it from a rather different angle. I am concerned about the integrity of the legal process.
I do not want to repeat what I said earlier. The Minister heard me referring to a very recent statute that came into force in August, I think from memory, which in my view covers all the conduct we are considering here. One has to consider the effect on the legal process of having different provisions, with very different consequences, which are not alternatives to one another; they have to be charged separately. It is not like wounding with intent under Section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act, where Section 20, unlawful wounding, is always an available alternative. These are quite separate offences, in totally separate Acts of Parliament, separated by a little time—though oddly, in this case, if the Bill is enacted, both introduced in the same year by the same Government.
We have to think about the way the process operates. The biggest Crown Court in London has a backlog, partly because of Covid, of nearly 4,000 cases, and we should consider the case management that is placed on the judges there. I have a particular interest in that Crown Court, which I place on the record. My interest in that court leads me to the view that the judges, the prosecutors and probably the defenders there are unlikely to be aware of the alternatives. However, as I suggested earlier, in another Crown Court another charge might be brought under the other Act of Parliament, and the judges there would know about the offences with the lower imprisonment maximum but would not know about the other statute. We will end up with a crowded calendar, with the Court of Appeal eventually having to say, “Why do we have two Acts of Parliament that deal with the same conduct but have totally different consequences?” I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who is an experienced, busy and highly regarded lay magistrate, has similar experience of backlogs in the courts in which he sits in London, and the same is true in all the cities around the UK.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and completely agree with him that the Government have not made the case for any of the provisions in the Bill.
I agree with many of the points that other noble Lords have already made in this debate on all sides of the House. The Government should take note of the strength of feeling, particularly among the influential Members of the Cross Benches, who are opposing the provisions in the Bill and are likely to persuade their colleagues to vote with them against it on Report if we do not have sufficient clarity and answers to the proper questions that many Members of the House have put to the Ministers but to which they have not received answers today.
I will not repeat what I have already said, particularly in relation to the first group. I am grateful to Liberty for its briefing on the Bill. Based on that briefing, I say that case law confirms that we have a right to choose how we protest, and the diversity of protest tactics throughout history demonstrates the deeply interconnected nature of free expression, creativity and dissent. The offence of locking on under Clause 1 not only defies those principles but criminalises an innumerable list of activities—not only what we would typically understand as lock-on protest, where people lock themselves to one another via a lock-on device or chain themselves to Parliament, but any activities involving people attaching themselves to other people or to an object or land, or attaching objects to other objects and land.
The Government claim that the wording of this offence is sufficiently precise to be foreseeable and that the provisions are in accordance with the law. As noble Lords will have noted from discussions on previous groups, I disagree. I am concerned that the offence under Clause 1 risks disproportionately interfering with individuals’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said on a previous group, the broad and vague nature of “attach”, which is not defined in the Bill, means that this offence could catch people engaged in activities such as linking arms with one another, or locking their wheelchairs to traffic lights. The recurring themes throughout our debates today have been the risk of disproportionality and the risk of uncertainty.
As I have stated before, this proposal is not supported by the police. When consulted on a similar proposal by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, police respondents said:
“most interviewees [junior police officers] did not wish to criminalise protest actions through the creation of a specific offence concerning locking-on.”
Even the police are against it.
Turning to the new offence of being equipped for locking on, I reiterate my concerns that the vague and potentially unlimited list of activities covered by this offence are exacerbated by the ambiguity of the drafting of Clause 2. I note that the object in the offence of locking on does not have to be related to protest at all. It must simply be established that a person intended it to be used in a certain way. Nor does the object have to be used by the person who had it in their possession. The offence refers to
“the commission by any person of an offence”.
The phrase
“in the course of or in connection with”
casts an extremely wide net as to what activities might be criminalised under the offence. So wide is the net cast by this clause that effectively any person walking around with a bike lock, a packet of glue, a roll of tape or any number of other everyday objects could be at risk of being found to have committed this offence. As we have heard, the possibilities are endless. It is also significant that, unlike the substantive offence of locking on, there is no reasonable excuse defence in the wording of this offence, which means that individuals will find it even more difficult to challenge.
The Just Stop Oil movement has called off its protests because too many of its members are behind bars under existing legislation—particularly the favourite of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Section 79 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. If current legislation has effectively put a stop to the disruptive Just Stop Oil protests, why on earth do we need this Bill?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as we now have both Ministers on the Front Bench, I will repeat the point I made earlier about explanations being made in the Chamber. I will add a sentence to what I said before about explanations being given in writing, by letters to individual Members of the House, generally copied to other interested Members: they kind of float though and one loses a grip on how much has been answered. Explanations that are part of the justification for a piece of legislation are not easily available to those who need to know them. We have a parliamentary website with a webpage for each piece of legislation. That is where people will go to see what the debate has been on particular amendments and how amendments have changed as a Bill has progressed. That is where they should be able to see the answers that Ministers were not able to give at the time when a matter was raised. Either through Hansard or some other mechanism, these answers should be lodged on the public record, and they have to be given in the Chamber in order to progress. This is immensely important, and I am making the point here because it is on the point of principle that other noble Lords have spoken about on this group.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has allowed us to have a very important short debate. Again, I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Carlile. The whole point, which I repeat as it is really important, is that the constitutional position of the House of Lords is to review and improve legislation, and sometimes to say to the House of Commons—which, as the elected body, in the end has the constitutional right to have its way—that we think, in this instance, they may have got it wrong. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for this House to do.
All the way through the first day of this Committee, the Government have been asked to justify the Bill. Why is it necessary? What evidence do the Government have to show that this legislation is required? As I said, there is no difference between the vast majority of us in this House in deploring the tactics of Just Stop Oil, and believing that it went far too far in the pursuit of its agenda and beliefs. That is not the point; the point is how we deal with protests in this country.
Many of us are asking: why was existing legislation not used as quickly as it might have been? Why was existing legislation shown to be inadequate? As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has just reminded us—I reminded the Minister of this earlier on—on the Radio 4 “Today” programme last week, a Just Stop Oil protest organiser said that one of the reasons it called off its protests was because of the number of arrests that had been made. It was the number of its members who, as organisers, would have been out on the M25 or wherever but were in prison or on remand. That was not done with the Public Order Bill; it was done with existing legislation. I think it was last week when the Minister told me that, in the month of October, 677 arrests had been made of Just Stop Oil protestors under existing legislation.
It is not good enough for the Government simply to say, “We think that this needs to be done”. What is the evidence and who is demanding this? The Minister has been reminded time and time again during debate that the police themselves have not asked for it. Regarding Clause 5 on being equipped for tunnelling, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said in its evidence:
“There is current legislation, such as that contained in the Criminal Damage Act 1971, that creates offences of damaging property and having article to damage property. With the associated powers of search these allow the Police to find articles or equipment intended to cause damage.”
That is what the police are telling the Government with specific reference to tunnelling. Yet the Government turn round and say, “We need a new offence because the police do not have enough power to do the things we say they need to do.” The police have turned that around and said that they have. They cannot both be right. Is the evidence that the police have given about tunnelling wrong?
The police raised another concern, on which it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. They have another significant concern
“that any specific offence relating to tunnelling would apply to private land. This again could place a significant responsibility on policing.”
They have asked why the Government decided to apply it to private as well as public land; that was a specific request.
The demand from noble Lord after noble Lord has been: can the Government point to how the existing legislation has or has not been used, and where are the specific gaps in legislation that meant the Government have been unable to deal with the protests that we have seen and which the Bill we are debating seeks to fill? As yet, we have had no answer.
In regard to the stand part debate on Clause 1, which deals with locking on and being equipped to do so, locking on is not a new phenomenon. I pointed out to the Minister last week or the week before that there was guidance on police action with respect to locking on between 2008 and 2010. It had pictures of people being locked on to various fences, buildings or whatever.
It looks to me as though the Government have panicked in the face of what is happening. They think, “We have to be seen to be doing something; we can’t have a situation where we seem powerless”. In fact, what is needed is for the Government to get a grip, sit down and talk to the police and magistrates about how to resolve this situation in a way that is consistent with the democratic values of our country but does not allow a reckless minority to overstep the mark and put the majority through unnecessary disruption.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate this evening. It has been a very lively and thoughtful discussion generally. I look forward—I think—to continuing to discuss these important issues next week. I first reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that I do not think she is rude. I may not agree, but I think the position she is coming from is highly principled. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that I do not think we have failed when it comes to definitions. We have committed to take that matter away and it is ongoing work.
The amendments in this final group take issue with the some of the offences listed in Clauses 1 to 8. Clause 1 is a key part of the Government’s plan to protect the public from the dangerous and disruptive protest tactic of locking on. Recent protests have seen selfish individuals seek to cause maximum disruption by locking themselves to roads, buildings, objects and other people. This has seen traffic disrupted, public transport delayed and the transport of fuel from terminals grind to a halt—to name just a few examples. Such tactics cause misery to the public, with people unable to access their place of work or their schools, or to attend vital hospital appointments.
I turn next to Clause 2, which is inextricably linked to Clause 1. During fast-moving protest situations, the police must be able to take necessary proactive action to prevent lock-ons occurring. Along with the associated stop and search powers, which the Committee will scrutinise later, this new offence will allow the police to prevent lock-ons before they occur and deter others from considering doing so.
Lastly, Clause 5, along with Clauses 3 and 4, is designed to make clear that the protest tactic of building tunnels to disrupt legitimate activity will not be tolerated. I am afraid there is a degree of repetition here, but projects such as HS2 have been targeted on multiple occasions by tunnels which have contributed to an enormous cost of £146 million to the project. Aside from the cost, these tactics are enormously reckless, putting not just protesters themselves at risk but those called upon to remove them and repair the damage inflicted.
There is one further amendment in this group: Amendment 69, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which seeks to remove the delegated power for the Secretary of State to amend, add or remove the list of infrastructure in the legal definition of “key national infrastructure”. Throughout the debate, we have heard about ever-evolving protest tactics, targets and technology. We therefore see it as entirely right that Clause 7 is accompanied by a delegated power that will allow us to respond effectively to emerging threats. But I reassure the House that the power is subject to the draft affirmative procedure, thereby facilitating substantive parliamentary scrutiny.
Before concluding tonight’s debate, I will respond to speeches made by many noble Lords, but specifically the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Coaker and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about the necessity of the powers taken in the Bill. I have spoken about the three key general differences between the Bill and existing public order offences and legislation. First, it is about sentencing lengths; secondly, it is about offences that take place on private land; and, thirdly, it is about introducing more pre-emptive powers, providing the police with the ability to stop serious disruption before it happens.
It would be appropriate to acknowledge at this point that some of the commentary from the police is a little contradictory. Chief Constable Chris Noble, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on protests, said:
“There have been some very novel—without giving them any credit—and highly disruptive tactics; that is reflected on the contents page of the Bill. If we look across the breadth of protest organisations and groups, we see that they are very aware of some of the legal gaps, inadequacies and shortcomings; that is very clear from their engagement with police, as well as their tactics.”—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 9/6/22; col. 5.]
Of course we work with the police, and we will obviously continue to do so.
I will try to address some of the key existing offences that have been mentioned and talk about how the Bill differs and builds on these important offences. I turn first to Sections 12, 14 and 14ZA of the Public Order Act 1986, as amended by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which allows the police to place necessary and proportionate conditions on public assemblies and processions to prevent certain harms occurring—namely, serious disruption to the life of the community. These powers are for the safe management of large protests where many people assemble or march. They do not provide the police with the means to tackle non-violent direct action of the sort that Just Stop Oil engages in.
I turn now to public nuisance and obstruction of the highway offences. We are pleased to have put the public nuisance offence on to a statutory footing, and noble Lords are quite right that it can be used to deal with some of the highly disruptive protests that we have seen recently. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, indicated, both these and other criminal offences are currently being used to arrest and charge Just Stop Oil protesters.
But we have to remember that there are offences that can cause serious disruption but do not meet the threshold for the public nuisance offence, which is extremely high. At the moment, such protesters manage to find loopholes to get acquitted or are subject to low penalties. These new offences are therefore essential to give the police the powers that they need to deal with these offenders. Although many Just Stop Oil protesters have been arrested for public nuisance and obstruction of the highway, these offences do not necessarily apply to tactics such as those that have targeted HS2 Ltd. Therefore, new criminal offences covering tunnelling and locking on are necessary.
I turn to the offence of aggravated trespass, which criminalises intentionally obstructing, disrupting or intimidating others carrying out lawful activities on private land. The maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment or a £2,500 fine, or both. This broad offence captures many activities that trespassers, protesters or others may engage in. The maximum penalty is not proportionate to the seriousness of some of the tactics used by protesters, which can put lives at risk. This is a broad offence that covers many non-protest behaviours, and it would not be appropriate to increase the maximum sentence for it. Therefore, new criminal offences that apply to private land are needed: locking-on, tunnelling and infrastructure-related offences.
I turn to stop and search. Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows a constable to search individuals whom they reasonably believe are carrying something that could be used to commit specific criminal offences, including criminal damage. Furthermore, the police can search individuals after having arrested them. For example, after arresting Just Stop Oil protesters for conspiracy to commit public nuisance, the police searched their car and seized items suspected to be used in the course of the offence.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, queried the necessity of the measures given that HS2—which has experienced significant protest action at huge cost, as we have discussed many times—was able to secure a nationwide injunction. We agree that injunctions can be helpful for preventing the types of serious disruption we have seen, which is why we have introduced our own measure which provides a specific mechanism for a Secretary of State to seek an injunction against protest activity where it is in the public interest to do so. However, this is only one piece of the puzzle and we have seen from the M25 protests that injunctions do not necessarily stop people breaking the law.
I have tried to set out how the measures in the Bill will bolster the police powers to respond more effectively to disruptive and dangerous protests, to protect our key national infrastructure and major transport works from interference, and to better balance the rights of protesters with the right of the general public to go about their lives free from serious disruption and harm. For those reasons, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for sticking it out and will try to be brief, given the hour. I am also particularly grateful to the Minister for reminding me that I did not speak to my Amendment 69, which, as he rightly said, would remove the ability to change the criminal offence of interfering with national infrastructure by adding further infrastructure. I stand by my concern that this kind of thing should not be done by way of secondary legislation, because it has such a profound effect on the rights and freedoms of people in this country to dissent peacefully. It would be very easy to abuse that power and it is not appropriate for secondary legislation. We will no doubt return to issues of powers of that kind at a later stage.
Once more, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for pointing out what the courts are having to grapple with: a burgeoning statute book with more and more offences, which police forces must deal with too. This menu of potential powers and offences just gets bigger by the year. The idea that, every time there is an innovative or novel protest, something must be done and there will be a new offering of legislation is not a coherent way to operate the rule of law in a constitutional democracy. Lots of dangers will come from this.
I take the point about the police service not speaking as one on any of these issues, and maybe it should not. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for pointing out, as a former police officer, that there is quite a strength of police opinion and scepticism about the powers in the Bill. I was also grateful to him for reminding me that the offence of going equipped for locking on is, in a way, even worse than the offence of locking on. Locking on is incredibly broad, as I think the Minister accepted in some of his earlier responses. Yes, linking arms is sometimes terribly disruptive too, but going equipped for locking on is a proper thought crime and one of the reasons I am particularly concerned about that offence. It is a thought crime that is supportive of a crime that is, in itself, incredibly broad and will, theoretically, capture some activities that some people think are just natural to humans and innocent.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for addressing a very important process point. I totally understand the need for Ministers to write to noble Lords later, particularly in answer to the Questions we have each day. However, writing later should not be a central tactic of defending and promoting a Bill that has been some time in gestation. I was grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for coming up with a little more about the existing statute book in the latter part of this evening, but that will require a lot more examination. I know that noble Lords in Committee will be reading Hansard very carefully tomorrow and there will be more to discuss about that.
Ultimately, there are some protesters who, rightly or wrongly, care so much about the climate catastrophe, race equality, Brexit or whichever other issue that they are prepared to go to prison. There are some in that category for whom there is no new offence that will prevent their actions. So be it; that is life.
What I am concerned about, with the ever expanding public order statute book, are the people who are not in that category and who will get caught up in this kind of thing, as happened last week to the journalist who was detained for, in total, about seven hours, with five in a police cell, just for reporting on the protests. When you keep adding to police powers, adding to the public order statute book and catching more and more innocent activity, more injustice will follow. It will not be about catching the people who we all agree are going too far sometimes—and who are prepared to go too far for their cause; that is their conscience. There will be more and more innocent bystanders—journalists, people from racial minorities—who get caught up in this very broad blank cheque that noble Lords and Ministers are proposing to hand to the police. The police are from us; they are a part of our community and are imperfect as we are. It is not fair to hand this blank cheque to them and, when it goes wrong, to blame them. We have that on our conscience if we pass these powers.