House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Our fantastic teachers do an amazing job day in, day out, and I am proud to say that we have increased the number of teachers by 24,000 since 2010. Recruitment and retention has been a key challenge in every industry, in every country and in every Department that I have worked in. Whether attracting data analysts at the start of the dotcom era, or broadening the routes into healthcare professions, it is always a challenge. We are bolstering teacher numbers through the highest pay award for 30 years and we are providing generous bursaries worth up to £27,000, as well as our levelling-up premium, which is worth up to £3,000 each year for five years for maths, physics, chemistry and computing teachers.
Beth Winter
The National Foundation for Educational Research says today that a strategy for improving recruitment and retention should involve
“pay uplifts that are higher than pay growth in the wider labour market for most or all teachers”.
Does the Secretary of State agree? Is it not the case that she cannot address the crisis until she gives teachers and support staff the fully funded, inflation-plus pay rise that they deserve?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. In 2019, we launched the Government’s first ever integrated strategy to recruit and retain more teachers in schools, which had a number of different strands in it, including supporting teachers on the way in, recruiting more, and various routes into teaching. Of course, we have an independent pay review body and this year we accepted all its recommendations in full.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
On Friday morning, I was privileged to attend St Paulinus Church of England Primary School in Crayford to speak with teachers and to answer pupils’ questions. As my right hon. Friend knows, an inspirational teacher is often key to opening opportunities for a young person’s future. What more can the Government do to help to retain more of those good, aspirational teachers?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work. Many of us have a treat on a Friday when we go into our fantastic schools and meet lots of children. The early career framework, which was introduced last year, is focused on trying to ensure that we support teachers, particularly in the first five years, so that we retain more of them. The figures show that the risk of retention is in those first five years, so we have put a lot of work and effort into making sure that we support them more during that period.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Of course, recruitment and retention of teachers is important, but all hon. Members will prioritise keeping schoolchildren safe from sexual predators. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, detailing the horrific allegations from a number of witnesses to events at Edinburgh Academy and Fettes College by an individual referred to as Edgar. I have a number of constituents who have complaints against Edgar. This man has admitted to inappropriate behaviour and is currently fighting extradition from South Africa, where he has been publicly named. There is a precedent in England where another alleged abuser living in South Africa, whose extradition has been sought, has been publicly named. We now know that dozens of boys have come forward to the police with allegations against the man referred to as Edgar. It is important that others who were abused by this man can come forward. It is right that his crimes against children are named and it is also right that he is now named. It is for this reason that it is in the public interest that the real name of Edgar—that is, Iain Wares—is now publicly known.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime and the Government are sympathetic to the victims and survivors of such abuse. As set out in November in response to the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, it is important that due process is followed to allow investigatory and legal processes to take place to maximise the chances of conviction.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government intend to raise starting salaries for teachers to £30,000 a year and that the pension entitlement that teachers enjoy is far higher than those earning the same wage in the private sector?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In line with our manifesto commitment to raise the starting salary, it is £28,000 this year and it will be £30,000 from September next year. I can confirm that the employer contribution to teachers’ pensions is 23.6%, which is considerably higher than for many in the private sector.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State says she wants to support teachers, particularly in the first five years, and that the £30,000 a year salary will kick in next year. In London, people often move after about five years because they simply cannot afford to rent privately or buy in the capital. What is she doing, both in the immediate and the long term, to make sure that we keep good teachers in London?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady may be aware that we have a London weighting for teachers, but I accept that the costs of accommodation in London are extremely high in some areas.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is, indeed, a treat to visit schools. On Friday, I visited the brilliant Horndean Technology College, where I was told that there are 20 ways of getting into teaching, but still schools are struggling to get teachers. What more can we do to slim down those 20 ways, which seem rather a lot, and ensure that we have well-qualified teachers to teach pupils to a high standard?
Gillian Keegan
One of the main things we are doing is making sure that we have bursaries to attract teachers, particularly in subjects where there is a lot of competition for those skills. I am actually hoping to increase the number of routes, because we are looking to have an apprenticeship for teaching at undergraduate level, so that people who need to earn and learn can also be attracted into teaching.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Having dumped the Schools Bill, the only education policy this Government seem to have is a gimmick announcement on making maths compulsory until 18, a plan that experts say is unachievable in the light of the teacher recruitment crisis. What discussion did the Secretary of State have with the Prime Minister before his announcement, because surely she would have told him it was unworkable, given that the Government have missed their recruitment target for maths teachers in each of the last 10 years?
Gillian Keegan
We very much have a focus on making sure that our standards are very high in schools and that our children have the very best education to compete globally when they need to get into the workforce. If we look at every other developed economy, we see that in pretty much all of them children do maths in some form up to the age of 18, and we are a bit of an outlier. We are looking to raise the expectations and standards to make sure that our children can compete, and to also give them financial skills for life. Of course, we will work with the sector, and it is a longer-term strategy to make sure that we have enough maths teachers. We have a number of strategies already in place, because it is always tough to recruit maths teachers, and that is why we have introduced a bursary of up to £27,000 for all maths teachers and also for many science teachers.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
All children, no matter their special educational need or disability, deserve the right support to be able to succeed. We will be publishing a full response to the SEND and alternative provision Green Paper in an improvement plan early this year, and we continue to work closely with children, families and education, healthcare and local government sectors on this very important issue.
Kerry McCarthy
Today is Blue Monday, and I am sure that both you, Mr Speaker, and the Education Secretary will be pleased to know that, following our event last year, the band New Order and the charity CALM—the Campaign Against Living Miserably—have teamed up together today to urge people not to hold back from seeking help with their mental health if they need it. However, as we discussed at that event, too many children are facing unconscionable delays in getting assessed and in getting support. Too many children risk being damaged for life as a result, so will the Minister please get a move on and bring forward the response to the SEND review consultation? Children should not have to wait any longer.
Claire Coutinho
I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working incredibly hard, and we will be publishing a response imminently. In the meantime, we are rolling out training on mental health to all schools across the country, and I am working very hard with my counterparts at the Department for Health and Social Care to make sure that, when we look at the proposals on SEND, they are brought fully into the picture as well.
David Johnston
Many parents in Oxfordshire are unhappy with the county council for a variety of reasons—from emails that are never answered, to education, health and care plans that come back with wrong child’s details, to long delays in receiving EHCPs. My hon. Friend will know that many parents want an EHCP because it has become the only way to get support for their children, though this might not have been necessary had they received support from the school at an earlier stage. What steps is she taking to address this?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me several time. One key part of the reforms set out in the SEND Green Paper will be clear standards about what help children with different SEND needs should be getting at school. That will give parents greater transparency and accountability regarding what their child should reasonably get, and also means that children will get the early help that my hon. Friend so rightly talks about.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that Devon’s children’s services have been failing for many years, with special educational needs a particular problem. Following the latest inspector’s damning report, the county council has belatedly appointed a new head of children’s services. Will the Minister make clear to the political leadership of Devon County Council that if things do not improve quickly, she will have no hesitation in stripping Devon of its responsibility for children’s services?
Claire Coutinho
We work with all areas that are struggling to provide SEND services through our regions group work, our delivering better value programmes, and our safety valve programmes. I will, of course, look at the issue carefully, and we always step in and act when we need to.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
One of the best ways in which young people with SEND can be supported is by remaining in the local area to be educated. That is why I am delighted that, thanks to a significant amount of Government investment, Middlehurst School, which is currently sitting empty, is now being built to create 80 new SEND school places. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Councillor Janine Bridges from Stoke-on-Trent City Council on that amazing work, and will she pledge to come and open that school when it is ready, hopefully at the end of this year?
Claire Coutinho
I absolutely commend the work of Councillor Janine Bridges. It sounds as if she is doing a tremendous job to increase the number of places for SEND children. I would also be delighted to come and see whether I can open the school.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
I know how important childcare is to the Chair of the Education Committee, and I look forward to his Committee’s report on that issue. Getting this right is fundamentally important for parents and children, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing is considering all options to improve the cost, flexibility and availability of childcare and, crucially, outcomes for children. It may interest Opposition Members to know that since 2010 we have doubled Labour’s offer of free childcare for three to four-year-olds, from 15 to 30 hours. We have also introduced 15 hours a week of free childcare for disadvantaged two-year-olds, and parents on universal credit can claim back up to 85% of their childcare costs.
Mr Walker
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, and she is right to set out what has been achieved. She will recognise that access to affordable and high-quality childcare is high on the agenda of parents and Members across the House, and as she said, the Education Committee is looking into that issue. There has been much speculation in the media as to whether this issue remains a priority for the Government. Will she reassure me and the Committee that she plans further reform and investment in this space?
Gillian Keegan
I reassure my hon. Friend and the whole House that childcare is important to this Government —indeed, I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about this issue only last week. Helping working families to take up childcare and remain in work is a Government priority, and we have taken steps to ensure that that happens. We want to ensure that people benefit from a lot of the schemes we have in place, as some of them are underutilised. We have a £1.2 million Childcare Choices campaign to increase the use of such schemes, but we will go further. We are considering all options to improve the affordability and availability of childcare and, crucially, outcomes for children.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Sadly, childcare is not the only thing that parents are struggling to afford, and I am grateful to Karen Taylor from Rooted in Hull for drawing to my attention work done by the Child Poverty Action Group on poverty proofing schools. That provides a toolkit for schools to look at their academic year, identify times when they are asking parents to pay money, and try to find ways to alleviate that and reduce the costs to parents. Will the Secretary of State join me in encouraging many schools up and down the country, academy chains and headteachers, to look at that toolkit and do what they can to reduce the costs associated with sending children to school?
Gillian Keegan
Of course we are always focused on what more we can do. We obviously have pupil premium funding, school uniform guidance and the highest number of children benefiting from free school meals, and in deprived areas we have introduced breakfast clubs. We all know that economically, times are tough, which is why we are very much focused on trying to get inflation down and on the Prime Minister’s pledge to halve inflation this year.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Childcare is essential social infrastructure that underpins our economy by supporting parents to work. Yet in 2022, more than 5,000 childcare providers closed, and more than half of all local authority areas saw a net loss of childcare places. The Government have admitted that they pay providers less than it costs them to deliver so-called free childcare places, and with energy bills and wages going up from April, many more providers are at risk of closure. A crisis in our early years sector is happening right now. What are the Government going to do to stop further childcare providers closing?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Actually, Ofsted data shows that the number of childcare places has remained broadly stable at 1.3 million since August 2015. At the spending review in 2021 we announced additional funding of £160 million in 2022-23, £180 million in 2023-24 and £170 million in 2024-25 compared with the 2021-22 financial year. That will allow local authorities to increase the hourly rates paid to childcare providers.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
We are transforming people’s life chances by enabling them to climb the education and skills ladder of opportunity. On 9 January, we announced that in financial year 2023-24 we will increase funding rates to invest a further £125 million in 16-to-19 education. Some £18.5 million has been invested in 16-to-19 education in institutions that cover the Waveney constituency.
Peter Aldous
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Taking into account both the urgent need to address acute skills shortages in key sectors of the economy and the fact that participation in adult education fell from 4.4 million in 2003-04 to 1.5 million in 2019-20, it is vital that further education capacity is significantly expanded. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor highlighted the importance of investment in skills in his autumn statement. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could set out the work that has been done to meet that challenge ahead of the spring statement.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is an FE champion; I welcome his question. He will be pleased to know that we are investing in resources, increasing skills funding by £3.8 billion over the Parliament, investing in quality qualifications such as T-levels, higher technical qualifications, free level 3 courses, bootcamps and apprenticeships. We are also investing in infrastructure, rolling out 21 institutes of technology, spending £290 million.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Come on, my old friend—the Minister can do better than that. The fact of the matter is that further education is still a Cinderella service. When will he wake up to the fact that we desperately need more skilled people in our country and that the FE sector is the one area where we could do real investment that would pay back quickly? I like the Minister a lot—we are old friends—and urge him to get his act together and put some real heft into further education.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman describes FE as a Cinderella service, but I remind him that Cinderella became a member of the royal family and it is this Government who are banishing the two ugly sisters of under-resourcing and snobbery about further education and skills. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), we are investing £3.8 billion extra in skills in this Parliament and £1.6 billion extra for FE, increasing the number of hours of learning for students. I am proud of the Government’s approach to further education and skills.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister was a huge champion for the FE sector when he was Chair of the Education Committee, so it is depressing to hear him now speaking up for the Government. Their funding settlements for FE colleges are the worst in post-war history—and that is not just my view but that of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, whose analysis exposes that per-student funding fell 14% in real terms between 2010 and 2019. Is not the reality that, after 13 years of this Government, only the election of a Labour Government will allow our colleges to play the role that we truly need from them?
Robert Halfon
That is wishful thinking on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The Government are increasing investment in apprenticeships to £2.7 billion by 2024-25. We will be investing an extra £1.6 billion in 16-to-19 education over the same period of time. That includes £500 million a year for T-levels. I mentioned the £290 million being spent on institutes of technology and we have committed £1.5 billion to an upgrade of the FE college estate in England over the next few years. The Government are investing in, and championing, further education and skills. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
As set out in our special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision Green Paper published in March, our ambitious alternative provision reforms will keep all children in AP with the right support in the right setting at the right time. Our reforms will enable children with medical needs or behaviour that present barriers to learning to have the support, skills and confidence they need to thrive.
Rob Butler
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Many of the children I have met in the youth justice system have been excluded from mainstream schools and instead sent to alternative provision. Standards are often very good, but sadly that is far from always the case. Indeed, the Youth Justice Board, on which I used to sit, said:
“An improvement in standards and practice across alternative provision is needed.”
What action is the Minister taking to ensure that alternative provision is not a dumping ground for difficult pupils who mainstream schools want to exclude, and that, by contrast, there is always high-quality teaching and welfare support in AP?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend is a passionate believer in youth justice—in fact, I think that is what we spoke about the first time we met—and he is right to be concerned about this area. There are some great AP settings—I was talking to Mark Vickers of Olive Academies recently—but we know that some settings are delivering very poor outcomes for young people. I am really excited about our proposals on AP. I think they will be transformational and I am happy to discuss them further with my hon. Friend.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Funding for alternative provision for children who are unwell peters out after the age of 16. There was no mention of colleges in last November’s autumn statement. I spoke to a constituent in Devon this morning whose son has been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and is unable to get the online tuition he needs from our local college. When will colleges receive additional revenue funding so they are able to afford alternative provision for children diagnosed with illnesses like my constituent?
Claire Coutinho
As part of the reforms we are setting out, we will develop a bespoke national alternative framework that will include looking at standards and sustainable post-16 destinations. I am happy to discuss that further with the hon. Gentleman once we publish our proposals.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Family hubs are one-stop shops that make it easier for families to get the support they need and I strongly support them. The Government are investing £300 million in the Family Hubs and Start for Life programme, and 75 local authorities will begin to open hubs later this year.
Sally-Ann Hart
East Sussex County Council submitted an excellent bid for a network of family hubs across East Sussex. Family hubs are a part of the solution to many national and local issues, and now more than ever are vital to many of our local communities. In addition to the roll-out of family hubs, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that this fantastic policy has long-term funding to maximise long-term benefits?
Gillian Keegan
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. We are funding 75 councils for the current spending review period. I have no doubt that the excellent work in East Sussex, led by Becky Shaw and her excellent team, and across the country will make the case for further investment.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I am very proud of the work the Government are doing with family hubs, early years and Start for Life. To give babies the very best start to life, every community in Wales has a cylch meithrin—an informal group of mothers, babies and young children. Care within the community is almost a tradition in Wales, but formal support for early years is more variable across Wales. What arrangements are there for sharing or exchanging best practice with the Welsh Government on such important areas?
Gillian Keegan
We have regular meetings with all the devolved authorities, and we share ideas about what we are doing and our policies so that we can learn from one another. There is no monopoly on good ideas; we are always open to listening and sharing.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Since the publication of the independent review of children’s social care, which will also improve the use of family hubs, hundreds of children have been taken into care while millions in profits have been put into the private sector. When will the Secretary of State publish the Government’s delayed response to the review? Will she look at York being a pilot to ensure that we can move forward quickly?
Gillian Keegan
I assure the hon. Lady that the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho)—is working actively on the matter. The response will be published soon, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be happy to discuss further how we will roll that out and implement it.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
Maintained nursery schools make an invaluable contribution to improving the lives of disadvantaged children. We are investing an additional £10 million in their supplementary funding from 2023-24, taking the total to approximately £70 million. We are reforming the distribution of the funding to make it fairer, ensuring that all authorities with maintained nursery schools receive supplementary funding.
Theresa Villiers
I warmly welcome that extra funding, because it means for the first time that maintained nursery schools in Barnet will get a share of the supplementary funding. Will the Minister join me in welcoming that funding and express her strong support for the maintained nursery school sector in the future?
Claire Coutinho
My right hon. Friend has consistently and passionately campaigned for the maintained nursery school sector. I agree that it is doing an excellent job, not only in supporting some of the most disadvantaged children, but in sharing expertise and knowledge with other providers.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Sadly, Midford Road Nursery in my constituency was forced to close its doors. Staff shortages were the major reason. Many nurseries in Bath face similar problems, and parents struggle to find alternatives. What advice would the Minister give to parents in Bath who are struggling to find a nursery?
Claire Coutinho
We have increased the funding set out for early years by about half a billion pounds since 2020-21. I agree that workforce is an issue; we are looking at recruitment and retention very carefully and will be setting out proposals as and when we can.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
In December, I announced a further 239 schools that will benefit from large-scale rebuilding and refurbishment projects as part of our school rebuilding programme, which will transform 500 schools across the country. I saw the huge impact that our investments are having at Coundon Court, where I met the headteacher Mr Heal and his students, who were very excited at the prospect of their new classrooms and design and tech and science labs. As Conservatives, we are investing in the future not only of the next generation, but of generations to come. On top of that, we have allocated more than £13 billion to improving school buildings since 2015, including £1.8 billion this year.
James Wild
I welcome the recent addition of the King Edward VII Academy to the school rebuilding programme, following the inclusion of Smithdon High School in an earlier round, and the new investment that is coming to North West Norfolk. However, given Smithdon’s grade II* listed status and the complexity that it brings, can my right hon. Friend assure me that funding for the school is protected? Will Ministers meet me to ensure that we get the heritage and other permissions we need as rapidly as possible?
Gillian Keegan
My Department is working closely with heritage and planning officers to ensure that we can address the condition of Smithdon High School as quickly as possible, while recognising the listed status of the buildings. We are working on the project with Historic England and the Twentieth Century Society, and we would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and provide an update on progress.
Sara Britcliffe
In Hyndburn and Haslingden, we received the fantastic news just before Christmas that the Hyndburn Academy and Haslingden High School will be included in the next round of the school rebuilding programme. I eagerly await the next round so that schools in my patch, such as The Hollins, can apply. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether school rebuilding programme funding can be used, in conjunction with other investment, for initiatives that benefit not only the school but the wider community?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. We encourage schools to play a positive role in their community, and many choose to provide access to sports and other facilities. The school rebuilding programme directly commissions projects rather than providing funding to schools, so, where feasible, we include additional facilities beyond the scope of a project, if it is funded by the local trust or the local authority. We are interested in making sure that school facilities benefit the wider community.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), visited Joseph Leckie Academy, which really helped, and I had a good meeting with the heads of Joseph Leckie and Blue Coat Church of England Academies along with my friend the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). However, the schools still lost out. Will the Secretary of State, or one of her Ministers, meet those two heads and me to find out why on earth they cannot succeed in obtaining funds for vital repairs?
Gillian Keegan
Obviously some schools are disappointed that they did not have access to those funds. We have announced funding for 400 schools so far and a further 100 will be included in future rounds, but we would be happy to meet the right hon. Lady.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
A Schools Week investigation found that at least 40 schools contained so-called aero-concrete, while 150 more needed further investigation. Officials described the concrete as
“life-expired and liable to collapse”,
which is extremely alarming. NHS England says that it will take until 2035 to remove aero-concrete from all our hospitals; will we be waiting as long as that for it to be removed from our schools?
Gillian Keegan
Last year the Government published updated guidance on identifying and managing reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. In March 2022, all schools were asked to complete a questionnaire about their knowledge of RAAC and its presence in their buildings and asking how, if they had it, they were managing it. We help schools where its presence is confirmed by providing the appropriate technical support, and we want to ensure that we continue that programme.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
Many schools and colleges already mark Holocaust Memorial Day—I have attended such a remembrance service at Harlow College—and they work closely with the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust, two institutions that the Government support. That is all the more important given the 128 incidents of antisemitism in one year in our higher education institutions, and the fact that, sadly, such incidents are now at an all-time high.
Daniel Kawczynski
As well as educating children about the horrors of the holocaust and the second world war, can we take the opportunity to educate children about the tremendous courage, bravery and sacrifices of the Righteous Among the Nations? Many people on the continent gave up their lives to protect their Jewish friends and neighbours. One example was a member of my family, Jan Kawczynski, his wife Helena and their 13-year-old daughter Magdalena, who were all shot by the Germans for protecting and hiding their Jewish friends and neighbours on their estate in western Poland. As well as educating children about the misery of the holocaust, we must give them inspiration from the fact that many of our brothers and sisters in occupied Europe made the ultimate sacrifice to protect friends and neighbours of the Jewish faith.
Robert Halfon
Hear, hear. It was very moving to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s family, and I entirely agree with him: we must teach and remind people that there were many righteous Gentiles who suffered while doing everything possible to save Jews. A famous Polish lady, Irena Sendler, saved 2,000 Jewish children from the Warsaw ghettos, and was remembered in a special exhibition in the House of Commons in 2018, which I was pleased to attend. My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, and I am sure that schools up and down the country will be listening to what he says.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
We are improving the quality of apprenticeships, and Ofsted will be inspecting every apprenticeship provider by 2025. All providers have been asked to re-enrol on the register of apprenticeship training providers. We are intervening to help apprentices and employers as well.
Paul Holmes
My local college, Eastleigh College, works alongside 700 regional employers to deliver high-quality apprenticeships all the way to degree level. Last year nearly a third of apprenticeship starts were at the higher level. What steps are the Government taking to broaden the routes into technical education and increase the number of higher-level apprenticeship starts?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there have been more than 10,800 apprenticeship starts in his constituency since 2010. We are investing £2.7 billion in apprenticeships by 2025. We are spending £8 million of that on promoting degree-level apprenticeships. We have a big recruitment campaign, Fire It Up, to encourage more apprentices. We are transforming careers advice on apprenticeships in schools and colleges, We pay non-levy-payer small businesses the vast majority of their training costs when they hire apprentices.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)
The law is clear that schools must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and take steps to ensure the balanced presentation of opposing views on political issues when they are taught. Guidance to schools on political impartiality was published in February 2022. It summarises the legal position and states that clear and proportionate steps should be taken to ensure that those legal duties are met.
Miriam Cates
You do not have to be a historian, Mr Speaker, to understand the dangers of indoctrinating children, yet YouGov polling for Policy Exchange shows that the majority of UK children are being taught political ideology as fact in school. That includes gender ideology that children can be born in the wrong body and men can have babies; critical race theories that race is a social construct; or sex positivity, such as in the document I have here that instructs teachers of children with learning disabilities to simulate sexual arousal on anatomically correct dolls while playing sexy music in class. These are not isolated incidents but are endemic in our schools. The guidance is not working. What does the Minister intend to do about it?
Nick Gibb
The guidance on political impartiality makes it very clear that when teaching about sensitive political issues relating to discrimination teachers should be mindful of avoiding the promotion of partisan views or presenting contested theories as fact. Schools need to ensure that any resources used in the classroom, particularly those produced by an external organisation, are age-appropriate, suitable and politically impartial. Schools should consult parents and share lesson materials when parents ask to see them.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)
The Government support the provision of nutritious food in schools, which ensures that children are well-nourished, develop healthy eating habits and can concentrate and learn. Some 1.9 million pupils are eligible for free school meals. That is an increase from 2021, when 1.7 million pupils were eligible. In large part, the increase is due to protections put in place to support families as they move to universal credit. In addition, 1.25 million pupils are eligible under the universal infant free school meal programme.
Zarah Sultana
Each month, 4 million children experience food insecurity, go to bed hungry and set off to school on an empty stomach. To tackle this injustice, my free school meals for all Bill would guarantee that every child in England had a hot, healthy meal each day, just as they do in Scotland and Wales. It could be paid for twice over by removing the private schools’ £1.7 billion tax break, a move that the Conservative party on the Government Benches blocked last week. My Bill is due to get its Second Reading on Friday. Will the Minister back my Bill, or does he believe that protecting tax breaks for elite private schools is more important than feeding hungry children?
Nick Gibb
The Government have extended free school meals to more groups of children than any Government over the past century, including Labour Governments, increasing numbers from 1.7 million to 1.9 million children. This Government introduced an extension to 85,000 students in further education colleges, new eligibility for some children of families with no recourse to public funds, and a scheme for 1.25 million children in infant schools.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Levelling Up Secretary said in October that extending free school meal provision would be the most timely, effective and targeted of all public health interventions that this Government could make. The Scottish Government have already committed to universal free school meals for primary children. Does the Minister agree with his colleague? If not, what targeted interventions would he make to tackle child hunger?
Nick Gibb
We are spending £1.6 billion a year on free school meals for children. We want to make sure that that funding is targeted at the most needy. That is precisely what is happening. We accept the point, and I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important that free school meals are provided to children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who cannot afford meals at lunchtime—and we are doing that. As I said, we have increased the number of children eligible for benefit-related free school meals from 1.7 million to 1.9 million pupils.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Schools, like families and businesses across the world, are facing global inflationary pressures. The Prime Minister has pledged to halve inflation, and school funding will increase by £2 billion next year as well as the year after that. This will be the highest real-terms spending on schools in history, totalling £58.8 billion by 2024-25. In 2010, school funding stood at £35 billion, so we will be delivering a 68% increase in cash terms. The Government have also announced further support for parents worth £26 billion next year.
Mr Dhesi
In addition to having grave concerns about recruiting and retaining teachers, schools in Slough and across our country continue to struggle with their budgets, with a quarter of primary school senior leaders reporting that they have had to cut outings and trips due to budgetary constraints. How will the Government ensure that children do not miss out on these vital opportunities?
Gillian Keegan
The autumn statement announced significant additional investment in core schools funding. The core schools budget will increase by £2 billion in 2023-24 and 2024-25. That will be paid into schools’ bank accounts in April, and I am sure they will welcome that additional funding.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)
Two schools in Northumberland are prioritised for the school rebuilding programme, including Ringway Primary School in the hon. Member’s constituency. Schools were nominated by local authorities and trusts, and selected according to the condition of their buildings following a robust assessment process. This is in addition to the £5.8 million of school condition allocation funding for Northumberland County Council in this financial year.
Ian Lavery
The Department’s own report now reclassifies the risk of school buildings collapsing as critical and very urgent. Despite the sterling efforts of headteachers and staff to keep school buildings in decent condition, many children in my constituency are taught in buildings far below the standards they should expect. Despite what the Minister has just said, can he tell the House when adequate funding will be made readily available to bring all schools in my constituency up to scratch?
Nick Gibb
We have allocated £13 billion since 2015 to school buildings and maintenance. In May 2022, for example, the Government announced the outcome of the condition improvement fund bids for 2022-23. That will provide £500 million for 1,400 projects at 1,100 schools and sixth forms. The CIF is for individual schools and groups of schools. In addition, £1.1 billion of school condition allocations was made to local authorities and large groups of academies. We take this issue very seriously and we want to make sure that all our schools are in the best possible condition for pupils to be able to learn.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
My Department has made a one-off reallocation of funding to add £15 million to this year’s student premium, now worth £276 million. Universities can support disadvantaged students by drawing on this student premium and their own hardship funds, and many universities such as Newcastle and Northumbria have allocated funds to support disadvantaged students.
Chi Onwurah
Newcastle University student union’s recent cost of living crisis survey revealed that 41% of students had considered dropping out due to financial pressures. They are trying to balance studying with part-time and full-time jobs, and they feel increasingly isolated and exhausted. The student union food bank is restocked daily and is emptied quickly, with the record being within seven minutes. The Minister knows that his additional hardship fund works out at about £10 per student, and students are £1,500 worse off because of the mismanagement of maintenance loans. Why is he punishing students like this?
Robert Halfon
Of course I recognise that some students are facing hardship with the cost of living challenges, like many people up and down the country. The £276 million is a lot of money that universities can draw on. As I mentioned, there has been an increase of £15 million. Students in private accommodation can get a £400 rebate on their energy bills. We have frozen tuition fees for the past few years; by 2024-25, they will have been frozen for seven years. We have increased maximum loans and grants by 2.8% and if students’ incomes fall below a certain level, they can reapply to get their loans looked at. I really welcome the fact that Newcastle University has increased the package of support available to students to more than £1.7 million—
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
As we hear, the cost of living crisis is serious for everyone, but students in particular are facing real hardship. Independent economists estimate that many students will be up to £1,500 worse off this year. Given the Government’s current focus on maths, can the Minister explain how his Government calculated an increase of just 2.8% in the maintenance loan, following 2.3% this year, when the rolling average inflation rate is running at 9.3%?
Robert Halfon
We have to be fair to students, but we have to be fair to the taxpayer as well. We recognise student hardship, which is why we increased the student premium by £15 million to £276 million. Universities have their own hardship funds, and I highlighted the £1.7 million given by Newcastle University. Universities across the country are helping disadvantaged students. Students whose family income falls below a certain level can apply to the Student Loans Company to have their loan reassessed.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Given this is my first Education questions of 2023, Mr Speaker, I would like to wish you, the House and everyone working in our education sector a happy new year, and to share some of what is to come from my Department.
Later this month, along with the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), I will be announcing our comprehensive plan to reform children’s social care. Soon after, we will return to bring forward our transformational improvement plans to support children with special educational needs.
I hope Members will join me in celebrating National Apprenticeship Week in February, and in April our schools will have something to celebrate as they receive their funding, which will include the £2 billion uplift announced at the autumn statement. This will see overall funding rise by 15% in just two years. We are investing more in our schools than ever before. By 2024-25, it will be £58.8 billion, the highest real-terms spending in history.
Chi Onwurah
Special educational needs provision in school matters. So many parents contact me either because they cannot access such provision or because it is inadequate. One family with two neurodiverse children suffering from bullying and self-harm found that their school’s SEN policy did not even mention autism or neurodiversity. The Minister said this morning that the Government’s response to the review will be published imminently. Can she confirm that it will be published within the month and that the clear standards she mentioned will be enforced?
Gillian Keegan
I take special educational needs very seriously, as does the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing. It will be published very soon, so there is not long to wait. I am sure the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) will be delighted with the improvement plan, which we will publish very early in the new year.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman knows this is topical questions? You cannot just go on and on. We have to get through the questions for everyone’s sake.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
I commend Hayley for the work she does. Access to educational psychologists is of paramount importance so that people can get an early diagnosis. We are funding an additional 600 educational psychologists —200 in 2023 and 400 in 2024.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Department for Education has raised the risk rating of school buildings collapsing to “critical/very likely”. In December, the schools Minister undertook to publish the data on these dangerous buildings by the end of the year, yet parents, staff and pupils are still in the dark. When will the Secretary of State finally publish this data and own up to the extent of her failure?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)
As I said earlier, our spending for capital funding in the schools system since 2015 has been £13 billion. We take the safety of schools very seriously. As the Secretary of State said regarding reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, we have written to all schools asking them to complete a questionnaire. As for publishing the data, the Department has already published summary findings from the condition data collection and we plan to publish more detailed data shortly. The condition data collections help us to understand the condition of schools, and we will publish as and when the data is ready.
Mr Speaker
Order. I call Bridget Phillipson to ask her second question. We are going to have to speed it up folks in order to get through.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. There was no answer there, even though the schools Minister said we would see this data last year.
Conservative Members have described their childcare policy as “crazy” and “unnecessarily expensive”, and said that they should “get on” with reforming it. I agree, which is why the next Labour Government will deliver a modern childcare system from the end of parental leave to the end of primary school. If even the Secretary of State’s own colleagues can see the case for change, why can’t she?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Lady will find that when Labour was in power for 13 years it did nothing on this issue and that it was the Conservative Government who expanded the offer for two, three and four-year-olds for parents. I would love to see the costings of her proposals because I think she is proposing yet more pie in the sky for parents. However, we take this issue seriously and we are committed to increasing the flexibility and affordability of childcare for parents.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Claire Coutinho
I hope that the 9,000 children will see progress. Not only have we increased the overall funding for SEND by about 50% since 2019, but we are increasing the number of specialist school places. In the reforms, we will be setting out national standards, which I hope will also improve their educational experience.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
As a former teacher, I support the right of our teachers to strike and will oppose this Government’s anti-strike legislation. Does the Secretary of State agree that constructive dialogue with our dedicated teachers is vital, rather than demonising them as “Bolsheviks” and “commies”, as one of her colleagues has disgracefully done?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I always believe in constructive dialogue. The very first meeting I took as we welcomed in the new year was with all four main teaching unions, and I will be meeting them again later this week.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Nick Gibb
I have visited Carmel College and I know what a good school it is. The initial teacher training reforms are a key part of the Government’s commitment to levelling up and ensuring that high-quality teachers are there for every child. Following an expert review, a robust accreditation process was undertaken to approve 179 providers, covering all regions, including the north-east. ITT provision is also expanding through the partnership. I know that my hon. Friend discussed this matter with my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), and I would be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Claire Coutinho
I can tell the hon. Lady that the high needs funding for Barnsley has increased by 12% year on year for 2023-24 and it will be more than £40 million in total. It will also receive £7 million for high needs provision capital from 2023-25 to increase the number of places.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Gillian Keegan
I am committed to reform in children’s social care across all sectors. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has been working hard in partnership with the national implementation board and the wider sector to design a plan for reform that will introduce meaningful change for children and families. It is quite a small group, and we have deliberately kept it small, but I will ask my hon. Friend to take a look and check that it is representative.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Nick Gibb
We have met the target for PE teacher recruitment for most of the past 10 years. We have the school sport and activity action plan in place, and there is a new plan being worked on at the moment. We take sport in schools very seriously; it is important for physical and mental health and for academic attainment.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Claire Coutinho
I am really exercised about this issue. I speak to parents of children with SEND all the time, and I do think that they find the experience very adversarial. I will be setting out more details in the implementation strategy shortly, but this is something that I care very passionately about.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The current national school breakfast programme reaches only one quarter of the children living in areas with high levels of deprivation in England. Labour has set out our universal free breakfast offer, which will mean that no child will be too hungry to learn. When will the Government join the Labour party in that commitment?
Nick Gibb
We are spending £30 million between 2021 and 2024 on the school breakfast programme, which offers free breakfast to children in disadvantaged areas, supporting their attainment and readiness to learn. The focus of the breakfast provision has been to target the most disadvantaged areas of the country, and that has been our strategy.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
Claire Coutinho
I thank my right hon. Friend for his collaborative approach in the meeting that we had last week. Absolutely, early identification is key, and we have been looking very carefully at that and at teaching training in the implementation plan that I will be setting out shortly.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
On new year’s eve, the care community lost a highly respected dear friend and true advocate. Ian Dickson spent his entire life making a difference to children in care and urging Governments to listen to them. The care review does not have all the answers, so will the Minister please implement the recommendations of the pioneering care experienced conference, in which Ian played a leading role?
Claire Coutinho
I pay tribute to Ian’s work. I would love to look at that in more detail and speak to the hon. Lady further about what we can take forward.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
We all visit many schools, and the latest for me was Chilton Academy where I talked about its Go Well support. We all talk about funding, but the biggest thing about funding is not just the amount, but its visibility and extended timelines. Can the Minister please explain what can be done to make sure that the schools know earlier and for longer what money they will have available?
Nick Gibb
I understand and agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of certainty over funding. The dedicated school grant allocations for 2023-24 were published in December 2022, including indicative allocations for the mainstream schools’ additional grant, which will distribute the additional £2 billion of funding that was announced in the autumn statement.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
As we have heard, the additional £15 million hardship funding for students announced last week amounts to less than £10 per head—significantly less, according to my sums—while the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that students are £1,500 a year worse off. Today, the all-party parliamentary group for students is launching an inquiry into the impact of the cost of living crisis on students, inviting submissions from students, their unions and institutions across the UK. Will the Minister agree to meet us to consider the evidence we receive?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
Of course I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the £276 million, along with other measures the Government have introduced, including the energy rebate and other support that we try to give students who are facing cost of living challenges.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
In light of the Government’s new emphasis on numeracy in schools, may I make a plea that the Government do not forget about literacy in schools and in particular how we can continue to raise standards? My initiative “Get Witham Reading” has been running for 10 years now, and I urge colleagues on the Front Bench to come to Witham to see the scheme in action this year and see how it has raised standards in education.
Nick Gibb
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, and I share her passion, so I would be delighted to come and see the scheme in place in her constituency. We take reading very seriously; we have risen from joint 10th to joint eighth in the progress in international reading literacy study league tables, and in those surveys it is the least able children who are improving fastest.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
James Kerfoot, the headteacher of Rudheath Senior Academy, which serves my constituents, has introduced free school meals for all pupils. Why does the Minister not do the same?
Nick Gibb
As I said, we are spending £1.6 billion each year on free school meals, which is targeted at the most disadvantaged children, but schools are able to use their pupil premium funding, which is worth £2.5 billion a year to schools, if they wish to extend the coverage of free school meals to more pupils. As I said earlier, we extended free school meals to all pupils in infant schools in an early decision of the Conservative-led coalition Government.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Children’s services in Norfolk have been judged as requiring improvement all the way back to 2008, so will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating executive director Sara Tough and all her staff, as well as Councillor John Fisher, on last week’s assessment that Norfolk’s children’s services are now good and well on their way to outstanding?
Claire Coutinho
I do indeed congratulate that team; that is quite a hard thing to do and it is brilliant that they have been able to get that recommendation.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Government take the safety of schools very seriously, as the Minister said in response to an earlier question, so will Ministers reconsider mandating the fitting of sprinklers in new-build schools to minimise the risk posed by fires to buildings, equipment, pupils’ school work and people?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Lady will know that there is revised guidance; the new buildings bulletin has been issued after wide consultation and makes some changes to requirements for when sprinklers are to be installed in schools, particularly when the risk factor of the students in the school is high—for example, for children with special educational needs or residential schools.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
When I met Jewish students studying in universities in my constituency, I was appalled to learn of the antisemitism they have to suffer, often on a daily basis. That was made worse by the recent report into the National Union of Students’ handling and challenging of antisemitism. In the month when we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s assessment of that NUS report.
Robert Halfon
I have been shocked and sobered by reading that report that the NUS was in essence a hostile place for Jewish students. That is not acceptable. The National Union of Students, the main body for students, should be a place that is not just safe but welcoming for Jewish students. The proof of the pudding with this report will be in the eating; I expect to see the changes and the recommendations implemented in full, and once that has occurred I will re-engage with the National Union of Students.
The Execution of Alireza Akbari
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the execution of a British national in Iran.
On Saturday morning, Iran’s regime announced that it had executed Alireza Akbari, a British-Iranian dual national. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with his wife and two daughters at the time of their loss. They have shared his ordeal—an ordeal that began just over three years ago when he was lured back to Iran. He was detained and then subjected to the notorious and arbitrary legal process of the regime. Before his death, Mr Akbari described what was done to him and how torture had been used. Let there be no doubt: he fell victim to the political vendettas of a vicious regime. His execution was the cowardly and shameful act of a leadership that thinks nothing of using the death penalty as a political tool to silence dissent and settle internal scores.
In February last year, Mr Akbari’s family asked the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for our support, and we have worked closely with them ever since. I want to pay tribute to them for their courage and fortitude throughout this terrible period. In line with their wishes, the Minister of State, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, lobbied Iran’s most senior diplomat in the UK as soon as we learned that Mr Akbari’s execution was imminent. We maintained the pressure right up until the point of his execution, but, sadly, to no avail.
When we heard the tragic news on Saturday morning, we acted immediately to demonstrate our revulsion. I ordered the summoning of Iran’s chargé d’affaires to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to make clear our strength of feeling. Our ambassador in Tehran delivered the same message to a senior Foreign Ministry official. Ten other countries have publicly condemned the execution, including France, Germany and the United States, and the European Union has done the same. I am grateful for their support at this time.
We then imposed sanctions on Iran’s Prosecutor General, Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, who bears heavy responsibility for the use of the death penalty for political ends. His designation is the latest of more than 40 sanctions imposed by the UK on the Iranian regime since October, including on six individuals linked to the revolutionary courts, which have passed egregious sentences against protesters, including the death penalty. In addition, I have temporarily recalled from Tehran His Majesty’s ambassador, Simon Shercliff, for consultations, and we met and discussed this earlier today. Now we shall consider what further steps we take alongside our allies to counter the escalating threat from Iran. We do not limit ourselves to the steps that I have already announced.
Mr Akbari’s execution follows decades of pitiless repression by a ruthless regime. Britain stands with the brave and dignified people of Iran as they demand their rights and freedoms. Just how much courage that takes is shown by the appalling fact that more than 500 people have been killed and 18,000 arrested during the recent wave of protests. Instead of listening to the calls for change from within Iran, the regime has resorted to its usual tactic of blaming outsiders and lashing out against its supposed enemies, including by detaining a growing number of foreign nationals for political gain. Today, many European nationals are being held in Iranian prisons on spurious charges, including British dual nationals, and I pay tribute to our staff—both in Tehran and here in the UK—who continue to work tirelessly on their behalf.
Beyond its borders, the regime has supplied Russia with hundreds of armed drones used to kill civilians in Ukraine. Across the middle east, Iran continues to inflict bloodshed and destruction by supporting extremist militias. And all the while, the steady expansion of the Iranian nuclear programme is threatening international peace and security and the entire system of global non-proliferation. In the last three months alone, Britain has imposed five separate packages of sanctions on Iran, and today we enforce designations against more than 300 Iranian individuals and entities. We have condemned the regime in every possible international forum, securing Iran’s removal from the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and, alongside our partners, creating a new UN mechanism to investigate the regime’s human rights violations during the recent protests.
The House should be in no doubt that we are witnessing the vengeful actions of a weakened and isolated regime obsessed with suppressing its own people, debilitated by its fear of losing power, and wrecking its international reputation. Our message to that regime is clear: the world is watching you and you will be held to account, particularly by the brave Iranian people, so many of whom you are oppressing and killing. I commend this statement to the House.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I am responding on behalf of the Opposition as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is on a visit to Northern Ireland and so is unable to be here.
The execution of Alireza Akbari is the most horrendous human rights abuse—a barbaric act of politically motivated murder at the hands of the Iranian regime. The whole House’s condolences and solidarity are with his family at this time of unimaginable grief.
That the Iranian regime chose to take Mr Akbari’s life to make a political point to the British Government is a disgrace. The death penalty should never be used for any crime, but we must call these executions in Iran what they are: a gross attempt to silence a protest movement by striking fear into the hearts of ordinary Iranian people. In Mr Akbari’s case, his execution is a direct message to the British Government. Such executions are, in the words of Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, state-sanctioned killings.
Mr Akbari returned to Iran after a successful career in business in the UK to advise the Government on the nuclear deal between the west and Iran. He wanted to see a successful deal to end the western sanctions on the country.
We have discussed many times in this House the importance of a strong response to this brutal regime. The Government must now proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, either through the existing process or by amending the National Security Bill to create a new process of proscription for hostile state actors. The playbook of the regime is to use brutality and violence for its own political ends and its own survival. In his most recent threat update, MI5 director Ken McCallum referred to 10 kidnap and death plots by the Iranian regime on British soil. When an organisation threatens the lives of British journalists and British Iranian activists in the UK, that organisation is a terrorist organisation.
When will the Foreign Secretary proscribe this heinous organisation, and what action will he take to protect the lives of British Iranians in the UK and in Iran? I heard what he said about the condemnation internationally, but what further conversations has he had with international partners to ensure a co-ordinated response to condemn and curtail the regime’s appalling attack on the lives and human rights of its own people?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the solidarity that the whole House sends to the family of Mr Akbari. He will know that the future proscription or sanctions designation of individuals or entities is not something that we speculate about or discuss at the Dispatch Box. However, he should know that we share the revulsion that he expressed.
As I said, we do not limit ourselves to the actions that we have already announced. I have spoken with His Majesty’s ambassador to Tehran and I will of course be speaking with other parts of Government about what further action we can take in response to the vile behaviour of the regime. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we speak regularly with our international friends on our collective response to Iran, both in the region and beyond, and we will continue to do so.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The thoughts of the entire Committee are with Mr Akbari’s family.
From hostage taking to terrorist plots, assassinations, nuclear extortion and destabilisation of the middle east and Europe, Iran is a terrorist state and it has weaponised human life. This is the first murder of a dual national since the 1980s. It is a clear escalation.
I make four asks. First, the House is clear that we need to proscribe the IRGC. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he recognises that that is a policy decision, not a legal one? Secondly, we need to close down the IRGC’s operating centres within the UK, such as the one in Maida Vale. These are centres for spreading hostile influence within the UK. Can the Secretary of State also confirm that he will consider reactive sanctions to help the ordinary Iranians for whom no one else will stand up? After every state murder, we should impose sanctions to show we will give their voice some support. Finally, can he reassure me that he is confident of the safety of our staff in Tehran? I remember the stories of my colleagues who were under siege by the Iranian state in the past, and I am gravely concerned about their safety at this time.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee raises incredibly important points. She knows the long-standing convention about speculating about sanctions and proscriptions, but I absolutely take the points that she has made about ensuring that the response we take here in the UK and, indeed, in conjunction with our international partners sends an incredibly clear message to the regime that these actions are unacceptable and will be responded to each and every time they take place. With regard to the actions that we take domestically here in the UK, I can assure her that we work closely with our Home Office colleagues on our collective response, and I agree with her that the safety of our team in Tehran is incredibly important. I pay tribute to them for the work that they do in incredibly challenging circumstances, and I also pay tribute to the demonstrations of international solidarity that we regularly receive from other platforms in Tehran.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
May I also thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement? The SNP utterly condemns the execution of Alireza Akbari in the strongest possible terms, and we extend our heartfelt condolences to his family. Once again, this execution highlights the serious injustice and failings of the Iranian judicial system. The Foreign Secretary’s decision to sanction Iran’s prosecutor is welcome, but as we have been calling for many times, I urge the Foreign Secretary again to go further and to take forward the formal proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. I ask him again: will he commit to that?
We remain deeply concerned about the safety of other arbitrarily detained UK-Iranian nationals. Morad Tahbaz has been held for five years. Mehran Raoof has been held since 2020. Their families just want to see them come home safely. What are the Government doing to make that a reality? Does the Secretary of State know just how many dual UK-Iranian nationals are detained in Iran, and can he tell us that number?
The Foreign Office cannot make the same mistakes it has made in the past with other dual nationals, such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Anoosheh Ashoori and other UK-Iranian nationals detained and, as we have heard, sometimes tortured. This shameful execution should serve as an urgent wake-up call. These people and their families deserve better. What lessons have this Government learned, and what are they going to do differently in future to support these people?
James Cleverly
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we work tirelessly to support the release of British dual nationals held in detention in Iran. Our consular team supports their families. The work that we, our ambassador and his team do in Tehran is incredibly important. Their presence is to ensure that British dual nationals, whether they have been in incarceration or not, are supported, and we will continue to work with our international friends and allies to secure the release of those individuals. In regard to proscription, he raises an important point. He will have heard the answers I have given to other colleagues—we do not limit ourselves to the responses we have already announced.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is a terrible day when we see the execution of a British subject. Some broadcast media have said that the decision by the Iranian regime to execute this individual came as a response to the repeated calls for proscription of the IRGC in a debate last week. Contrary to that, broadcast media not only showed an interview with his family, but also broadcast his comments about his torture by this vile regime. Does that show the Secretary of State, as it does me, the power of the media broadcast, but will he also ensure that the funding of BBC Persian radio will continue to ensure that the people of Iran can hear the truth and one day oversee the downfall of this vile regime?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point about our ability to project our values into Iran. The fact that millions of Iranians are protesting against their own Government shows that many people in Iran share our values and are deeply opposed to the regime that oppresses them. I have spoken to BBC senior leadership about the funding of our foreign language BBC World Service broadcasts, including the Persian broadcast. I assure him that whether through the BBC World Service or the work of our embassy by the ambassador and his team, we will continue to project our values into Iran and hopefully reinforce, and indeed show solidarity with, those brave Iranians protesting against their own regime.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Mr Akbari was my constituent and I offer my sympathies to his family here and abroad. I have represented their interests for the past year and I have had extensive contact with them over the past few difficult days. Their strength and courage have been extraordinary in the face of the brutality and cruelty of the Iranian regime.
Earlier today, I spoke to Mr Akbari’s daughter in the UK and she asked me to raise a further distressing matter with the Foreign Secretary. The regime refuses to release Mr Akbari’s body or to allow burial in the place chosen by him, and has made threats to destroy his body unless the family co-operate with its instructions. The cemetery where the family were told he should be buried informed them that burial had already taken place last week, which casts doubt on the time of his execution. Will the Foreign Secretary meet me and the family in the UK and do what the Government can to ensure that in death, if not in life, Mr Akbari is treated with dignity and respect?
James Cleverly
The points that the hon. Gentleman just raised fill us all, I am sure, with revulsion; we will continue to support the family in whatever way we can. He is absolutely right to call on the regime to treat Mr Akbari in death with the deference and respect that is legitimate. I will follow up on his points with our ambassador and communicate our incredible discomfort with those points, and as I say, we will continue to support the family in whatever way we can.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke eloquently about the brutal hostility that the regime in Tehran is visiting on not only on its own citizens, but Ukraine through its support for Russia, on neighbouring countries in the middle east, and, of course, on a UK passport holder through his execution. Does that not now mean that we should proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and review the UK’s involvement in the Iran nuclear agreement?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend raises incredibly important points. We will continue to work with our friends and allies to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. With regard to our further action, we do not limit ourselves to the announcements that we have just made. Part of the reason why I have temporarily recalled His Majesty’s ambassador to Tehran is so that we can discuss cross-Government what our further response might be.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Mr Akbari’s judicial murder is particularly poignant for us because he was a dual national, but all the murders that have been committed by the Iranian Government over the last few days and weeks prove that they give a new meaning to the term “criminal justice system”—more criminal than justice. I worry, however, that the Secretary of State is always reluctant to talk about further sanctions. Government Ministers invented the rule that they are not allowed to talk about them at the Dispatch Box because it is a bit inconvenient for them, but is it not time that we had a proper parliamentary process for determining some sanctions? Frankly, if it was up to the Foreign Affairs Committee, or I suspect the House, we would have taken action six months ago and we would not still be hanging around.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion on this. I know that he takes a personal interest in the use of sanctions, and we have discussed this in my appearances before the Select Committee, but I think it is important that we maintain a clear distinction between the Executive functions and the scrutiny functions. Although I understand that there is a huge amount of embedded experience in the House, I think that the job of the Government is to govern and the job of this House is to scrutinise the Government, which is why that division of labour is important.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The execution of Alireza Akbari was a hideous act. It is clear that the Iranian regime will stop at nothing in its desire to repress its people, whether that is through the arrest, torture or, indeed, murder of innocent citizens, many of whom are women. Many colleagues across the House have called for the IRGC to be proscribed, and I would like to add my name to that list. I would also urge the Foreign Secretary to continue working with our allies to try to get a global consensus on the issue.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend highlights something that we should all consider, which is that the actions of the Iranian regime are a display of weakness, not strength. The regime lives in fear of the voices of the Iranian people, which is why it is responding so brutally. My advice to the regime—it will not take it, I have no doubt—is to listen to its own people, and to stop blaming external actors for actions stimulated by its oppression of its people. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will continue to work closely with our international friends and allies, so many of whom have expressed solidarity over the weekend in response to Mr Akbari’s execution.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The execution of Alireza Akbari is horrendous. If we ever wanted proof that we are dealing with barbarians, it is this and what has happened over the last few months. While the Foreign Secretary is considering proscription and the harshest possible sanctions—I would like to add the voices of the Liberal Democrats to that and offer our support—I urge him to consider another move. We have learned from the war in Ukraine that going after individuals and the spoils of their human rights abuses is also a very effective way of sanctioning. What consideration have the Government given to auditing the assets of those we have sanctioned, particularly the assets of family members who may be resident in the UK, and can he assure the House that not a single penny of their spoils is sloshing around the British economy?
James Cleverly
We will of course always examine ways of ensuring that our sanctions are most effective and have the deterrent effect as well as the punitive effect that they are designed to have. I can assure the hon. Lady that, as I have said, we will continue working internationally with our friends and allies who share our revulsion at the actions of the Iranian regime. She describes the regime as barbarian, and one of the great ironies is that Iran has a long history—a multi-millennial history—of sophistication and thoughtfulness. That history and reputation is being destroyed on a daily basis by the people currently holding the levers of power in Tehran, and I think that is a massive shame for the Iranian people more broadly.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and to express my sympathy to Mr Akbari’s family, who are going through such a terrible time. We should remember that Iran carries out the second highest number of executions anywhere in the world—second only to China—so this is not something isolated, but something the regime implements. I recommend that my right hon. Friend reads the Hansard report of the debate we had last Thursday, when more than 30 Members from across the House contributed excellent examples of what is happening in Iran. He can negotiate with our allies to impose sanctions against Iran totally, which will isolate the regime, and he can also talk to the Home Secretary about proscribing the IRGC, which is the settled view of this House. He has the support of the House on all sides and from all parties, which is surely enough to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety and to sequestrate its assets once and for all.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the strong and clear stance that the House has taken in response to the brutality meted out by the Iranian regime. I assure him and the House that we will continue to work cross-Department, and internationally, on the most effective ways of curtailing Iran’s malign activity, both within Iran, in the region and globally.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I send my sincere condolences to the family and loved ones of Mr Akbari. The use of the death penalty is appalling under all circumstances, as are the practices of torture and prolonged solitary confinement, all of which Mr Akbari was subjected to while being held by the Iranian authorities. Amnesty has called for the UK Government to work with international bodies to fully investigate Mr Akbari’s allegations of torture and all other ill treatment, and to pursue the criminal investigation of officials reasonably suspected of involvement in crimes under international law. Will the Foreign Secretary today agree to take up those calls for justice?
James Cleverly
I assure the hon. Lady that we will not rest until this regime is held to account for the brutality and atrocities that it has meted out to its own people, and we will do so in close co-operation with our friends in the international community.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Southampton has a significant Anglo-Iranian community, many of whom have made the point to me that this is a regime that can maintain its position only through terror and torture. But they are scared. They are scared for their family members, for women, for dual nationals and for students. They want the proscription of the IRGC, and they want me to leave my right hon. Friend in no doubt that Anglo-Iranians in this country wish to see our Government do more.
James Cleverly
I assure my right hon. Friend that we will continue working cross-Department and across Whitehall to ensure that those Iranians who have chosen to make the UK their home, and Anglo-Iranians who live in the UK, feel safe. The first duty of Government is to protect the people within these shores, and I assure her that we take that responsibility incredibly seriously.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for what he has said about the brutal murder of Mr Akbari. The sad truth, however, is that the Iranian regime does such things because it can. There are voices that have called for the joint comprehensive plan of action process to be abandoned, and I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House what his current view is. I caution him, however, because in absence of that process, what other means would we have of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, which, given its current behaviour, is surely unthinkable?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. We hear calls from Tehran for us to lift sanctions, and we remind them that the sanctions are imposed because of their behaviour, be that human rights violations, brutality against their own people, support for militias in the region, or attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. We will continue to work closely with our international partners in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Negotiations on the JCPOA have not progressed, and the ball is very much in the court of the Iranians. I say strongly to them that the world will continue to work in concert and solidarity to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and if they wish sanctions to be lifted, the regime has to fundamentally change its behaviour.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) was right to draw attention to the power of the media in exposing what is going on in Iran, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be aware of the continuing threats against journalists working for Iran International, whose headquarters in Chiswick is under permanent armed police guard. Will he make it clear to the Iranian regime that threats of that kind on British soil are utterly unacceptable? Will he consider extending the sanctions against anyone in the Iranian regime responsible for making threats against journalists?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend echoes the point that the Iranian regime is fearful of criticism, and particularly fearful of criticism from within Iran itself and from Iranians internationally. That is why it behaves so petulantly and aggressively towards journalists. We have an incredibly important responsibility to protect those journalists and support those dissenting voices. I assure him on behalf of my colleagues in the Home Office and the security services that we will continue to support the free expression of those brave Iranian voices criticising a regime that currently has a stranglehold around their country.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
My heart goes out to the family and friends of Mr Akbari. The Iranian regime is using the death penalty as a tool of political repression against courageous protesters. As we have heard, the IRGC also threaten the lives of journalists and British-Iranian activists here in the UK. Last week we saw cross-party support for proscribing the IRGC. I ask again—this time for the Secretary of State to answer—will the UK Government take action and urgently brand the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady is right to raise the need to respond to the actions taken by the Iranian regime. As I said, I announced an initial set of responses immediately after the execution of Mr Akbari. I am consulting with His Majesty’s ambassador in Tehran—I have done so today—and we will work across Government to ensure that our response to Iran is robust and deters further such actions.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent statement. Will he confirm that he will discuss the execution of Mr Akbari on his visit to Washington this week and assure us that with our allies he will seek to co-ordinate the strongest response to this latest state-sponsored torture and killing, as well as Iran’s escalating human rights abuses against women and the wider security threat?
James Cleverly
I assure my hon. Friend that I will address our response to the Iranian regime in general and the response to this execution in particular with both my American and Canadian counterparts when I visit those two countries later this week. I assure her, and indeed the House, that the messages of solidarity that we have received from our international partners reflect the strength of feeling that I hear in my conversations about the issue.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The vile Iranian regime are operating through proxies in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and I have been working closely with the police in respect of the Islamic community centre in Maida Vale, where the weekly counter-protests that now occur there are causing very real concern in that residential community. Will the Secretary of State tell us what investigations he is carrying out into the operation of those centres and how they can be managed to protect local communities, including the very diverse Muslim communities in that area?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady will understand that actions here in the UK are the responsibility of the Home Office, but I assure her that my Department and that Department work closely on such issues and will continue to do so.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
These are the words of Hassan Firouzi:
“Whether or not I sign confession papers, they will kill me. My only wish is to see my daughter one last time. After 10 years, God finally gave us a child. I only got to see her for 18 days before being arrested for protesting. I miss my daughter so much. My only wish is that I get to see my daughter one last time before they kill me.”
He is another citizen who has been condemned to death. I have adopted his case at the urging of a close Iranian friend in my constituency. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that it is helpful for Members of Parliament to adopt individual people on death row in Iran to publicise their cases and put maximum pressure on the regime?
James Cleverly
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that particular case. I know the Iranian regime hates it when its actions are called out on the international stage. I have made it clear to the Iranians that if they want the criticism to stop, their behaviour must change. Their behaviour at the moment deserves criticism in this Chamber and internationally. I commend all colleagues, where they have the opportunity to do so, to raise cases and demonstrate to the brave Iranians who are standing up against the brutality of their own Government that we show solidarity with them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my condolences to the family of Mr Akbari at this very sad time. I cannot see why the Secretary of State is delaying proscribing the regime in Iran and call on him to do so immediately. In my human rights city of York, we have serious concern about the use of the death penalty. There are over 20,000 people on death row across over 55 jurisdictions right now. Will he lead a discussion in the UN to bring the use of state-authorised death to an end across the world? When it is condoned in one country, it gives Iran more liberty to apply it in its own.
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady will, I am sure, know that the UK opposes the death penalty in all respects. We have communicated that internationally and we have communicated that to the Iranian regime. Our position is long standing, it is principled and it will not change. We will highlight our opposition to the death penalty whenever we have the opportunity to do so.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I know that Lord Ahmad will have done everything in his power to stop this despicable act. I condemn the execution of Mr Akbari, a British-Iranian dual national, and I want to place on record my condolences to his wife and two daughters. Does the Foreign Secretary have concerns that ending the talks on the nuclear deal in the face of ongoing turmoil in the country could see Iran speed up its uranium enrichment programme or pull out of the treaty altogether?
James Cleverly
The international community, the signatories to the JCPOA, have given the opportunity to the Iranian regime to make changes. It has thus far failed to grasp the opportunity presented to it. We will continue working to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but the ball, ultimately, is in its court. If it wants sanctions lifted, it has to change—fundamentally change—its behaviour.
Ukraine: Update
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Mr Speaker, may I start by apologising for the way the information contained in the statement has come out in the media? It does not do me any favours and nor does it make my job any easier. I apologise to Mr Speaker and to the House. It is certainly not my doing and it does not help us in furthering the policy.
It has been a month since I last updated the House on the situation in Ukraine. Over the last four weeks, extremely heavy and attritional fighting has continued, especially around the Donetsk oblast town of Bakhmut and in the less reported on sector of Kreminna in Luhansk. Over Christmas, Russia continued its assault on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, but no matter how cruel, or how much loss of life accompanies it, Russia has singularly failed to break the will of the Ukrainian people or change the policy of its leaders.
We continue to closely monitor how Russia’s long-range strike campaign will evolve as it eats deeper into the strategic reserves of its own modern missiles. It is notable that Russia is now using the forced labour of convicts to manufacture weaponry. Ukraine, however, continues to use its internationally provided long-range artillery to successful effect.
Throughout the war, Russia has managed to lose significant numbers of generals and commanding officers, but last week’s announcement that its commander in Ukraine, General Sergey Surovikin, had been unceremoniously bypassed, with the chief of the general staff, General Gerasimov, personally taking over field command, is certainly significant. It is the visible tip of an iceberg of factionalism within the Russian command. Putin apparently remains bullish, and with Gerasimov’s deference to the President never in doubt, we would now expect a trend back towards a Russian offensive, no matter how much loss of life accompanies it.
In 2023, there is no loss of momentum from the international community—quite the opposite. President Putin believed that the west would get tired, get bored and fragment. Ukraine is continuing to fight, and far from fragmenting, the west is accelerating its efforts. The United States has invested approximately $24.2 billion in support for Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s invasion on 24 February last year. It has delivered thousands of anti-aircraft and anti-armour systems and has recently stepped up that support, delivering Patriot air defence battery and munitions and 45 refurbished T-72 Bravo tanks, as well as donating 50 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles to assist with the counter-offensive. We also welcome the decision of the French Government to provide Ukraine with the AMX-10 light, highly mobile tank, which has been used very recently in reconnaissance missions by the French army and was deployed as recently as the Barkhane mission in west Africa.
Important as those contributions are in and of themselves, what matters more is that they represent part of an international effort that collectively conveys a force multiplier effect. None of this is happening unilaterally; no one is doing this on their own. I shall soon be announcing the first round of bids to the jointly Danish and UK-chaired international fund for Ukraine. I am grateful to Sweden for adding, over the festive period, to the pot of money donated. Those who have donated to the fund now include Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland and others.
Meanwhile, Russia, isolated and without such support, has now lost more than 1,600 main battle tanks in Ukraine since the start of the invasion. However, if we are to continue helping Ukraine to seize the upper hand in the next phase of the conflict, we must accelerate our collective efforts diplomatically, economically and militarily to keep the pressure on Putin.
In December, I told the House that I was
“developing options to respond”
to Russia’s continued aggression
“in a calibrated and determined manner”.—[Official Report, 20 December 2022; Vol. 725, c. 157.]
Today, I can announce the most significant package of combat power to date, to accelerate Ukrainian success. It includes a squadron of Challenger 2 tanks, with armoured recovery and repair vehicles. We will donate AS-90 guns to Ukraine; this donation, which comprises a battery of eight guns at high readiness and two further batteries at varying states of readiness, will not impact on our existing AS-90 commitment in Estonia. Hundreds more armoured and protected vehicles will also be sent, including Bulldog. There will be a manoeuvre support package, including minefield breaching and bridging capabilities worth £28 million; dozens more uncrewed aerial systems worth £20 million to support Ukrainian artillery; another 100,000 artillery rounds, on top of the 100,000 rounds already delivered; hundreds more sophisticated missiles, including guided multiple-launch rocket system rockets, Starstreak air defence and medium-range air defence missiles; and an equipment support package of spares to refurbish up to 100 Ukrainian tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. While the tanks and the AS-90s will come from our stocks, along with their associated ammunition, a significant number of the other donations are being purchased on the open market or from supportive third-party countries.
Today’s package is an important increase to Ukraine’s capabilities. It means that it can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. President Putin cannot win, but he is equally certain that he can continue inflicting this wanton violence and human suffering until his forces are ejected from their defensive positions and expelled from the country. That requires a new level of support: the combat power only achieved by combinations of main battle tank squadrons, operating alongside divisional artillery groups, and further deep precision fires enabling the targeting of Russian logistics and command nodes at greater distance. We will be the first country to donate western main battle tanks, and we will be bringing a further squadron of our own Challenger tanks to higher readiness in place of the squadron sent. Even as we gift Challenger 2 tanks, I shall at the same time be reviewing the number of Challenger 3 conversions, to consider whether the lessons of Ukraine suggest that we need a larger tank fleet.
We will also build apace on the Army’s modernisation programme. Specifically on artillery, I am accelerating the mobile fires programme so that, instead of delivering in the 2030s, it will do so during the current decade. I have also directed that, subject to commercial negotiation, an interim artillery capability is to be delivered. After discussion with the United States and our European allies, it is hoped that the example set by the French and us will allow the countries holding Leopard tanks to donate as well, and I know that a number of countries want to do the same. As I have said, no one is going it alone.
It is worth reiterating why we are doing this. In 2023, the international community will not let Russia wait us out while inflicting terrible suffering on Ukrainian civilians. The international community recognises that equipping Ukraine to push Russia out of its territory is as important as equipping it to defend what it already has. This week dozens of nations will meet in Ramstein, Germany, to progress further donations and international co-ordination. The Kremlin will be in no doubt that we are resolved to stand by Ukraine in her fight.
Doubling down on the success of our basic training of Ukrainian military personnel in the United Kingdom in 2022, we are increasing the number this year to a further 20,000. Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Lithuania, New Zealand and the Netherlands have already joined this effort, and I am pleased to say that we are to be joined by a group of Australian military to train in the UK as well—leaving their summer to join our winter, brave souls.
Our decision today is a calibrated response to Russia’s growing aggression and indiscriminate bombing. The Kremlin must recognise that it is Russia’s behaviour that is solidifying the international resolve, and that despite the propaganda, Ukraine and her partners are focused on the defence of Ukraine. None of the international support is an attack on Russia, or NATO-orchestrated aggression, let alone a proxy war. At its heart, it is about helping Ukraine to defend itself, upholding international law and restoring its own sovereignty. We believe that in 2023, increased supplies, improved training and strengthening diplomatic resolve will enable Ukraine to be successful against Russia’s poorly led and now badly equipped armed forces.
From the outset, President Putin believed that his forces would be welcomed with open arms, that Ukrainians would not fight, and that western support would crumble. He has been proved wrong on all counts. Today’s package will help to accelerate the conclusion of Putin’s occupation and all its brutality, and ensure that in 2023, and beyond if necessary, Ukraine will maintain its momentum, supported by an international community that is more than ever determined that Putin’s illegal and unprovoked invasion will fail.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement, and thank him for advance sight of it. Mr Speaker, 2023 will indeed be the decisive year in this war in Ukraine, and the most decisive moment is now, when Ukraine has the tactical and morale advantage over Russia; now, when Ukraine needs more combined military firepower to break the battlefield deadlock. As the Secretary-General of NATO said yesterday,
“it is important that we provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win”.
That is why this first package of military assistance for 2023—with tanks, artillery, infantry vehicles, ammunition and missiles—has Labour’s fullest support.
Challenger 2 is a world-class tank that can help Ukraine retake lost ground and limit the cost in Ukrainian lives. We are now sending 14. How many tanks does Ukraine need for a successful counter-offensive? Are the 14 Challengers currently in active service or in storage? When will they be delivered into the field in Ukraine? What combat engineering vehicles will be delivered to support those tanks? Will any UK forces personnel be deployed into Ukraine with those vehicles?
The integrated review cut Challenger tanks from 227 to 148. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s review of Challenger 3 numbers. When will he announce the results of the review? Is he reviewing other Army cuts? The Armed Forces Minister told me in a parliamentary answer last week that Challenger 2 training takes 33 days for gunners, 46 days for drivers and 85 days for crew commanders. The Defence Secretary made no mention of Challenger training. Will the UK provide training alongside the tanks? How long will the training be for Ukrainian troops?
President Zelensky has confirmed the wider importance of this UK military package. At the weekend he said:
“that will not only strengthen us on the battlefield, but also send the right signal to other partners.”
The Defence Secretary today said that hopes that this UK military aid will help to unlock more co-ordinated support from other nations. Like him, I welcome similar moves already announced by other NATO nations in recent days, particularly the US and France. How many of the 14 Leopard-using nations may provide those tanks to Ukraine? What more does he expect from allies at the Ramstein meeting on Friday? It has been five months since he announced the international fund. When will allocations be made?
The Prime Minster talked at the weekend about a surge in global military support for Ukraine. How will the Defence Secretary ensure a continuing surge in UK military support? What more can Ukraine expect from the UK? You know, Mr Speaker, as does the Defence Secretary, that I have argued for months that Ministers must move beyond ad hoc announcements and set out a full 2023 action plan for military, economic and diplomatic support—a case that the Defence Ministry has fully accepted. That will help to give Ukraine confidence for future supplies. It will help to gear up our own industry. It will encourage allies to do more and it will make clear that things will get worse, not better for Russia.
One of the clear lessons from the last year in Ukraine is that nations need large reserve stocks of certain weapons and ammunition, or the ability to produce them quickly. The UK has neither. We are still moving too slowly to replace the weapons donated to Ukraine or to find new wartime ways of making weapons more rapidly and cheaply. There was no mention in the Secretary of State’s statement about replenishing UK stockpiles or a new industry plan. Can he update the House on the action he is taking?
Finally and importantly, he said that today’s military package means that Ukraine can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. Will he confirm that this is the UK’s strategic aim for Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
If you would indulge me, Mr Speaker, there were lots of questions and I will do my best to answer them all. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and his party for their support, which, as he said, has been ongoing and enduring throughout this process. That is what allows the UK to be prominent in standing tall for international human rights and defending Ukraine.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what scale of support Ukraine will need; I cannot be too specific, as I do not want to set out to the Russian Government the exact inadequacies or strengths of the Ukrainian armed forces. However, it is safe to say that the Ukrainians will require an ongoing commitment that grows to the size of divisions in its armed forces. Also, in the last year we have seen Ukraine grow its own army, to hundreds of thousands of men and women under arms, who are now equipped not only with western equipment but with captured or refurbished former Soviet or Russian equipment. The Polish Government have donated more than 200 T-72 tanks, for example.
The key for all of us in the next phase is to help Ukraine to train and to combine all those weapons systems in a way that can deliver a combined arms effect in a mobile manner to deliver the offensives required to achieve the goal of expelling, which the right hon. Gentleman also asked about. It is the UK Government’s position that Putin’s invasion fails and Ukraine restores its sovereign territory, and we will do all we can to help achieve that. This package is part of that. The Challengers should be viewed alongside the 50 Bradleys from the United States. Those are effectively the ingredients for a battlegroup with divisional level fires of either AS-90s or other 155 howitzers. The 14 tanks represent a squadron, and the 50 Bradleys would roughly form an armoured infantry battlegroup.
We are trying to take the Ukrainian military, with its history of Soviet methods, and provide it not only with western equipment but with western know-how. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, the training will be delivered almost immediately, starting with Ukrainians training in the UK and in the field, so to speak, either in neighbouring countries or in countries such as Germany, where we saw the artillery train with the Dutch, I think, at the beginning of this process. The training of these Ukrainian forces will be administered and supported in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, with the US being in the lead for much of that formation training. It is incredibly important and supportive of the United States to do that.
There will be no UK forces deployed in Ukraine in this process. As I have said, that is because our job is to help Ukraine to defend itself and we can do that from neighbouring or other countries. Yes, I know the training cycle. I was a trooper in the Scots Dragoon Guards in 1988 and I started my time in a Chieftain tank, which you would be lucky to see in a museum these days. The Ukrainians have shown us, in their basic and specialist training, that they are determined to go back and fight for their country, and their work ethos and the hours they put in are quite extraordinary. I am confident that, on one level, they will soon be showing us the way to fight with this equipment.
The right hon. Gentleman referenced the Army cuts. I have come to this Dispatch Box on numerous occasions and admitted how woeful our Army’s equipment programmes have been in the past and how behind and out of date they have been. That is why we have committed investment of more than £24 billion in Army equipment alone over the next 10 years. As I have said, I am bringing forward Deep Fire and Recce and getting Ajax back on track, as well as our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability, the Challenger 3 tanks, the Boxer fleet, plus many other investments in the Army. This is incredibly important. I take it seriously and I know that the right hon. Gentleman does too. We have to deliver an Army that can stand shoulder to shoulder with its peers, never mind its enemy, and it is important to say so.
On the Leopard coalition, as it is calling itself, it is being reported that Poland is keen to donate some Leopard tanks, as is Finland. All of this currently relies on the German Government’s decisions, not only on whether they will supply their own Leopards but whether they will give permissions for others to do so. I would urge my German colleagues to do that. These tanks are not offensive when they are used for defensive methods. There is a debate in Germany about whether a tank is an offensive or defensive weapon. It depends what people are using it for. I would wager that if they are using it to defend their country, it is a defensive weapon.
Also, we are not on our own. This is a joint international coalition. I know that there have been concerns in the German political body that it does not want to go it alone. Well, it is not alone, and I think that the conference in Ramstein will show that. I pay tribute to the commitment by the French to put in the tanks at Christmas time, and we are obviously joining alongside them. They are the key to unlocking the Leopard, and we will do all we can to help that.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question on the international fund is imminently: I will announce it in the next couple of weeks. We had $27 billion-worth of bids to a fund that has reached $500 million. I am very grateful for the recent Swedish donation to the fund, which we intend to keep growing, but I want to make sure that the fund is spent sustainably. It is not a petty cash or slush fund though which people can just go and buy something. I want it to be invested in things such as production and supply chains. Whether it is maintaining tanks or artillery supplies, an active production line is needed.
That goes to the right hon. Gentleman’s last point about being too slow to place orders. One of the reasons it has taken time to place orders, as he knows, is that there is sometimes no supply chain and we have to wait for a supply chain to be reinvested in, redeveloped or re-founded with new suppliers before we can get a price for the taxpayer or a contract delivered. That is what happened with NLAW. As much as we would have loved to have placed that order on the next day, some of the supply chain was 15 years old and we had to find new suppliers. Then we got a price and some partners. By placing an order with Sweden, we reinvigorated the supply chain and, hopefully, more jobs with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chairman of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
This conflict will not end any time soon. Putin is moving his country to a war footing as he prepares for a spring offensive. Tactically speaking, it is very welcome that we are finally seeing some serious, NATO-standard tracked hardware gifted to Ukraine. It is another example of the UK leading and ever pushing the envelope of international support for Ukraine.
As other nations follow our lead, maintaining so many NATO variants of vehicles and equipment—tanks, armoured personnel carriers and artillery pieces—will not be practical in the long term. Will the UK consider leading again by establishing a western-funded, Ukrainian-operated weapons factory and assembly line in eastern Poland so that Ukraine can become self-sufficient in procuring and replenishing the military kit and munitions it needs for its long-term security, without fear of the facility being targeted by Russia?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend’s suggestion is correct. He is right to say that, unless there is a supply chain or, indeed, a sustainability package behind all this gifting, these vehicles and artillery pieces will become junk on the battlefield when they run out or wear out, so it is important that we think in that way. That is why we will be putting in some recovery vehicles with the Challenger 2 donations. There is a lot of thought going on right now about the sustainability of supply chains, which ties into the international fund, as I am looking for intelligent application of the fund to stimulate just that.
Ukraine has shown itself to be incredibly successful either at reverse-engineering what it captures from Russia or at designing and developing its own equipment. It recently opened a production line for 155 mm or 152 mm shells, and it is now manufacturing within the country. We will get to where my right hon. Friend wants to be by using the international fund or Kindred to fund supply chains over the border. If Ukraine approaches us with ideas for transferring intellectual property so that we can make equipment for Ukraine, or so that Ukraine can make the equipment here or anywhere else, I would be very open to doing that.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I welcome the detail and the substance of the Secretary of State’s statement. Moreover, I believe the timing is very welcome as we close in on the first anniversary of the outrageous attack on Ukraine by Putin and his forces last February.
All of us, regardless of our political allegiances or differences in other areas, must stand up for the international rules-based system, the right of sovereignty and the value of self-determination where they are under attack, not simply at the outset of conflict, when hackles are raised and outrage piqued, but as we endure almost a year of the conflict’s effects on these shores, in our homes and on our industry and wider resources, and as we continue to witness Russia’s hybrid terror heaped upon the people of Ukraine. Now is the time to double down on the west’s support and commitment to Ukraine in defending itself against this aggression. It is time to leave Putin in no doubt that the west’s resolve, politically and in every other respect, is there for Ukraine to see.
I would like to know three things. The Secretary of State said on 12 December that he would not pursue sending redundant UK Warrior infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine because they are tracked vehicles weighing 28 tonnes and because of the logistical tail that comes with them. So what has changed in a month to allow him to now send a squadron of 68-tonne Challenger tanks, with the very much more complex logistics and support burden that go along with them? Can he also set out the duration of the period between this announcement and those Challengers 2s having operational effect within the Ukraine battlespace? And given that European NATO nations must doubtless follow this development with similar donations of Leopard 2 tanks, is he prepared to review not just the number of Challenger 3s, but whether the Challenger 3 will be the right solution for the UK going forward at all? When we see the Challengers and Leopard 2s going toe to toe with the same peer adversary, we will see much more clearly which is the better tank.
Mr Wallace
I am always happy to keep under review the number of tanks and what we have. One lesson of Ukraine, however, is that, whether it is a modern or not-so-modern tank, unless it is properly protected and supported, by counter-drone capability, electronic warfare or a proper wrap, it can become incredibly vulnerable, going from being the lion on the savannah to being a very vulnerable thing. When we look at the finite amount of money we all have in government, how much do we commit to make a perfectly formed battle group, or how much do we take a risk? The Russians took a risk on the road to Kyiv and that is where we are.
The Warrior and the Challenger are obviously different vehicles, but as I referenced earlier the 50 Bradleys—the United States vehicles—are probably in better condition than our Warriors and these Challengers are designed to complement those. Hopefully, we will be training together, with the Challenger and the Bradley interoperating. In addition, there are issues with the Warrior fleet. Obviously, I am happy to constantly look at that and I will not rule it out but, for now, on taking 12 tanks as opposed to what would probably have to be 40-odd Warriors to make it a company-sized level, I would prefer to focus on the AS-90s and the Challenger tanks to make that difference.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend. Along with the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), I had the privilege just before Christmas of working south of Kharkiv with a British charity, Siobhan’s Trust, feeding thousands of dispossessed Ukrainians. While there, I was able to talk to a lot of the Ukrainian military. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend, because the one thing they were saying was that they were very disappointed by Germany’s failure to give permission for the Leopard tanks to be sent to them as originally arranged. They now believe that this decision by His Majesty’s Government will help unlock that.
I visited the military hospital in Kharkiv, which is shelled two or three times a week—the devastation is appalling—and people there asked me for some things that are not offensive things. First, they desperately need more armoured ambulances because they say that the experience of getting the wounded quickly to the hospitals is terrible. Secondly, they have a great shortage of paramedics; they need those very much, too. Thirdly—this is shocking—the number of Ukrainian military committing suicide as a result of battlefield stress is astonishing and help is desperately needed. They said that the US and the UK, who have experience in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, could really help by sending some people over to help train in those mental health practices.
Mr Wallace
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I would be fascinated to follow up with him on his experience with Siobhan’s Trust. It is easy to forget that lots and lots of Ukrainians are suffering post conflict, whether we are talking about members of the military committing suicide, or ordinary individuals. The tragedy is that, nine or 10 months in, people get slightly immune to what they see in the media, on the telly and on social media, which is violence and destruction on a staggering scale. The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), has just said to me that the surgeon general is going to visit soon to see what more we can do to help those individuals, especially those suffering from acute mental challenges.
On armoured ambulances, I know that there have been some donations already, some of which have been private donations. A colleague of ours in this House from Yorkshire approached me about a company that donated some armoured ambulances. I notice in the announcement that we have sent some Bulldogs—for people as old as me they are called 432s. I believe we gave them a new coat of paint and called them Bulldogs. Fundamentally, they have ambulance variants, so I will see whether they are included in that. I can write to my right hon. Friend with details of the medical support.
On the Germans, we should not forget that they have made huge donations. While it is probably the best sport of the media of the day in the UK to always pursue them, they have, like us, delivered M270 GMLRSs. They are one of the biggest contributors to the Ukraine fight and we should give credit where credit is due. I am grateful for what they are doing. I just hope that on the Leopards they will unlock and that, if they do not do so, other nations will.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for what he is doing and for the support that he is giving to Ukraine. Basically, we have to do what it takes to ensure that Ukraine wins this war and that Putin understands that there will be no weakening on the western side in support of Ukraine. But it is a war of attrition at the moment and it is very important that it is clear that the support we will be giving Ukraine will be ongoing and done in a strategic way. Although I welcome the supply of the Challenger tanks, they were needed many months ago. We seem to be giving bits of help to Ukraine in a piecemeal way. I am not in any way undermining the amount that has been given so far, but a much more strategic approach is needed to ramp up production in the west as a whole in terms of support and to replenish our own supplies, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said.
The Secretary of State did not mention Belarus. With reports coming through today of Belarus doing joint training exercises with the Russians, are we giving a clear message to Belarus that there will be serious consequences if there is any infringement on Ukrainian soil from Belarus?
Mr Wallace
On Belarus, it has been interesting that it seems Putin’s most loyal ally has still not committed his forces. That speaks volumes. I think the neighbours are sensing quite how weak Putin in one sense has become. When the bully is no longer able to bully in the playground, we start to see consequences in Kazakhstan and elsewhere. We have seen the Russians move units to Belarus and then back out again. We saw them recently carrying out training in those units, which is, I think, what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Absolutely, we engage with Belarus. I think Belarus understands what further action would mean to its status in relation to Russia and, indeed, Ukraine. Ukraine does speak to Belarus, as does President Putin. No good would come of the addition of Belarus.
On the piecemeal claim, I understand that, but I mention the calibration that we are trying to achieve with what we are doing now. It is important that we do it as a coalition—together. The amazing thing about the support for Ukraine is that it includes a huge amount of bilateral arrangements. It is not, as Russia would like to accuse us of, a NATO-orchestrated event. It is not a proxy war. It is not an attack on Russia or Russia-phobia. Fundamentally, it is like-minded countries recognising the wrong that has gone on in that country and through the invasion and coming together. Russia would like us to believe all those other narratives—it is not about those. It is about defending a country to defend itself. What is great is how many countries around the world agree with upholding human rights and international law and want to come together to help.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this afternoon, not least as the Ukrainians are now clearly fighting for our freedom as well as for their own. After what one might call a bruising encounter battle last week between departmental witnesses and the Defence Committee over the achingly slow re-equipment of our own British Army, I welcome the Secretary of State’s sense of urgency on that, too, but could he specifically declare some of our armoured fighting vehicle programmes, such as Boxer, the Challenger 3 upgrade and the Mobile Fires Platform, as urgent operational requirements? That would mean that we effectively cut all the usual procurement bureaucracy and bring those vital systems into service as soon as possible.
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend is as keen as I am to change the history on procurement. It is remarkable, when it comes to assisting Ukraine, how speedily we can get things into the field or adapt them, and how manufacturers seem magically to adapt things. There are lessons there. I had already started the process of accelerating the Challenger 3 programme last year—I did not want to take the gap in the middle of the decade —but of course, when we accelerate, we take risks. Nevertheless, I think that is important. I will definitely look at his suggestion, although the elephant in the room on the suggestion of accelerating procurement is His Majesty’s Treasury, which would have to reprofile the budget. As the time of the integrated review approaches, I shall engage with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Night after night, the Russians continue to fire missiles at the Ukrainian civilian population. We saw at the weekend the attack on the residential block in Dnipro, which has so far claimed at least 20 lives. Just before Christmas, the United States announced it would provide the Patriot missile system to Ukraine. What assessment has the Defence Secretary made of the impact that that will have on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against those missiles, and what further capability could Ukraine use to mitigate further the effect of those frequent attacks, which are intended to destabilise the country and cut off the energy supply?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman makes an observation on the powerful and enduring impact of those horrendous attacks. There are echoes of the V1 and V2 campaigns, with little intelligence targeting, by the looks of things, and an attempt to terrify people across Ukraine. Patriot has improved defence of the airspace: despite Russia’s claims, the vast proportion of those munitions still do not make it through, but the tragedy is that some do, and we would all like to work to make it 100% certain that none will.
The Patriot is a long-range anti-ballistic missile and interceptor, so it is probably more use at some stages against some of the more sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles or missiles that could be fired, or are fired occasionally—we would all be worried about the next Iranian ballistic missiles if they were put in. What the Ukrainians need is volume of short-range and medium-range ammunition to deal with the whole range of UAVs. That is the real key. They might have the most sophisticated launchers in the world, but if they cannot afford the missiles, they will soon run out, as Russia is now finding.
Ukraine needs volume, better co-ordination and better targeting. The United Kingdom has helped; as I said in the House last time, we used our knowledge to advise and help them on how to layer their air defence better and prioritise the infrastructure they need to defend. The Russians are firing at so many targets that the Ukrainians need to start with a priority list, as they are now doing, and that is having an effect. That is why we now see Russia being more indiscriminate, just throwing in anything, so its attacks are less predictable and therefore harder to defend.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the welcome news of the latest UK package of support, including the Challenger 2 tanks and Bulldogs, and support from other international partners such as the US and France. Can he reassure us that he and colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and our diplomatic routes will continue to do all they can to ensure that we bring on board maximum support from other countries through our bilateral relationships? That will be crucial to maximising the force multiplier effect he referred to in his statement, in terms of both military and humanitarian support.
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend is right. I come to this House to talk about defence, weaponry and lethal aid, but there is also the diplomatic pillar, which is incredibly important, and the economic pillar, through sanctions. That is an important track to engage on. I know some of that work is not made public, but some of it is, and Russia is seeing its economy damaged by those sanctions, which will not be removed any time soon. It is important to recognise that there is a diplomatic track—there is a diplomatic track open to President Putin, should he wish to end this senseless violence and invasion and seek to remove his forces from Ukraine—because this is not a one-way thing and we all work very hard on it. The military goes hand in hand with diplomacy and the economy, and we must ensure we keep that up, whether in the UN, bilaterally or in new forums.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Building on his exposition of the economic, diplomatic and military levers, communication levers are also key. We know that Russian propaganda wishes to twist international support for Ukraine into a narrative suggesting that this is somehow a war of self-defence, with Russia fighting in self-defence against NATO. How is the Secretary of State working with Cabinet colleagues, and with people who work on strategic communications at the MOD, to counter that narrative?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is incredibly important that we counter that narrative. He will have heard me say twice from the Dispatch Box what this is not. It is not an attack on Russia; it is not a proxy war; it is not a NATO-orchestrated aggression in any way at all. It is fundamentally about helping Ukraine to defend itself. We make sure that we message that throughout Government, and that we message it as much as possible into Russia, so that Russians understand the consequences of President Putin’s badly thought through special operation. I think that is why we are seeing fractures in the Russian general command and, indeed, among its political leaders, who themselves know that nothing is going to plan.
This is important, and it is important further across the globe. When there are grain shortages in Africa, or people cannot afford it, it is not because of the west; it is because of what Russia has done in the Black sea and what Russia is doing to the ports in Mariupol and other such places. That is why Africans are finding it hard to get grain and are paying more for it—because of Russia.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend describes the Russian armed forces as “poorly led” and “badly equipped”. What assessment does he make of the Wagner Group, which seems to be operating independently and, allegedly, with more successful effect? Am I right in thinking that an organisation that pulls criminals out of jail and sends them into battle is surely operating well outside the law of armed conflict?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about Wagner. For a long time, Wagner has operated outside the rules of any law. That has been its selling point in Libya and Mali in Africa: “Pay for us with contracts, diamonds or whatever”—there are no rules. Wagner has been observed on numerous occasions engaged in war crimes and events, but given its proximity to the Kremlin, it does not fool anyone that it is somehow some unilateral, purely commercial operation. Currently, we think that two thirds of the Wagner force around the Bakhmut area are convicts taken from prisons. They are suffering approximately two thirds casualty rates, so it is not a good deal for convicts in the Wagner Group.
It is also a very worrying reflection. If I were General Gerasimov, I would be asking myself why I am outwitted and outperformed by a bunch of mercenaries and, by the looks of things in Moscow, rivals. What does it say about the Russian army that it takes a bunch of mercenaries, as they would see it, to get some traction? However, I would not believe Wagner’s propaganda either. There is not much traction; there is only death, at the hands of Jafar Montazeri their paid commanders or, indeed, their own men. We have seen the social media videos in which the group executed a convict of their own using a sledgehammer.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
This war has been going on not for 10 months but for nine years. We need to make sure that Putin ultimately loses, but it is not just about military solutions, it is also about economic ones: rebuilding, reconstructing and, frankly, protecting many Ukrainians from the freezing cold this winter and enabling them to put food on the table for their children over the years to come. At the moment, we have guaranteed something like £3 billion-worth of financial support, but there is an easier solution. More than £23 billion-worth of Russian assets are sitting in British banks. Why do we not seize them and send them to Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman makes the most important point first: even before 24 February, Russia had killed 18,000 Ukrainian troops since 2014; not a week or month went by on that border when they were not shot. When we said to people, “It might escalate, or it might be a war,” Ukrainians often looked at us and said, “Where have you been for the last decade?” It is very sobering to go to the memorial in Kyiv; most of those plaques are from way before February 2021.
On the point about building, refurbishment and support to refugees, that is where I think Germany needs to get the credit. Germany and Poland have hosted tens of thousands of Ukrainians. It is putting a lot of money into aid and support for Ukraine and is making a significant difference. I have often said that the strength of an alliance of 30 or 40 is that we can move at different speeds.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about Russian assets, as the former criminal finance Minister and Security Minister, I would be quite interested to know why we cannot do that.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I join others in thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement and for our ongoing support to Ukraine.
I want to follow up on what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) just said about the Wagner Group. We heard last week how the brutal attack on the tiny town of Soledar has left the fields littered with the corpses of men. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has just agreed from the Dispatch Box that the organisation has been guilty of many war crimes in many parts of the world—not least last year in Mali, but we can also add the Central African Republic to his list.
It has been put to me that if the Wagner Group were proscribed as a terrorist organisation, that could make it much more difficult for Prigozhin to recruit into the organisation. I urge my right hon. Friend to work with the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to make sure that we are gathering all the evidence we have against the Wagner Group and taking every single action we can to try to curtail its activities, including proscribing it as a terrorist organisation if it comes to that.
Mr Wallace
I am very happy to look at exactly that, although I am not sure that the group recruits at all any more; I think it just piles people in.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his full exposition of the military aid that he is providing. It is so important that Ukrainians have the most advanced systems at their disposal. However, we also know that Putin is targeting the energy infrastructure across Ukraine, so could the Defence Secretary say a little more about what we are doing to help protect that infrastructure and rebuild it for the future?
Mr Wallace
Yes. First of all, we and the international community are providing generators—I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with the exact numbers—to mitigate the effect of those strikes. At the same time, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), we have helped with co-ordination and prioritisation. A number of international partners are helping with the training and support of the brave men and women who go out there to fix that infrastructure almost immediately once it is hit and taken down, ensuring that more and more people are able to look after the electricity infrastructure. That is incredibly important. Of course, Putin knows that the weather will improve, hopefully, in the spring, and then some of his impacts will be lessened. I think that is one of the other reasons why we are seeing an increase in strikes.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
How many defence reviews can my right hon. Friend recall that were preceded by fashionable commentators decrying the idea that main battle tanks had any utility in modern warfare? Now that that has been disproved and my right hon. Friend has made a hugely significant move this week by agreeing to send main battle tanks in support of Ukraine’s defence, will he consider sending more if those tanks prove to be effective and can be effectively supported? Can we use this as an opportunity to bolster and strengthen the supply chain and manufacture of our next generation of tanks now that he has proved to the Treasury that they are not a waste of money?
Mr Wallace
First, the good thing about the Challenger 3 supply chain is that we are doing the work in Stockport and Telford, and I am delighted that we are also doing the Boxers near there. We are reinvigorating the land systems supply chain. On my hon. Friend’s point about tanks, no one was ever writing that we should get rid of tanks. Hopefully my defence review was a bit better than the defence review that said there was no use for a machine gun after the Japanese-Russian war, or indeed the brave admiral who said that submarines had absolutely no utility in the lead-up to being sunk in the Firth of Forth by a German U-boat. I do not think we have said tanks should be got rid of, but Ukraine has shown that armour is important, and not just for the basic protection from hand grenades dropped by UAVs.
Ukraine also shows that without armour properly protected in a 360° way, forces are incredibly vulnerable to handheld anti-tank weapons. The House may have noticed that the British NLAW and the US Javelin are successfully remodelling hundreds and hundreds of T-72s from very short distance. We have to have proper protection, both electronically but also in the layered defence that we need on the modern battlefield.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Whatever the manifold differences we have in this place, it is good that people across Ukraine and Russia will have heard once again the resolute message from all parts of the House. We support the Secretary of State’s move to donate the Challenger tanks, and we are resolute in saying that Putin’s aggression must fail. The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Challenger tank donation will help not only to resist the Russians, but to expel them. We have heard Ukrainian officials and the NATO Secretary-General saying that Russia is planning a major offensive this spring. Can the Secretary of State tell us what more the UK can do provide broad support beyond tanks to the Ukrainians to repel that major Russian aggression?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I recognise that 14 tanks will not change the course of history, but it is also about trying to be a force multiplier. If we can put the 14 tanks with the 50 Bradleys and deep long-range artillery at divisional level, as well as hopefully unlocking Leopard tanks across Europe, we can raise a significant mass that is important to enable the fire and manoeuvre warfare that will be needed to push Russia out. Of course Russia has planned for an offensive. With Gerasimov being reappointed, effectively, he will be able to make the same mistakes as he did the first time. Nevertheless, Russia is not giving up, but neither are we. I noticed social media in Russia commenting that our decision to send Challenger tanks would change nothing. That is right, it will not change anything; Ukraine will continue to win and Russia will continue to lose.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
May I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement, which I welcome, and commend him and his Department for the superb work being undertaken right now to help defend Ukraine? As he knows, armour is logistically very challenging. Can he confirm how it will be deployed, whether risks to the supply chain can be mitigated at all and whether we have a plan for how we will turn our own land equipment availability from red back to green?
Mr Wallace
On my hon. Friend’s last point, we must first be honest about the state of our armoured fleet and our land systems. I have been pretty brutal in the House about how the state of it is not acceptable. It has not been in a good state for more than a decade, if not much longer. How it has happened, I do not know. If we are not honest, we cannot start that process. We are putting in £24 billion to modernise or change that fleet as much as possible.
My hon. Friend is right on the supply chain. We are well supported by some of the neighbouring states in thinking that through—the Slovakians have been forward-leaning in helping to support the T-72s and refurbishing them—but we are also assessing our supply chain to see what is needed. That is timely, because with our Challenger 3 upgrade, we need the supply chain to be reinvigorated, and that is what we are working on. I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the UK Government on following through on their commitment to support Ukraine, as evidenced by this statement and the provision of 14 Challenger 2 tanks and other donations. With the potential of a Russian offensive, more tanks were clearly needed, and more anti-missile defences are critical to enable Ukrainians to get on their feet, to survive and to end this conflict with Russia once and for all. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has shown the will and the physical commitment, but I make a special appeal for anti-missile defences so that Ukrainians can keep the lights on, heat their homes and save lives, and so that, with the generators and engineering help, Ukraine can rebuild.
Mr Wallace
Yes, we are committed to that. Today, I also announced more high velocity and low velocity missiles, both of which are made in Northern Ireland and are doing a fantastic job.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Defence Secretary clearly laid out the reasons why the Government are providing a squadron of 14 Challenger tanks to help the defence of Ukraine, and he implied that issues of supply chains, spares, ammo and training have been carefully considered. He will also accept that the Challengers’ biggest contribution may be diplomatic by helping him to unlock solid commitments from the 14 Leopard-using nations. What might be the impact of any commitments made at the meeting in Germany, combined with the Challenger tanks, on the Russian armed forces’ leaders?
Mr Wallace
I hope that the Russian armed forces recognised over the Christmas break that their best bet is to cut and run or, indeed, to stop and withdraw. I think that is dawning on a significant number of commanders, but the problem is that they are not around for long enough to pull the levers and make a difference. Surovikin has been replaced by Gerasimov, who perhaps has been put in prime position to be the fall guy in three months’ time, as all his predecessors have. That might be the cunning Kremlin plan—I do not know—but it is important to recognise that somehow, Russia needs to come to its senses about what is happening: the special operation has failed and is failing, and the best thing that it can do is to leave. We will then try to find a way forward.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Sadly, we saw more evidence this weekend of Putin’s barbaric targeting of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, particularly with the residential blocks in Dnipro, which is why I welcome today’s announcement about the Challenger 2 tanks. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we are not going it alone? On behalf of my Ukrainian community in Huddersfield and Colne Valley, who are proud of our steadfast support for Ukraine, can he also confirm that we will continue with our donations, as he mentioned, of generators, humanitarian support and medical supplies for the Ukrainian people?
Mr Wallace
Yes, those supplies will become even more important and I will do everything I can to stimulate more of them. If right hon. and hon. Members have companies in their constituency that are keen or are facing barriers to do that, they should ensure that I am made aware and we will see what we can do. In the next few months, we have to do everything to stop the targeting of cities and infrastructure, and to help Ukrainians to see it through and defeat Russia. Targeting civilian blocks in Dnipro does nothing but commit murder.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The removal of Russian forces from cities such as Kherson has led some civilians to return to their homes, even though the areas are contaminated with explosive weapons. Last week, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on explosive threats, I met a Ukrainian MP who is seeking to put together a civil de-mining programme. Can the Secretary of State ensure that his officials will be available to meet me and other interested parties to put together a programme to help people as they return to conflict areas in an appropriate and timely manner?
Mr Wallace
I or my officials will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. He will have noticed that in the statement, I announced £28 million for minefield breaching and bridging capabilities—combat engineering that is desperately needed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
Points of Order
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, the High Court ruled against the Dartmoor national park authority, which sought to protect the right of free access for wild camping. That is a significant backward step that seemingly puts the financial interests of one person above the fundamental access rights that have been hard fought for and provided for in law by this House. It goes beyond Dartmoor and could put at risk rights and protections for national parks, including the right to roam. Have you had any notice from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of her intention to make a statement to the House? If not, can you advise the House on how best to pursue the issue on behalf of communities across the country who could be affected by the judgment?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. I can confirm that I have not had notice of a statement on this matter. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and Ministers and those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order. On advice about how to bring this matter to the attention of the House in the future, he is a very experienced Member of the House and I am sure he will know the various options available to him, but if he wants any further advice, I suggest that he speaks to the Clerks in the Table Office.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Rumours abound this afternoon across the House that the Government may make a statement this evening. Has your office or that of the Speaker been advised by the Government that that is their intention?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have received no notification of any statement likely to be made tonight, and I am not aware that the Speaker has.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Staveley Town Council in my constituency, which is led by the self-styled Staveley Independents with the support of the Liberal Democrats, has in effect gone bankrupt. I am told that, since November, staff have either not been paid at all or have been paid late. If it was a tier 1 or tier 2 authority, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities would intervene, but as it is a parish or town council, I am told that no such mechanism is in place. Have you or Mr Speaker been notified of the Department’s intention to make any statement on this matter, which is of great concern to my constituents, and if not, can you give me any advice about how we may be able to ensure that members of staff at Staveley Town Council are paid and that services continue to be provided while the authority attempts to extricate itself from the current crisis it is in?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. It is obviously a very worrying situation for the staff of the council. I am not aware of any intention to make a statement made about it. Those on the Treasury Bench and Ministers will clearly have heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I suggest he tables some questions, writes to the appropriate Minister or seeks a meeting with the appropriate Minister to find out whether there any ways in which this situation can be resolved.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I was unable to catch the eye of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) as he was handing out some crib sheets in advance of the next debate. I know we are going to discuss minimum service levels, but given that crib sheets have been handed out, could that service be extended to those of us on the Opposition Benches as well?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, but I am afraid I really have no responsibility for pieces of paper that may be handed out, unless of course they have gone through the Table Office.
Bill Presented
Relocation of the House of Lords (Report to Parliament) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paul Maynard presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of the House of Lords meeting in a large ballroom in Blackpool.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March and to be printed (Bill 227).
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Monday 16th January 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:58 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 49 / Noes: 482 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 249 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 252 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 49 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must inform the House that the reasoned amendments have not been selected.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Grant Shapps)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government firmly believe that the ability to strike is an important element of industrial relations in the UK. That ability is rightly protected by law, and we understand that an element of disruption is likely with any strike. However, we also need to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public, who work hard and expect the essential services that they pay for to be there when they need them. We must be able to have confidence that when strikes occur, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at undue risk. As has become clear from recent industrial action, that is not always the case, so we need a safety net in place to ensure that the public do not become collateral damage.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Grant Shapps
I will make a little bit of progress first. Right now, up and down the country, households are struggling with the repercussions of high inflation caused by covid and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The UK is not alone in feeling the pressure, which is also felt by many other countries, particularly within the European Union. Recently, the Prime Minister outlined the Government’s priorities: to build a better, more secure and more prosperous future, one that this country and our workforce—public or private—fully deserve. By halving inflation, growing the economy and getting debt down, we can ensure that our vital public services are fit. As the Government get on with those priorities, we also have a duty to protect access to vital public services which, let us not forget, the public are paying for through taxation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Secretary of State, I believe in the fundamental right of a worker to withdraw their labour, whether that happens to be from an employer or against the Government. I understand that at this time many people feel the same, and for those who are toying with this idea, let me say that the ambulance service, nurses and doctors, for example, have been able to ensure that there was an emergency service. Do the Government really believe that withdrawing the right of a worker to withdraw their labour is what they are about?
Grant Shapps
I always think that people think very carefully about this issue, and they are right to do so. We are operating within the context of a crisis in global growth. The International Monetary Fund states that a third of the world will be in recession this year, caused by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—[Interruption.] I am surprised to hear Labour Members yawning and moaning. Putin invaded Ukraine—[Interruption.] What Labour Members do not seem to realise is that what then happened to energy prices caused a crisis that has put up inflation throughout the western world.
Grant Shapps
I will just make this point because I think Labour Members may find it useful. Those prices going up throughout the rest of the world, including here, has also pushed up wage claims. But I do not think we should get into a 1970s spiral, where we end up with higher wage claims and higher wage settlements, with higher wage claims and inflation continuing for ever. That is a cycle we must break. Clearly, if we were to meet all the inflation busting demands of the unions, that would make life harder not only for some but for every single family in this country. That is why we cannot do that. The Government are therefore absolutely clear: we want constructive dialogue with the unions, and the public have had enough of the constant, most unwelcome, and frankly dangerous, disruptions to their lives.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Last week, Human Rights Watch warned that
“fundamental and hard-won rights are being systematically dismantled”
in the UK. Is this anti-strike legislation part of the danger that Human Rights Watch is warning about?
Grant Shapps
The International Labour Organisation itself says—I will cover this shortly in my speech—that it is perfectly proper to have a balance between minimum service levels and people’s right to strike. I support the ILO in saying that; I absolutely agree it is right. I note, however, that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that he has received £94,000-plus from unions. Now, I have no issue with him receiving that money from unions—I do not think that we should have taxpayer-funded political parties in this House—but I think it is only right that when Opposition Members stand up, they reflect what is on their records, which is that they have received a lot of money from unions and now seek to represent them in the debate.
Millions of people who rely on essential transport to get to work or to family commitments now every day have the extra stress of worrying about making alternative, sometimes costly, arrangements because of the forever strikes. There are those who, at the most terrifying time of their lives—perhaps with a poorly loved one—do not know whether an ambulance will arrive, because the unions have refused to provide a national safety net. [Interruption.] I hear the barracking and understand that Opposition Members do not want to hear what people throughout the country are feeling, but it is a fact that when strikes are on and ambulances are unable to find out from their unions whether they will operate, that is an additional concern for members of the public—including Opposition Members’ constituents, whom they seem rather not to care about in this case. I am surprised about that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will make a little progress.
Then there are children, who are desperately trying to catch up on the lost learning—
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Grant Shapps
I will give way shortly; I will make a little bit of progress.
Those children are desperately trying to catch up on learning that they missed throughout covid, and again they are unsure about whether they will be able to get to school. There are also the businesses throughout the land whose sales and productivity are suffering. They are terrified that, at a time of high inflation, their livelihoods are at risk along with those of their employees.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Could the Secretary of State give us a little more indication of how he will consult on and agree minimum standards in the railway industry?
Grant Shapps
I will set out in a bit more detail the way in which the legislation will work in a while, but, briefly speaking, secondary legislation by regulation will be used in each individual sector to come to the right balance. I will explain that in more detail, if my right hon. Friend is patient.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will give way in just a moment. I have already taken more interventions from Opposition Members than from Government Members.
I think it is true to say that there comes a time when we cannot let such a situation continue. That is why we need minimum safety and service levels to keep livelihoods and lives safe. It is frankly irresponsible, and even surprising, for the Opposition to suggest otherwise.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He wants to talk about minimum safety levels. The reality is this: after 12 years of a Tory Government, minimum safety no longer exists in our NHS. A paramedic contacted me directly at the weekend to say that he had begun his shift at 7 am expecting to sign off later that evening, and spent the entirety of that shift sitting outside Hull Royal Infirmary because there was no bed available for his patient, whose life he had saved. There is not any safety in the NHS as a result of the Tory Government. The Secretary of State needs to acknowledge that before we move on to discuss anything else.
Grant Shapps
I am surprised by how the hon. Gentleman, who normally speaks a lot of sense in the House, put his point across. Yes, of course it is the case that the NHS has been under unbelievable stress, not least because of two years of covid and all the backlog that has been created. It is worth reminding Labour Members that, had they had their way, we would have been in lockdown for a heck of a lot longer and those cases would have been even worse. I do not follow the logic of his argument. He seems to be arguing that just because there are times of danger, we ought, by design, to enable a system that prevents unions in the ambulance service from telling the NHS when ambulances will be there and what the minimum service would be. That is the issue that we seek to address today.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
If this is all about safety, why is the word “safety” not used once in the Bill or its explanatory notes?
Grant Shapps
It is fairly obvious to say that a minimum service level in railways, for example, is about people’s livelihoods rather than safety, but that the NHS and the ambulance service not agreeing nationally is a minimum safety level issue. I would have thought that was pretty straightforward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will just make a little bit of progress.
The Bill will ensure that we protect the ability of workers to take industrial action, but that we also protect the public from disproportionate disruption to their daily lives and that, to put it simply, one person’s right to strike does not infringe on someone else’s right to life and limb.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
There is an array of riches. I will give way to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Secretary of State has never negotiated a minimum service agreement in the NHS. I have. The Secretary of State is completely fabricating what happens. It is the trade unions who work with the staff and the employers to put a safe agreement—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid I will have to ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her remark about fabricating. She will do that, I know. I am sure that is not what she meant to say and will indicate that that is not what she meant to say—yes?
Rachael Maskell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I will rephrase what I was saying. The reality is that safe agreements are negotiated between the staff and the employers. That happens on the ground; the process and the outcomes protect the NHS, because that is what staff want to do. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he reflects the truth of what happens in the NHS?
Grant Shapps
I would just say to the hon. Lady, who I know has received money from GMB, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, Unite the union, CLP among others—nothing wrong with that; I am just putting it on the record—that she is wrong factually about the way the last two strikes, last week and in December, occurred.
Grant Shapps
I am actually answering the hon. Gentleman’s colleague’s point. One at a time.
The way that ambulance strike worked was that the NHS was unable to find out in advance from the ambulance unions where and when, nationwide, cover would be provided. It is the NHS that said that, not the Government. As a result, the NHS has not been able to put the appropriate level of cover in place in advance. If by chance we are wrong about that, there is a safety mechanism in the Bill for that. Although we are taking primary powers, should Parliament so decide, we have said we do not want to use them if voluntary arrangements can be made. I refer Opposition Members to the voluntary arrangements—
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
Let me finish the first point and move on with the speech.
I refer Opposition Members to the voluntary arrangements that were successfully made with the Royal College of Nursing, which did provide a national guarantee. In that case, it would not be necessary to put the measures in place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I hope the House will appreciate that there are a lot of people who want to contribute. I want to give people the opportunity to do that in their own speeches. [Interruption.] If Members do not mind, I will turn to the detail of the Bill.
The Bill establishes a legal framework to implement minimum safety and service levels during periods of strike action. It will achieve that by amending existing legislation, the Trade Union and Labour Relations Concili —[Hon. Members: “Consolidation”] Thank you folks. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. I was trying get the word “conciliatory” in there for Opposition Members. The legislation will allow regulations to be made to ensure that specified services cannot shut down completely when workers strike. That is to maintain crucial and, in many cases, life-saving services. The relevant sectors specified in the proposed legislation are: health services; fire and rescue services; education services; transport services; decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel; and border security.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Can the Secretary of State help me with this? The human rights memorandum that accompanied the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill last October stated specifically that the Government’s legal advice was that it is not justifiable or necessary in a democratic society to have such restrictions in emergency and patient care services, in fire and rescue, or in education—only in transport. That does not appear in the human rights memorandum that accompanies this Bill. Has the Government’s legal advice changed or have they just changed their mind for reasons of political convenience?
Grant Shapps
The hon. and learned Lady must surely have noticed that we have subsequently had disruption in the NHS, including in the ambulance service. What has happened in that disruption is that although the nurses have very sensibly provided a national level of safe service, unfortunately the same has not happened in the ambulance service. That is why this legislation is required in other areas at this time.
Grant Shapps
I have given way once to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), so I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham).
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend is under a constant onslaught of noise from Opposition Members, who show terrific support for those in the unions in their constituencies and for those in the unions funding their constituency offices, but who seem to forget the interests of all our constituents, which are in the minimum service level agreements that my right hon. Friend is proposing. Ultimately, what people in our constituencies need to know, whether or not we know them, is that in those six sectors a minimum service will be provided regardless of the right of people in the sector to hold back their labour on a pay negotiation or for any other reason. [Interruption.] That is a reasonable proposition, and we should be heard. [Hon. Members: “Speech!”]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before the Secretary of State answers the hon. Gentleman, I remind the House that it is important that we use moderation in our language and that we do not impugn the motives of others. That is not how we want the debate to continue. It is an important subject, so let us try to introduce moderation into our discussion.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester is absolutely right about the reason for requiring minimum standards.
Grant Shapps
I will in a moment, if I can make a little progress.
Using the powers proposed in the Bill, regulations will set out the specific services within each sector in which a minimum level of service will be applied; they will also set out the levels themselves. Those regulations will be tailored to each relevant service, taking account of the different risks to public safety or the impacts on daily life and on the economy. The Bill is clear, however, that such regulations may be made only after appropriate consultation and the approval of both Houses. Of course, the Government may choose not to use the regulation-making powers in the Bill if adequate voluntary agreements, where necessary, are already in place between employers, the relevant sectors and the relevant unions.
Amy Callaghan
I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging my presence in the Chamber after so many attempts to intervene. Will he now pass comment on the fact that life-and-limb cover already exists in legislation and that the true purpose of this shameful Bill is simply to erode workers’ rights?
Grant Shapps
I simply do not accept that point. Although it is true that life-and-limb measures exist, we have seen through the many months of rail closures and the strikes that took place last week and in December that unfortunately minimum service levels in one case, and actually minimum safety levels in another, have simply not been available. I know that Opposition Members do not want to accept this fundamental point, but their constituents’ lives are being put at risk by the NHS’s inability to put the correct cover in place with sufficient notice. They seem to imagine that the Army will just be there at no notice and with no ability to organise which areas of the country it needs to be in. That, I am afraid, is not a practical way to run the—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I cannot hear the answer that the Secretary of State is giving to the question. There is no point in just shouting when he is actually answering the question.
Grant Shapps
I suppose the fundamental point is that we hope very much that, in many cases, we will not need to use the powers conferred by the legislation, but we have seen that that will not always be possible.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am a member of the GMB. I happen not to have received any money from the GMB, although I would be proud to do so—certainly a lot prouder that I would be of receiving £2.5 million from Lubov Chernukhin. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this legislation cannot possibly be used to sort out the present winter of discontent? If anything, it will make it far more difficult to secure a resolution of any of the individual strikes, and therefore it is just political posturing.
Grant Shapps
I think the GMB will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s pitch for some money. If he gets that money, it will join the £120 million that the unions have supplied to the Labour party since 2010.
I make this point only because it is relevant to today’s debate. We must be here to represent our constituents, and our constituents know from paying attention to the recent strikes that when the Royal College of Nursing worked with the NHS, it was able to provide timely assurances at a national level to ensure that the most critical services—including chemotherapy, critical care, paediatric and A&E—were not affected, which shows that even when parties disagree, they can do so in a mature manner. Unfortunately, however, that is not always the case.
During recent strike action by the ambulance service—this has been referred to a couple of times, and I want to read it out because it is written down—the NHS has not been reassured by the relevant union that it can rely on the current system of voluntary local derogation, which I think is what the hon. Member for York Central was talking about earlier. It could not rely on those arrangements to ensure that patient and public services were provided. Last week, and in December, arrangements were being disputed right up to the wire—right up to the last minute—which created uncertainty and left officials with little time to organise contingency measures such as military support. That is the situation that we cannot, in all conscience, allow to continue.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I declare that I am a proud member of a trade union, and was a trade union officer for a number of years before coming here. In fact, I have probably been part of 1,000 or so pay-and-conditions negotiations, all of which were resolved, with employer and employees all perfectly happy with the outcome. That is something that the Secretary of State has been unable to do, whether in relation to the railway or much more widely, which is why we are having this debate. Can he accept that he has failed, and it is time to get the trade unionists into the room and to put this legislation in the bin, where it belongs?
Grant Shapps
Let me say this, in fairness to the hon. Lady. It is the case that the employers and the unions, and more recently Ministers as well, have been meeting, and it is also the case that even when there have been ministerial meetings—including in Scotland and Labour Wales—the disputes have continued. So we clearly cannot continue to rely on voluntary arrangements to ensure the safety of the people we represent. After all, strokes and heart attacks do not respect boundaries such as trust borders. I am intrigued to know what Labour Members would say to their constituents, perhaps grieving constituents who have lost loved ones because of some sort of postcode lottery.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Last week, during my weekly surgery, a constituent asked me why the Labour party was too scared to ask its trade union colleagues to come to the table and negotiate a peaceful resolution—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Members must not shout other Members down.
Saqib Bhatti
I could not figure out why Labour was scared to encourage trade unionists to come to the table. Why does the Secretary of State think Labour is so scared of securing a peaceful resolution of the strikes?
Grant Shapps
I think there are 120 million very good answers to that question. We have an opportunity to keep people, their families and their jobs safe during periods of disruption, and that is what we intend to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will give way in a moment, but I want to make a little progress first.
The Bill and subsequent regulations are designed to enable employers to specify the workers required to meet minimum safety and service levels during strikes within relevant sectors. This will be done through work notices.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Grant Shapps
As I have said, I will in a moment, but I want to make some progress.
Should a union notify an employer of a strike in accordance with the existing normal rules, the Bill will allow the employer to issue a work notice to the union specifying the workers needed to work during a strike to secure the minimum level of safety and service. Employers will be required to consult the union on the number of workers to be identified in the work notice and the work to be undertaken, and have regard to the union’s views before issuing that work notice.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Members on the Government Benches seem to think that none of those who are striking lives in their constituencies, which I find quite strange. Will the Minister confirm that, once his words have been scrutinised in this Chamber, if any are found to be misleading or incorrect, he will return to the Chamber and correct the record as soon as possible—preferably by the end of the week?
Grant Shapps
I am sure that the normal parliamentary rules apply, so I would never stand here and seek to do such a thing. In the interests of transparency, I will mention the £11,100 that the hon. Member has received from the CLP union in this House—[Interruption.] Sorry, that the CLP received from Unite the union, I should say to satisfy Opposition Members.
Officially, the work notice—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members would let me just explain how this operates—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It really is important that we hear what the Secretary of State has to say. It is also important that any reference to donations or payments is accurate.
Grant Shapps
I should have referred to what the CLP received from Unite the union. Hon. Members are absolutely right to correct me at the Dispatch Box.
The work notice must not list more people than reasonably necessary to meet the minimum level of safety and service. Employers must have no regard to whether someone is or is not a member of the union—or even the CLP—when deciding whether they need to be included in that work notice. Each employer and union must also adhere to data protection legislation.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am proud of my union membership, which is recorded in the register of Members’ interests, and I used to be a full-time union organiser. The Minister claims that the public’s existence and lives are at risk because of the disputes. Does he not appreciate that thousands of nurses and other workers are leaving the national health service, and thousands of teachers are leaving their profession, because of stress, low pay and underfunding? That is what is causing a great deal of stress and problems for the public. Instead of reaching for the statute book and trying to legally constrain trade unions from their legitimate action, why does the Secretary of State not address the fundamental causes: poverty pay, stress, bad conditions and inadequate service in all parts of the UK?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman should note that there are 40,000 more nurses now, and more doctors too. It is important to say that I agree with him, for once, because we are trying to work constructively—as we should—to bring strikes to a conclusion, but we must not do so at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of our constituents. It is not the case that the strikes are always perfectly safe for our constituents. That is why we must act. Unions must take reasonable steps to ensure that members do not participate in strikes if they have been named in a work notice. It is up to unions to ensure public safety and not put lives at risk. Only if they fail to do so could they face civil action in court.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will make a little more progress, because I think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would like to hear from other Members, and I have been as generous as possible in allowing interventions.
The Government, unions, employers and workers have a role to play in ensuring that essential services continue even during strikes. That is what we are ensuring. This approach is balanced, reasonable and, above all, fair. Countries such as Australia and Canada have the ability to ban outright those strikes that would endanger lives, such as in some blue-light services. However, this legislation does not seek to ban the right to strike. The Government will always defend the principle that workers should be able to withdraw their labour. In fact, the only time that the right to strike was removed from emergency services was by the Liberal Prime Minister Lloyd George, as part of the Police Act 1919. We do not propose to follow the Lib Dems’ example.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
We are living in a time when democracy and freedom are under threat across the world. The right to strike is an important one. [Interruption.]
Vicky Ford
Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State just mentioned that minimum service levels exist in many other countries, including Italy, Spain and France. I do not know whether Opposition Members have ever been to France, but the French have been known to strike. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my Chelmsford constituents should have the same benefits on strike days as those living in France, Italy and Spain?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no reason that her constituents should suffer lesser protection than people who live in other European nations, most of whom are recognised on most days for being particularly pro-union and helpful in their settlements. I cannot see why Opposition Members would object.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will give way in just a moment, but I would like to get through a bit more first.
All that we are saying is that, in certain services in these important sectors, the right to strike must be balanced against the needs of the public to rely on a basic level of life-saving care. The legislation simply brings us into line, as my hon. Friend just said, with many other modern European nations, such as Spain, Italy, France and Ireland. They use minimum service levels in a common-sense way to reduce the impact of strikes. The International Labour Organisation itself states that minimum service levels can be a proportionate way of balancing the right to strike with the need to protect the wider public. That is what we are doing. Our own unions subscribe to and support the ILO, as do we.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
On the claim of minimum safety levels across Europe, is the Secretary of State aware that, according to the OECD, France lost, on average, 112 days per 1,000 workers between 2008 and 2018? Spain lost 76 strike days, and Italy lost 42. Yet the UK lost only 20 strike days. Will the Secretary of State admit that this law is just to ban people from taking the legal action to strike?
Grant Shapps
I agree that we have had a good working relationship for the last several decades. The hon. Lady is right to point out that, as a result, over the last two or three decades we have typically suffered fewer strikes than some in continental Europe. As I have explained a number of times, we have seen in recent months a flare-up of strikes that are putting people’s lives and livelihoods at risk. This Government will not stand by and watch that happen.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
There is a lot of focus on in Europe, but I would like to focus on Gloucestershire, where nurses have chosen not to strike. I thank them for that and for all the work they do in Stroud. I see nothing in this legislation that will prevent them from making the difficult decision to strike, or from joining their colleagues in unions. We are protecting those rights. It is the minimal standards that the public needs.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about minimum standards. For anyone who cares about the ability to take industrial action and to strike, what we are doing here enshrines that. It does not remove people’s ability to strike, but it prevents union bosses who perhaps are not as reasonable as the RCN from calling strikes that potentially put people’s lives at risk. That is a very different proposition, which I am proud to support.
The Government expect to consult on minimum service levels for ambulance, fire and rail services first. It is expected that these consultations will be published during the passage of this Bill. At the same time as bringing forward the legislation, the Government are doing all they can to continue the discussions that everybody is calling for to ensure that we get a pay settlement with unions that is affordable for the unions, for the country and for the workers paying for it.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
As far as I can tell, the Government have ruled out voluntary options 1 and 2 in their assessment, on the basis that they will be ineffective, particularly where unions and employers have major disagreements. The question is: why and how have the Government arrived at that decision now, in advance of the legislation itself?
Grant Shapps
It is because we were given adequate demonstration from the recent strikes that unfortunately in some cases the unions involved have not acted in the national interest, whereas others—the RCN, for example—have very much done so. I want to stress what I said at the top of my speech, which is that I do not want us to have to use this legislation if it is not required. We have live strikes going on, so we will be able to see where it is required and where it is not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I feel I have been generous in allowing interventions and it is right to complete my segment so that others can get on and speak.
We are mindful of and thankful for the contribution of public service workers in this country, but where unions insist on disproportionate and sometimes plain unsafe levels of industrial action without informing the NHS, for example, and others, we must take the necessary steps to protect the public.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many people died in the care of the national health service during the recent periods of industrial unrest who would not have died had the provisions of this Bill been in force at the time?
Grant Shapps
The problem, as people will recognise, is that as we do not have a nationally agreed level of coverage—particularly in the ambulance service—it is difficult to know or predict what would have happened if the Army had not stepped in. I know from talking to colleagues and officials that one of the problems was that, because of the late notice and the randomised trust-by-trust agreements, they have been unable to put in a national framework that would mean that it would not matter if you lived in Islington North or somewhere else; you would still get coverage on strike days. We said in our manifesto, and I repeat now, that it is not fair to let trade union leaders undermine the livelihoods of others, and nor is it fair for them to put lives and livelihoods at risk.
Nadia Whittome
Does the Secretary of State see the irony in expecting unions to ensure minimum safe service levels on strike days when his own Government are failing to do so on every other day? What does he make of nurses’ reports that staffing levels are in fact safer on strike days because the unions are negotiating appropriate cover compared with non-strike days?
Grant Shapps
I did not quite follow the hon. Lady’s point on the railways. The railways on strike days are finding it hard to offer any services at all, even for key workers and the people the Opposition sometimes claim to represent the most, such as the hard-working cleaner or the hospital porter. The people who cannot do their jobs remotely are unable to get to their jobs and they are losing money. They are becoming fed up with the forever strikes where the unions simply will not put the offer to their members in order for the members to have a say. Minimum service levels are important for that reason, and I have covered numerous times why we think minimum safety levels protect people’s lives.
In this Second Reading debate, we are simply asking the unions to tell us when they are going to withdraw their labour so that we can agree a minimum safety level. This is hardly revolutionary stuff. It is just a common-sense safety net to keep the public safe and ease some of the enormous anxiety that they have felt over the last few months. Failing to support the Bill today will mean that Members who oppose this legislation are essentially prepared to put the safety and welfare of their own constituents at risk. I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As colleagues can see, well over 50 hon. and right hon. Members are wishing to catch my eye. Before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I want to inform colleagues that there will be an immediate four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches so that we can try to get everybody in.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
First, let me declare an interest as a proud lifelong trade unionist. I regret the tone of the Secretary of State’s speech today. If he is implying in any way that Members of the House do not care about their constituents or put their constituents first, or that members of our vital public services who got us through the pandemic do not take the safety of the people they look after seriously and would walk away, I think he should reflect on his comments.
I have been a Member of this House for some seven years now, and I cannot recall a measure that is at once so irrational and so insulting. Not only is this legislation a vindictive assault on the basic freedoms of British working people, but it is as empty of detail as it is full of holes. We will oppose the sacking of nurses Bill, and it is not just about nurses but about the many key workers who we clapped and who kept our services going in the face of the pandemic. We will vote against this legislation tonight, and the next Labour Government will repeal it.
We are in the middle of an economic crisis of the Government’s making. Working people are facing the largest fall in living standards in a generation. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State keeps shouting “Putin”, but what about Liz Truss?
Angela Rayner
What about the Conservatives crashing the economy? The Secretary of State forgets the fact that inflation has gone through the roof under their watch. Thirteen years of Conservative failure. Members watching this debate and constituents up and down the country know the truth, and they will tell this Government what they think, come the next general election.
Working people are facing the largest fall in living standards in a generation. In-work poverty, insecure work and financial insecurity are rampant. Inflation is in double digits. It is in this context that we have seen the greatest levels of strike disruption in 33 years, with ambulance workers taking their first major strike action in decades and the first ever strike in the history of the Royal College of Nursing. Our posties, train drivers, Border Force, health workers, train cleaners and even Ministers’ own officials have taken action too. The Prime Minister will not admit it, but this is a crisis and it is a crisis of the Government’s making. This legislation does nothing to resolve the problems that they have caused. There is no common sense in it at all.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a proud trade union member. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this legislation does nothing to address the underlying reasons NHS staff and others have taken the incredibly difficult decision to strike? We are going to spend a number of hours in here this evening, but surely that time would be much better spent by the Government getting round the table with members of the NHS, listening to their concerns and coming to a resolution that would help to move things forward, rather than wasting our time here this evening on this horrible piece of legislation.
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and I absolutely agree. I was reflecting while the Secretary of State was making his opening speech, and I was thinking that, if I still worked in social care or one of the key public services—if I was paramedic, a nurse or one of those key workers he mentioned—and I was listening to this debate, I would be really upset and offended by the way he represented them here today. That is not what the Labour party thinks of those key workers.
The Secretary of State has claimed that this legislation is about public safety, so why does the Bill not mention safety once? He knows full well that working people already take steps to protect the public during strikes through derogations and voluntary agreements, yet he brazenly claims that this punitive legislation is needed because of ambulance workers. That is insulting and shameful, and I think he should apologise for the way in which he has awfully smeared ambulance workers.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank my Unison comrade for giving way. I am not a member of the parliamentary Labour party, but I am a proud trade unionist. Will my good friend remind the House that section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 guarantees that trade unions will agree to provide life-and-limb cover during an industrial dispute, because failure to do so could result in a custodial sentence? This Bill is therefore completely unnecessary.
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my friend. We may not be in the same party, but we are in the same trade union.
These brave, hard-working men and women struck local life-and-limb deals on a trust-by-trust basis ahead of all the strikes. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says it is trust by trust, but it is the best way to ensure that the right care is provided, and those employers know that. When I was a home help, we always put patient care first. We negotiated to ensure minimum safety levels, which is more than I can say for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, under whose watch we have seen excess deaths and an increasing crisis in the NHS.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I, too, declare an interest. As a proud trade unionist and trade union lawyer for many years before entering Parliament, I represented striking workers day in, day out. I know that no worker takes the decision to strike lightly. These strikes have been caused by the cost of living crisis caused by this Conservative Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is just a further attack on workers’ rights, like the anti-trade union legislation passed by this Government in 2016? It is just another attack on working people who keep us safe, day in and day out.
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree. People watching this debate can see from the Secretary of State’s opening remarks, and from his previous remarks, what this is: a smokescreen about allegedly needing minimum service levels. We know that because, last autumn, his own Government assessed that minimum service levels were not needed for the emergency services due to existing regulations and voluntary arrangements. We all want minimum standards of safety, service and staffing levels, and we want them every day, but it is the Minister who is failing to provide them. Instead of holding them to account, they Government are seeking through this Bill to grab sweeping new powers to impose burdens on employers and to remove basic rights from workers across our public service. This is an attack on every nurse, health worker and firefighter in the country. They have gone from clapping nurses to sacking them.
Charlotte Nichols
My mam is a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, as I have previously noted in the House. It is interesting to hear what the Secretary of State says about the need for this Bill and legislation more widely because he was previously Secretary of State for Transport, and the only negotiations that have not been settled with the RMT are the ones in which the Department for Transport is involved. Every other dispute with the RMT has been resolved. So is this Bill not just covering up his failure to negotiate basic trade union agreements?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes some important points. We can all see from the reports on the negotiations that there was genuine hope we could get to a settlement, and then the Government decided to bring in new conditions at the last minute to make sure that the dispute continued. It is the Government, not the trade unions, who are acting militantly and who do not want to resolve these disputes.
The Government should also reflect on the key workers and other workers who will be affected by this strike action, and who the Secretary of State says are putting lives at risk. Even if they are not a key worker, I am pretty certain that most people, like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), have a friend, relative or someone they know who is. We all think they are heroes, and we all know they have their patients, the people they look after and the services they provide at the forefront of their mind.
No one wants to take strike action, least of all the workers who lose a day’s pay. I have long urged Ministers to do their job and resolve the underlying problems, but instead they have presented a Bill that tries to remove hundreds of thousands of workers’ historic right to withdraw their labour.
If the Secretary of State for Transport mandates that 50% of trains need to run on strike days, he knows that Network Rail will mandate that all signal operators need to work, because signals are needed even if just two trains are running. How can the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy say this Bill does not remove their right to strike? I know many Conservative Members will say that they respect, even champion, civil liberties, and I am sure they mean it, but with this Bill they are burning the freedoms for which we fought for centuries and are handing to Ministers unprecedented power over the individuals who are targeted. It is not just wrong in principle; it is unworkable in practice.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a proud trade unionist. I meet striking workers on an almost weekly basis at the moment, and I know that working people are often targeted by employers during a dispute. This Bill hands employers the right to decide which worker goes to work and which worker can go on strike. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that this could allow bad bosses to victimise and target workers?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
This legislation
“is not a solution to dealing with the industrial action we see at the moment.”
Those are not my words but the words of the Transport Secretary in December. This Bill could increase the frequency of strikes and the
“numbers of staff taking action short of striking”
and lead to employers finding that they are “low on staff.” Again, those are not my words but the words of the Department for Transport’s impact assessment. Minimum service levels are “not a game-changer” and could
“promote more industrial action than they mitigate.”
That is not me speaking but the senior Conservative adviser who developed the policy. The jury is in. These measures will not work, cannot work and will only make things worse.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I remind the House that we have a number of sectors in the UK in which employees are not allowed to strike, namely the armed forces and the police. These people always turn up, often at times of crisis, and work without complaint to provide minimum service levels, and they do it on pay and conditions that are often inferior to what the unions are currently demanding. May I ask the right hon. Lady to present an argument for why this provision should not be extended elsewhere?
Angela Rayner
I am glad the hon. Gentleman got the crib sheet from the Whips. There is a complete and utter lack of clarity about what these measures will mean for the six sectors to which they will apply. In nuclear decommissioning, for example, staff already have voluntary arrangements. How will Ministers define minimum service in this sector? Will they require just a teeny bit of decommissioning? What about health? Will Ministers seriously sack doctors, nurses, paramedics and vital support staff at a time of critical NHS staff shortages? Apparently not, if the Government sources reported this week can be believed. Does the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy deny that the Health Secretary has told others to lobby the Prime Minister for improved pay offers? And can he really say that the Health Secretary believes this Bill will help the NHS?
The Bill states that all transport services will be covered, but the industry is largely in the private sector. Does the Secretary of State expect, for example, self-employed cabbies to serve work notices to themselves? There seem to be a split here, too; I hear that the Transport Secretary has given rail companies permission for new pay offers, and we already know his views on minimum service levels.
Let us move on to education. Will our overstretched headteachers be forced to write and serve work notices in their own staffrooms? Does the Business Secretary agree with the Education Secretary that imposing these regulations on schools would be a hostile act?
Let us turn to fire and rescue services. Has austerity not already made it impossible for some services to meet existing contingency regulations as it is? Will the Business Secretary of State leave it there, or will he just go for broke and ban all key workers from joining a union at all? That is something we know his desperate Prime Minister has been considering.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The right hon. Lady mentions the issue of pay and speaking to unions to resolve this dispute. Can she tell us what level of pay she thinks, and the Labour Front-Bench team believe, is appropriate? Would it be in line with inflation? Would it be more than inflation? How exactly would Labour solve this dispute?
Angela Rayner
I will just educate the hon. Gentleman: although I used to be a trade union official and I am a member of a trade union, I do not negotiate on behalf of a trade union. But what I would do is sit around the table and resolve this dispute with the trade unions. That would be better than what the Conservatives have done.
I come to the liability this Bill places upon trade unions. It says that trade unions must take “reasonable steps” to ensure workers comply with work notices, but what would they be? Will trade unions be liable for non-union staff? As for the burden put on employers, have they welcomed the bureaucratic nightmare that they will face? How will our already overstretched public services spare the resources to work out how many workers are needed to meet the minimum service levels the Secretary of State arbitrarily imposes on them, and to identify which workers should come into work and which should not? What will these bodies have to do? Will they have to do this before each and every strike day?
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I would like to try again on this, because the right hon. Lady aspires to be Deputy Prime Minister and wants to negotiate with the unions in future. Will she outline for the House, because the Labour party has been very quiet on this, whether she backs a 19% pay increase for nurses? What costing has her party put forward as to how much she would award in pay rises to those public sector workers?
Angela Rayner
What I can say is that the Labour party would not have crashed the economy like the Conservatives did. We would not have inflation at the record levels we have at the moment. We would not have the disputes we have at the moment because we would negotiate with the trade unions and find a settlement.
What protections are in place to prevent unscrupulous employers from targeting trade union members with work notices? Or is this legislation a licence for blacklisting? The Secretary of State is hiding behind warped misunderstandings of the International Labour Organisation’s statute book and misleading comparisons with Europe. The ILO says that minimum service levels can happen only when the
“safety of individuals or their health is at stake”.
Can he explain how that relates to the list of sectors in the Bill? This Bill also makes no provision for the compensatory measures the ILO requires alongside such regulations. Countries such as France and Spain may have minimum service levels, but they have not averted strikes there; both lose far more days to strike action than the UK.
This Bill is a mess. It makes no sense. It has more holes in it than the last Chancellor’s Budget, yet we are being given next to no time to scrutinise it. This legislation hands far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State to not just impose minimum service levels, but decide what those levels would be. The legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg has called clause 3
“a supercharged Henry VIII clause.”
Where is the consultation the Secretary of State promised? Where is the impact assessment? The Regulatory Policy Committee says, in a scornful statement today, that it has not even received it yet. So why have the Government given only five hours for debate on the Floor of the House?
Let us look at what this Bill is really all about: a Government who are out of ideas, out of time and fast running out of sticking plasters; a Government who are playing politics with nurses’ lives because they cannot stomach negotiation; a Government desperately doing all they can to distract from the economic emergency they have caused. We have had 13 years of failure, and working people of this country cannot take any more. What this whole sorry episode makes clear is that this country needs a Labour Government. The Conservative party has proven itself incapable of cleaning up its own mess, and the disruption of the past few months simply would not be happening under Labour.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
It is difficult to listen to the Secretary of State accuse workers who have devoted their lives to life saving, whether they are fire workers, doctors or nurses, of putting others at risk. As for the arguments that this is too expensive or too difficult, today Oxfam announced that $21 trillion went into the pockets of 1% internationally during the global pandemic. Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is enough money but it is just in the wrong pockets?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Gentleman makes some important and valid points. In the past 12 months to two and a half years, we have seen the unravelling of the VIP fast-track lane for people linked to the Conservative party—that was a waste of billions of pounds that could have gone into investment in our public services. The public have seen 13 years of Conservative failure. Most of the public who are watching this debate today can ask themselves one question: do they feel better off after 13 years of the Conservatives? The answer to that question is no, unless of course they are in that 1%, with a WhatsApp number of a Government Minister.
Labour would have resolved these disputes a long time ago, by getting back around the negotiating table in good faith and doing a deal.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Government in Wales were given more than £1 billion for personal protective equipment and test, track and trace, and spent only £500 million? If we had had that level of savings, instead of having Tory crony donors putting their hand in the till, it would have aggregated up to a saving of £11 billion, as against a total pay cost to the NHS of £56 billion? In other words, we are talking about 20% of the annual pay for all nurses and all health workers. So does she not agree that if we had a Labour Government, we would have more money to provide decent wages for those in our health service?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; not only would we have grown the economy—and we have a plan to grow the economy, unlike the Conservatives —but we would not have wasted billions of pounds and we would not have crashed the economy like the Conservatives did.
This Government are not working and this Bill is unworkable. The sacking nurses Bill is one of the most indefensible and foolish pieces of legislation to come before this House in modern times. It threatens teachers and nurses with the sack during a recruitment and retention crisis, and mounts an outright assault on the fundamental freedom of working people, while doing absolutely nothing to resolve the crisis at hand. We on these Benches will vote against this shoddy, unworkable Bill, and I urge every Member across this House who cares for fundamental British freedoms, and who knows that the only way to resolve disputes is by negotiating in good faith, to join us in standing against it this evening.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). It was somewhat inevitable that this debate would quickly become partisan, and she reinforced that.
I pay tribute to our hard-working frontline public sector workers. On Friday, I visited workers at the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, who have not been on strike, and all credit to them. In the operational control centres, people have been working diligently, day in, day out, to manage, quite frankly, the many, many challenging cases.
This House will understand my particular interest in operational frontline workers, especially when it comes to the police, who cannot strike, and also fire and rescue workers and Border Force officers. Just last year, I was able to use existing Home Office budgets to provide the police with a pay increase. It was a 5% pay increase across the board and one of the largest settlements in the public sector. I accepted the recommendation from the Police Remuneration Review Body, and it was my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is in his place, who oversaw that settlement. That funding was vital because we on the Conservative Benches believe in our frontline public sector workers. We believe in giving them the resources that they need and the working conditions in which they can do their jobs, but within the affordability of the Government’s financial envelope, which is incredibly important.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Secretary of State’s own colleagues—the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Education—believe that the Bill will not solve the strikes?
Priti Patel
I say to the hon. Lady and to all Members in the House that we are facing fundamental economic challenges right now, and they have to be met within the financial envelope of this Government. That is a statement of the obvious. At the end of the day, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that certain levels of service are provided in key sectors and in our public services, and rightly so. The public expect that, and the Government have a responsibility to oversee that and ensure that these levels of services help to protect and safeguard lives, keep our country safe, support the economy and ensure that the British public—the silent, hard-working majority—can go about living their lives in the way that we all want to see.
Obviously, the current wave of strikes and industrial action is concerning the public; it is also counterproductive when it comes to delivering public services. We have seen the level of disruption that is taking place. It cannot be right that, in the 21st century, our great country and our economy are put at risk by strike action. We have seen that on our borders; border control is being weakened by strikes. Patients and those in need of essential medical care are facing disruption. That is not right. All of us have constituents. This is not about one constituency against another, or one part of the country against the other. We have seen commuters who cannot get to work. That is wrong. We have seen businesses and, in Essex, small and medium-sized enterprises, operating on tight margins—not glitzy corporations—now suffering because of the strikes. Again, that is not right.
I know that many workers—I think that we all know this—find the decision to go out on strike very difficult. They struggle when it comes to voting in ballots because of the options that are sometimes put in front of them. We also know that there are some in the trade union movement—we must recognise this and we have heard it already from those on the Opposition Benches—who are happy to go along with the disruption, which is not acceptable. Some get satisfaction out of this. I am afraid that we have seen that in the past. We have seen Opposition Members go on picket lines and cheer and make political points. That is not right, because, at the end of the day, it is the public who suffer.
Indeed, since 2010, we have seen the hard left and militants take action and co-ordinate strikes, and the public suffer. That is not right. Let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who, in the 1980s, stood up to the militant trade unions, and, importantly, introduced reforms.
Several hon. Members rose—
Priti Patel
I do not have time to give way.
It is reform that we should be talking about today—reform that can lead to better public service delivery, changes to our laws—
Several hon. Members rose—
Priti Patel
I cannot give way, because I do not have time.
Importantly, I wish to press the Government to consider widening the list of sectors where minimum service standards are needed. I wish to ask the Government to ensure that they always look to keep legislation and measures open and under review, so that we can continue to uphold standards to protect the public going about their daily lives.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said that this was a partisan debate. Of course it is a partisan debate, because we either believe in the right of workers to strike or we do not, so, clearly, it is a partisan debate. She spoke about SMEs struggling because of strikes. I can tell her that SMEs in my constituency are more worried about their energy bills going through the roof and the lack of Government support that is coming down the line from April onwards.
We know that this is “anti-strike legislation”—those are not my words, but the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland from the Dispatch Box last week at Scotland questions. He boasted that his Government were introducing “anti-strike” legislation in a rare bit of honesty from the Dispatch Box.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy keeps going on about minimum ambulance cover, but the reality is that this is an attack on millions of public sector workers. The explanatory notes tell us that this is a Tory manifesto commitment about tackling transport strikes. Although the Conservatives might hide behind that manifesto commitment, that commitment has nothing to do with clamping down on the NHS or on teachers. The Conservatives claim that it is about safety, but, as I said earlier, the word “safety” is not used once in the Bill or in explanatory notes. The reality is that this is an ideological war on the unions, which the Tories somehow think will curry favour with the public. It is a misty-eyed look back to Margaret Thatcher taking on the National Union of Mineworkers. It was a battle that she won, but it was a battle that resulted in the closures of mines and left communities devasted and thousands of workers on the dole. Do we really want to go back to sacking workers and putting them on the dole? That is what this is all about.
We know that this is an ideological war, because, in this period of Tory governance, the Government have already given us the Trade Union Act 2016, introducing voting thresholds, and then, last year, the legislation to allow employers to hire agency staff to break strikes. There is no doubt that this Government want to end strikes, effectively removing the ultimate backstop on collective bargaining.
The Bill not only facilitates an attack on workers, but enables employers to potentially sue unions for damages. It is no wonder that it is opposed by the TUC, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Unison, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing among others, and I certainly support them in opposing this.
The legislation is nothing more than an attack on democracy—an attack on the rights of workers to withdraw their labour, and a further attack on devolution. Neither the Scottish Government nor the Welsh Government want this legislation, but, yet again, this legislation will be imposed on the devolved nations. In Scotland, this is further proof that the Westminster straitjacket does us no good at all. We could have had employment and workers’ rights devolved, but, unfortunately, Labour resisted those powers coming to Scotland. However, even the STUC has now called for the devolution of employment rights to Scotland, so perhaps Labour should consider that, instead of listening to Gordon Brown’s rehash of broken promises.
It is worth noting that the Bill does not impact Northern Ireland, as employment law is already devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, so, yet again, the so-called most powerful devolved Parliament in the world—the Scottish Parliament—has fewer powers than the Northern Ireland Assembly, and this proves it.
This ideological attack comes from someone who, as Transport Secretary, was non-existent when it came to dialogue and communications, and that was confirmed by the unions. He was somebody who was blocking the DFT from agreeing deals, and now we have that same person in post leading the charge for anti-strike and anti-worker legislation. Given the Secretary of State’s form, we know that he is up for a fight, but even if wins this fight, he will be destroying worker relationships for good. These are hard-pressed workers, particularly from within the NHS, who are struggling at times with the pressures that they are under. Who seriously thinks that not negotiating and threatening workers with the sack for striking will help matters? It is utterly insane. As the rail unions pointed out at the Transport Committee last week, deals have been agreed where DfT and UK Ministers are not involved. Clearly the union asks cannot be too unreasonable, when RMT and ASLEF have agreed deals with ScotRail and the Scottish Government, deals in Wales and deals with Merseyrail, for example—deals with Governments and authorities that have been hamstrung by the Tory austerity imposed on them, yet still managed to agree deals.
The Tories tell us they are the party of workers. That phrase fools no one, but they also tell us they are all about a high-wage, skilled economy. Yet, as we have heard, when workers ask for a wage rise they are told no, that it is unaffordable; even worse, in the case of the rail unions, the Secretary of State quotes figures that he thinks show how well paid all rail staff are. That is really telling: the Secretary of State is effectively saying, “Train drivers are overpaid—how dare they ask for a wage rise?”. That is insulting beyond belief.
The Tories can forget saying they want a high-wage economy. They were quite happy for the rail companies to pay dividends during the pandemic. They were quite happy for Virgin Trains East Coast to walk away from the London North Eastern Railway franchise owing billions of pounds, but they always go for attacking workers.
It is the same with the Secretary’s rhetoric about this legislation mirroring what happens elsewhere in Europe. His soundbites are easily proven to be false. Indeed, the general secretary of the European Federation of Public Service Unions, Jan Willem Goudriaan, argued that comparison by the UK Government of this Bill with existing laws in other EU countries was misrepresenting the situation, because all minimum service levels in Europe are agreed through negotiation. Moreover, the general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, Esther Lynch, said:
“The UK already has among the most draconian restrictions on the right to strike in Europe, and the UK government’s plans would push it even further away from normal, democratic practice across Europe”.
Pablo Sánchez Centellas, a spokesperson for the EPSU, was much more succinct, saying, “It’s bollocks.” The Secretary of State should reflect on the true position of this proposed legislation compared with what is happening in Europe.
It also seems that this legislation is in breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights, especially with regard to proportionate action. Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, said the Bill raised,
“very serious legal question marks”,
and anticipates legal challenges under article 11 of the ECHR and convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation. He has also rightly pointed out that the human rights memorandum that accompanied the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill set out reasons why minimum service levels were not justified in fire services, health settings or education, yet that is what the Government now propose. By default, this Government are now going against their own previous human rights opinion. What kind of madness is that?
When it comes to the International Labour Organisation, which the Secretary of State likes to reference, its idea of minimum service requirements is clearly intended to be based on endangerment to life, personal safety or health. This wide-ranging legislation goes way beyond those parameters. The ILO makes it clear there should be an independent arbitration body, yet this Bill is completely silent on such a body. Why is that?
It is also clear that any minimum service level is supposed to be just that—a bare minimum. We have no idea what this Government will railroad through via statutory instruments. Statutory instruments cannot be amended and the last time a Government was defeated on a statutory instrument was in 1979, so we know all power rests with the Government there.
As Liberty has observed, the Bill does not create any form of minimal service. Liberty also confirms that MPs debating this legislation on Second Reading will not know exactly what they are voting for, so all the Tory MPs in the Chamber who are going to take part in the debate and then trot through the Lobby will do so blind to what the future legislation and regulations on minimum service will look like. It is an affront to democracy. Any Tory MP who claims to care about parliamentary sovereignty cannot possibly vote for this Bill.
The Bill is made worse by the Henry VIII power that allows amendment and revocation even of future legislation not yet passed. We can see how the Government are ramming this Bill through Parliament with minimum scrutiny and a proposed programme motion allowing just five hours for Committee. It really is an assault on democracy. The fact that the Bill comes into effect immediately once passed, so that work notices and actions can be taken by employers for strikes that have already been voted through, shows just how ridiculous this assault on workers is.
The impact assessment for the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill observes that on a strike day in July 2022, 20% of rail services were still in operation. Right away that suggests to me that a minimum level of service was operating. What do the Tories really think a minimum service is, if 20% is not a bare minimum? There are huge ramifications here for rail workers overall, because if this Government force through a high threshold of minimum service, strikes by signalmen and track operatives will effectively be banned. A high minimum service will force all those guys to work to keep the tracks in operation and the trains running, effectively blocking strikes by the back door.
What will minimum service look like for teachers? Where does that fit in with all the talk about safety? What happens to train companies that cannot provide a minimum service at the moment, especially if union members decide not to work on their rest days and to work to rule? Where will that leave this Government on minimum service level obligations?
The overview in the explanatory notes makes it clear that the ability to sack workers is a key aspect of the Bill. That is the polar opposite of what was said when a transport strike Bill was listed in the Queen’s Speech in December 2019, when it was stated that workers would not be discriminated against. Why are the Government now threatening people’s livelihoods?
Despite what the Secretary of State says, it is also clear that this legislation will allow employers to target those they think are part of an awkward squad. Allowing employers to decide who has to work on notified strike days clearly infringes on workers’ rights to withdraw labour. Instead of the illegal blacklisting previously done by some companies, employers now can name workers they want to break a strike, and sack those workers if they stay true to their beliefs. How can that be deemed acceptable?
The sacking aspect is the proof that this is nothing to do with minimum cover by ambulance staff, as the Secretary of State likes to tell us. It also ignores the fact that section 240 of the 1992 Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) keeps saying, allows for preserving life and limb, and that unions have their own practices to comply with that legislation. For fire services, the Secretary of State could also utilise the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, if he felt the desire to do so.
It is crystal clear that this legislation is not required. It is an attack on democracy and the right to strike; it will prolong industrial disputes, not resolve them; it will allow individual workers to be targeted through work notices; and it is politically stupid. We have to wonder why this Tory Government are looking to antagonise something like 7 million workers across these sectors. It also shows an astonishing level of incompetence to bring in legislation that potentially allows them to sack essential workers in vital sectors where there is already a shortage of skilled workers.
The public can see through a Government who partied while clapping the nurses and now threaten them with the sack. They should follow the lead of the Scottish Government and get around the negotiating table. The resolution of the ScotRail dispute has been commended by both the RMT and ASLEF. There are no strikes planned in the health service in Scotland and the pay deal being implemented by the Scottish Government is one that the UK Government should replicate as a starting point when they get around the negotiating table.
It is outrageous that the Scottish Government, who have been negotiating in good faith with the unions, will now have this legislation foisted upon them—legislation that Westminster could use to force work notices through in Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish Government and that could ruin otherwise good working relationships in Scotland. Employment law should be devolved to Scotland, but even that would now just be a sticking plaster. It is perfectly obvious that what Scotland now needs is the full powers of a normal, independent country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate as Chair of the Transport Committee, and I will focus my comments on that particular sector.
Let me say at the outset that I support the objective behind the Bill. It does not strike me as unreasonable to seek a mechanism whereby the right of a worker to strike, which I have no quibble with, is balanced against the equally important right of an individual to go about their daily life, to travel to work, for healthcare, for education, to visit loved ones or for any of the millions of other reasons why people travel about. It is therefore appropriate to find a mechanism by which those two rights can be reconciled.
There are, however, a number of practical issues that I will put on the record. I understand that this is framework legislation and that the detail on how it will operate in the transport sector will follow. I was heartened to hear that the consultation on the rail side of transport will be in place before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. There are some issues that have to be clarified and resolved before the Bill can properly take effect.
As has already been alluded to, it is possible in rail, for example, for parts of the system to operate at a minimum level. One train an hour could run from London to Manchester instead of three—there are a number of ways to have that reduction in service. But some parts of the system are binary: a signal box is either open or closed; and in aviation, an air traffic control centre is either open or closed. We need clarity on where the minimum level of service will apply.
A related point is whether every aviation, railway or bus line and service will have a minimum service or just a percentage of overall capacity. There is a trade-off to be made. If another line operates nearby, does that mean that both lines have to operate a minimum service, or would one have a more regular service? Those are the trade-offs that will have to be made.
In the current dispute on the railways, Network Rail and the train operating companies have a degree of flexibility in making decisions on which lines and stations will be open. Will what they have to cover now be specified in the regulations, or will they be left with some discretion?
Iain Stewart
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only a minute left and many Members wish to speak.
My last point is about what will be covered by the definition of “transport services”. There are the traditional ones that we all assume will be covered—trains, buses, flights, ferries and the like—but what about some of the other modes of transport, such as cycle hire or taxi services? What does the definition encompass?
I will ask my Committee, when we meet later this week, if we can usefully contribute to the consultation, but I thought it would be helpful in this part of the debate to set out some of the questions that will have to be addressed as the Bill goes through. The objective of the Bill is absolutely right: we have to balance the right to strike with the right of people to go about their way of life.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of Unite the union.
May I start by correcting the public record? As always, I am grateful to Ministers for taking the time to speak with me directly about Bills in my capacity as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Unfortunately, in a Westminster Hall debate on Thursday, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), referenced our discussion without giving me advance notice. He said that I was
“very supportive of a minimum service level”.—[Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 372WH.]
Let me be very clear to the House, to the Minister and to my constituents: I am against the Bill and will vote against it this evening. What I said to the Minister was that I—and, I am sure, many people—think it reasonable for there to be a minimum level of service from our emergency services during a period of strike action, and I encouraged him to pursue that via discussion with the relevant services and trade unions, not by threatening them with the prospect of an effective statutory ban on their right to strike.
When I asked the Minister whether he had sought to achieve that before introducing the legislation, he was unable to fully answer my question. As we have already heard this evening, the rationale for the Bill is therefore in question. The Government say that the legislation in place is not effective and that voluntary agreements cannot be sought, but that is not correct. Indeed, in signing off the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill and its compliance with the European convention on human rights, even the Government said:
“In the case of other key public services, important factors exist to mitigate the impacts of industrial action”.
So what has changed?
As we have already heard, section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes it a criminal offence and a breach of employment contract to strike if doing so puts someone’s life in danger or puts them at risk of serious injury. That is why we have statutory guidance in place across public services, and it is why trade unions put life-and-limb service provision in place when they organise strikes with management.
On voluntary agreements, in December last year and this month, such agreements have been put in place. Unison and GMB told me that they limited strike action to six or 12 hours instead of 24 hours, that there were procedures for bringing workers back from the picket line if they were needed on the ward, and that they monitored call volumes in real time to ensure that patients were kept safe. As far as I am aware—from speaking with striking nurses at Southmead Hospital in my constituency, and later with senior management—there were no problems with those voluntary service arrangements, so the law is in place, voluntary agreements are in place, and there is no rationale for the Bill. We can therefore only conclude that it is a negotiating tactic—a threat—by the Government.
Lastly, my Committee was disappointed by the lack of time for scrutinising the Bill. Once again, Ministers have introduced primary legislation with wide-ranging discretionary powers for Ministers without publishing the details of vital secondary legislation in a timely manner. That is unacceptable. It is poor practice for Ministers to bring legislation to the House in that way. As the Regulatory Policy Committee confirmed for me today, the Government are obliged to publish an impact assessment so that that Committee can inform the House of the impact of legislation proposed by Ministers. However, Ministers have not given the Regulatory Policy Committee the time to review the Government’s impact assessment and then inform the House about the consequences of the legislation.
So not only do we have a Bill that has no evidence-based rationale for the need to legislate on voluntary agreements, but we have a Government rushing through the legislation without following due process and without drafting it to the standard that this House requires. It is clearly a rushed threat, it is unacceptable and it shows disregard for the House and the job that we have to do as parliamentarians to ensure that the law is passed effectively.
To summarise, can the Minister confirm that the Government will publish the statutory instruments and the impact assessment before the Bill finishes its passage through this House? I politely suggest that he may want to have another go at trying to explain to the House why the Bill is even necessary in the first place.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I stand to speak in favour of the legislation and to commend the Government for taking this difficult but necessary step.
Today I want to talk about duty. Through this legislation, we on the Conservative Benches are fulfilling our duty to protect our constituents. Those on the Labour Benches—in hock to their trade union masters—are failing theirs. Nurses, teachers, firefighters and all the other professions covered in the legislation are true heroes in our society. They carry out a great service to our communities. We must continue to focus on growing our economy to meet the wage demands of public sector workers, but we must also maintain the independence of pay review bodies precisely so that we can take the politics out of public sector pay. The conversation should also be about fairness and balancing the right to strike with the public’s right to be kept safe.
I understand the value of a trade union—I understand that workers may want to organise to protect pay and working conditions—but what we are seeing is hard-left leaders and militant trade unions taking advantage of economic difficulty to instigate what is effectively a rolling general strike. When those actions put lives at risk, we Conservatives know that we must take action.
A minimum service level need not be controversial. If the trade unions offer a safe level of service at the very least, there is no need to have a minimum service level. We saw that with the Royal College of Nursing, which maintained a safe level of service. That just goes to show how selfless and professional those nurses where while exercising their democratic right, and I am grateful to them for protecting the public. I certainly hope that, in the next independent pay review, we reach a positive result and avoid future strike action. The concept of minimum service levels is protected in article 11 of the ECHR and is endorsed by the International Labour Organisation. As we have already heard, this is no different from what is done in Italy, France and Spain.
In that light, I find the position of the Labour party quite astonishing. We all have a primary duty to protect our constituents and our communities. By opposing the legislation, the Labour party is, in my view, failing in that duty. To be frank, Labour has supported the strikes, whether implicitly or explicitly. At best, it has failed to take an appropriate stand against the trade unions; at worst, it is egging them on and relishing the disruption and division being caused. Is that what the modern Labour party stands for—closing down our schools, bringing our country to a standstill and threatening livelihoods? I know it is a new year, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is the same old Labour party.
We on the Government Benches will not compromise on our fundamental duty. We will do all we can to protect our constituents, our communities and our society. That is why I endorse the Bill.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a proud trade union member.
The Government are on a mission to take power from the people, with restrictions on the right to protest, restrictions on democracy with voter ID, the removal of huge chunks of human rights through their Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill—that will scrap more than 4,000 pieces of legislation, many of which cover the basic rights of people in this country—and now this disgraceful attempt to criminalise workers taking legitimate industrial action.
Each of those power grabs commits political violence on our communities. As with most of this Government’s policies, this attempt to deny workers what is universally regarded as a fundamental human right seeks to divide communities and pit worker against worker, forcing some of them to walk past their colleagues and cross picket lines—although everyone here knows that I never have and never will cross a picket line.
Kate Osborne
No. This Government are turning back the clock not just on workers’ rights but on the rights of the vast majority of this country. As always, Ministers are only concerned about making money for their cronies and big business.
My constituents have been in touch with me over the last few days to express how angry and disappointed they are at the Government’s handling of these disputes. While I have time, I would rather say what my constituents want me to say than hear what Conservative Members want to say. My constituent Robert Best from Boldon emailed me yesterday:
“The Government should be finding ways to help striking workers, rather than remove their right to strike! Right now, refusing to negotiate with workers is the last thing our country needs.”
Robert is, of course, completely correct. The Government should be negotiating, not legislating. Workers need a pay rise, not a P45.
Last week, in a question to the Business Secretary, I referenced the struggles of the Tolpuddle martyrs and the seven men of Jarrow—people who were criminalised 200 years ago for fighting for basic health and safety and pay. The response I got was that I should stop “raving on”. I will not stop raving on. I will not stop supporting workers and the people in my community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Will she point out where there are any criminal sanctions attached to the proposed legislation? As far as I can see, there are absolutely none. It is important that we do not scaremonger in that way.
Kate Osborne
If we attack the trade unions, which are made up of members who are workers, then we are attacking the workers.
The Government’s proposed legislation and the response I just got show the contempt in which they hold working people. The Government do not care about working people. They do not care about our communities who are struggling to survive in the face of unaffordable food and energy bills, and struggling to deal with the cost of living crisis and 13 years of cuts by the Conservative party. We already have the most restrictive workers’ rights in western Europe, and it is an affront to democracy that this Government are trying to restrict them further.
Of course, the Government know that the Bill is not workable. It will be held up in the other place, if it gets that far, and in the courts. They only care about attention-grabbing headlines—about moving the Overton window so the people of this country will accept more and more restrictions on their rights.
Minimum service levels already exist: our NHS teams ensure that priority calls are dealt with, and teachers ensure that special educational needs children are catered for. What we need is for the Government to provide a minimum service level every day. We hear daily of workers struggling to cope with current staffing levels. The Government should be looking at ways to address the NHS staffing crisis, not making it worse.
The Government need to accept that the reason so many sectors are saying “enough is enough” and taking industrial action—we heard the announcement today that the teaching unions will take action, and I send my solidarity to them—is the Government’s failures. The firefighters, NHS staff, transport staff and education staff that the Bill targets are the very people who saw us through the pandemic. If the Bill passes, no doubt the Government will eventually seek to apply the legislation to workers in more sectors. Instead of inflaming the situation, they should start dealing with the causes of increased strike action: low wages, fuel and food poverty, and cuts to public services.
The Bill is part of the Government’s plan to restrict all our rights and to demonise and criminalise those who are just trying to survive. As I said at the start, it is an act of political violence. The Government should do the right thing for the country and withdraw it.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We have had so much disruption to our critical services in recent years, and I pay tribute to all those working in those sectors.
I support minimum service levels for our critical services. Who could oppose them? Well, the Labour party does. It says it is protecting workers’ rights, but does that not ignore the rights of all of those who rely on these key services for their health, their education and their livelihood?
We have seen the sad impact on pupils of disruption to education, the extra burden it places on families and schools, and the anxiety that causes parents and students. The Children’s Commissioner highlighted this weekend that it is the most disadvantaged who face the greatest impact if education is disrupted. I support the right of children to a great education, but the Labour party opposes minimum service levels. It says it is protecting workers’ rights, but that ignores the rights of working families and students if schools close.
Minimum service levels should also apply to our ambulance service. We all know the challenges our NHS is facing, yet at a time when we need to focus on addressing them, Labour opposes minimum service levels for our ambulance and fire services. Does anyone really believe it should be up to intransigent unions to decide whether help arrives? Emergency services should not be a bargaining chip in employment disputes. Our country cannot be held to ransom by intransigent unions. I believe the NHS should be there when we need it, but the Labour party opposes minimum service levels. It says it is protecting workers’ rights, but what about the right to receive care in an emergency?
The rail strikes are yet another example. I have been contacted by constituents whose children are unable to get to school, commuters unable to get to work, and patients unable to see their loved ones in hospital or go to appointments. I support everyone’s right to travel, but the Labour party opposes minimum service levels. It says it is protecting workers’ rights, but what about the rights of the self-employed? Are they not workers? What about the rights of small business employees? Are they not workers? What about the rights of drivers? Are they not workers? What about cleaners, administrators or carers—or any worker in a sector not supported by unions?
I was elected to this House to represent all my constituents, and that means protecting health services, education and livelihoods. In the light of union intransience to negotiate and modernise, minimum service levels are now needed, so I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I am genuinely appalled that the Labour party opposes minimum service levels. It says it is protecting workers’ rights. I think we all know who it is really protecting.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Let me start by declaring an interest: I am a proud member of both Unite the union and GMB and, prior to being elected to this place, I worked for Unite the union for over a decade. I know from first-hand experience the amazing work that trade unions do in representing their members in the workplace. Contrary to what some Conservative Members may have us believe, trade unions want their workplaces to thrive. They know that a productive workplace needs a happy, motivated workforce. They know that, when companies make large profits, they can ask for decent pay rises for their members. When workplaces struggle, they will work with the employer to ensure it survives. We all know how public sector workers kept our country moving during the pandemic. They worked night and day to keep us safe, but how does this Government seek to repay them? First, with a derisory pay offer and then— because the unions have voted to strike, rather than roll over and accept the derisory pay offer—the Prime Minister has resorted to launching a fundamental attack on workers’ freedoms. This Bill is unworkable and impractical.
The fact is that minimum service levels do not stop strikes in Europe. Between 2010 and 2020, France lost almost six times as many days to strikes as the UK, and Spain lost more than twice as many. Ironically, we already have minimum service levels in place in the UK. These are negotiated between the unions and the employers. I remember when I joined a picket line with striking firemen and women, and they told me how they had agreed with their employer that, if there was any fire or any other emergency, they would jump into the fire engines and be straight there. None of them wanted to see anyone lose their lives because of their action, which was their last resort. They ensured there was a mutual voluntary agreement not through legislation, but through negotiation—something that we all know happens right the way through the public sector.
Most worryingly, the Bill does not give any indication of what will constitute a minimum level of service, meaning that the Secretary of State will be able to change that at their discretion. Having stretched public services and the workforce to breaking point, the Government’s solution is to create conditions in which workers can be forced into work and are unable to withhold their labour, no matter what the employee does. Is that really the kind of Britain of which we want to be part—one in which workers’ freedoms are being restricted to the extent that they could be sacked for standing up for their rights?
Chris Loder
What would the hon. Lady say to those members of the RMT who decided to come back to work before Christmas because they did not agree with what the union was doing?
Vicky Foxcroft
That is democracy. Trade unions are subject to the most vigorous legislation when they are balloting and trade union money is the cleanest money in politics. Public sector workers are proud of the role they play in society, saving and protecting lives, but they need to be valued and their voices matter. When our NHS workers say they are worried about public health and the NHS, we need to listen, not curtail the right for their voices to be heard. The Government could and should have negotiated with the trade unions to get a decent settlement. They need to listen closely to the concerns that workers across the country have been raising. I thoroughly believe that, when we work together, we achieve better outcomes. Trade union rights are human rights. I defend their right to strike and I will be voting against this Bill.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I would like to accept the invitation of the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who encouraged us to be respectful in this debate. I wish to be so. We have heard a lot from the Labour party this evening about how the Bill is an act of political violence and an attack on the fundamental freedom of working people, but we have not heard an answer to the fundamental question that the legislation poses: do the British people have a right set out in statute to a basic safety and security guarantee during periods of strike?
Let us start with the law. The right to strike is embedded in international law, most notably in article 11 of the European convention on human rights.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady asks whether any of us on the Opposition Benches care about fundamental safety levels, and yes we do. She asked whether we would support legislating, but legislation already exists. On article 11, she knows as well as I do that the measures have to be “necessary”. The Government’s own memo with the last legislation said that the measures were not necessary in relation to the health service, education and fire and rescue.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her point, and I will assist her, because I was coming on to that point. The article 11 right may be restricted for two reasons—if the restriction is necessary, yes, and proportionate. The International Labour Organisation, of which the United Kingdom is a founding member, recognises that maintaining a minimum level of service provision can be both when it comes to essential services. Its committee on freedom of association has expressly set out the two circumstances in which it may be appropriate: where strike action would pose a risk to life, safety or health; or where the service is not essential in the strict sense of the word, but where repeated strikes would bring a very important sector to a standstill.
Chris Stephens
The ILO also says, does it not, that the minimum service level has to be agreed by an independent arbiter if there is a dispute, which is not in the Bill, and that there should not be a dismissal, which is in the Bill?
Laura Farris
I am grateful to both SNP Members for their interventions. I am coming on to those points, so I will make a tiny bit of progress, if I may.
On the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), we already know that transport and education meet the ILO’s test, because the ILO told the United Kingdom that in its response to the challenge to the Trade Union Act 2016 submitted by the TUC in 2015. In its response, the ILO committee of experts—Members can look it up; it is on the website—said that in relation to transport and education
“recourse might be had to negotiated minimum standards for these sectors as appropriate”.
We also know that many comparable countries take a much tougher line than the Government are proposing. In the United States, to give one example, 38 out of 50 states ban public sector strikes altogether.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is presenting a reasoned case, but she knows, and she has just used the word, that these things should be negotiated. The measures in this Bill are by fiat of the Secretary of State.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am coming to all these things, so if he will give me a moment, I will continue.
In the United States, 38 out of 50 states have an outright ban on public sector strikes, including New York. Other states, such as Canada, Australia, Italy and Spain, all have embedded in statute minimum service levels that apply to important public services, and those services are often drawn much more widely than the Government are proposing. They include waste collection, postal services, broadcast services, the administration of justice, water distribution and energy supply.
I pick out those states not as random examples, but because every single one is a member of the International Labour Organisation. They are bound by exactly the same rules as us, and they are among our closest comparators around the world. Even more importantly, the International Labour Organisation has adjudicated all their statutory minimum service levels, and a 2019 publication from the ILO in Geneva commented:
“These examples illustrate the wide diversity of approach that ILO member states have adopted to address the challenges posed by industrial disputes in essential services”.
Minimum service levels
“supported by the ILO’s supervisory organs, exist to manage the balancing act between these necessary restrictions and the individual worker’s fundamental labour rights”.
I have not heard a single Member of Parliament tonight explain to me why the ILO is wrong or why the Government are striking the wrong balance when they have a mandate for what they are doing.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The disingenuousness comes from making comparisons with other nations under ILO regulations, which clearly have a completely different context. For example, the ILO imposes restraints on the circumstances in which such powers can be used, which is the antithesis of the Government’s blank cheque approach.
Laura Farris
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I take the opposite position. The United States has an outright ban on public service strikes in 38 states. In December, President Biden made his most recent intervention in union rights when he signed legislation that imposed an outright ban on a national railroad strike. The United States is a founder member, as we are, of the International Labour Organisation. It goes much further, but the ILO has found its ban to be lawful. The Opposition will have to say why all those comparable states, which go much further than us, are somehow acting lawfully, yet we are not.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
A lot of time is spent in courts in some countries arguing about minimum service level agreements. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade unionist: I worked for the GMB for more than a decade representing Members of Parliament, I am a member of Unite the union, and, after this debate, I might join a few more trade unions.
The Secretary of State took great joy in reading out how much hon. Members receive from trade unions, which is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said, the cleanest money in politics. I wonder if, when he returns to his place, he will let the House know how much Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox have received in payments.
In the short time that I have, I will talk about the Bill. It is dishonest; it is an insult to trade unions, which are the aspirational vehicle of the working class; and it is an insult to Parliament and parliamentary procedures. Most of the detail of the Bill is missing and the Government have said that they will add it later—that is not how we are supposed to do politics or make legislation. It contains wide, prospective Henry VIII powers, and as we saw during the pandemic, if we give the Government such powers, they abuse them—but they are putting them in legislation. It allows the Government to amend and revoke any future legislation passed in this Session, so what is the point of Parliament? No matter what we say or pass, the Government can turn around and say, “We want to change it,” or, “We want to revoke it.” That is against what every single Member of Parliament has been elected to do.
Ministers are trying to have power over Parliament—that is all the Bill is about—and to encourage employers to have power over workers. When I was a trade union official, it said on our office wall, “To make rich people work harder, they pay them more. To make poor people work harder, they try to pay them less.” Safety does not appear anywhere in the Bill. The House of Lords debated a report, “Democracy Denied?”, which said that we must rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive. The Government are asking Parliament to vote on a Bill that does not really exist, because there is no detail.
If the Government are serious about having minimum service levels, and if they are serious about negotiating, which nobody in the Government seems able to do, they should agree to compulsory arbitration or mediation to resolve disputes, but they are not interested in that. They are interested in trying to paint trade unions, which are the aspirational vehicle of the working class, in one light and themselves in another.
I say to the Government, however, that the public are not stupid and they see what the Government are doing by trying to take away their rights at every single level, including the right to protest and the right to vote. We see what the Government are doing and we will stand up and stop them at every opportunity.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I start by declaring that I am not a member of GMB, Unite the union or Unison—I apologise to Opposition Members if I have missed one out. My remarks relate to the transport industry, as I worked for the railways for 20 years before I was elected; indeed, I was previously a member of two trade unions.
I warmly welcome this important Bill. Those of us who are, and have been, sensible and constructive trade union members know that we can still take strike action without closing down the whole network or shutting down an entire operation. This whole debate is about balancing the right to strike with the right of our citizens to have access to key services when they need them—the right of citizens to get to work, the right of children to get to school, and the right of small business owners to continue their business.
Hard-working union members who feel pressured to strike, who believe that eight days of strikes in quick succession is too much, or who do not agree with having six days to respond to a ballot referendum instead of the standard 14, want the situation tempered and want their needs and rights to be recognised, rather than the ideological ones of trade unions. [Interruption.] I hear the moans of Opposition Members, but union members are fed up of being used as political pawns, which is why the strikes are breaking across the railway today. Individual members and individual areas are saying, “No. Enough is enough.”
Chris Loder
I am sorry; I will not give way to hon. Members, because I have to crack on.
These strikes are not a new or recent development. There have been constant strikes for more than six months among some groups and, in some locations, they have actually been going on for years. We are seeing a rampant appetite for industrial action. We know that is the case, because RMT members have been striking against themselves in the last 12 months. Last week, at the Transport Committee, it became clear that the head of the train drivers’ union not only is a Labour party member, but has a top seat on its executive ruling body. There is a close relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions, which is worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to individual Opposition MPs.
Sam Tarry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for being honest about his trade union membership. I wonder what the hundreds of thousands of teachers who just voted to go on strike against his abominable Government think about being called political pawns, when they are striking to look after our children.
Chris Loder
I remind the hon. Gentleman that my remarks are about those in the transport industry who are in touch with me and those who represent them. I should say, however, that no teachers in my constituency have been in touch with me to tell me that. The Opposition should take note of that.
I will bring my remarks to a close. As I was saying, the relationship between the unions and individual Opposition Members is worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. The unions are showering the Opposition with hundreds of thousands—millions—of pounds as if it were confetti from the sky. It is absolutely outrageous. We have the privilege of being able to refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when they speak in this House—that is all it takes. [Interruption.] It is all there; I assure hon. Members that there is no influence from trade unions in my entry.
The irony is that we know that Opposition Front-Bench Members have accepted the TUC’s invitation to go to Spain to talk about such things with Spanish unions and to work out how disruption can be caused in this country. There is so much to expose, but I am afraid that I do not have any time left, otherwise I would be happy to say more.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
It looks like being quite the week for the use of draconian anti-democratic powers by this Government. The restrictive anti-trade union legislation they pushed through in 2016 clearly was not enough for them, so now we see an unprecedented attack that will undermine the most basic of workers’ rights—the right to withdraw labour. The right to strike is essential for fairness in negotiations with employers and to protect workers from having appalling pay and conditions imposed on them. It is what differentiates modern Europe from the medieval serfdoms of the past.
Turning their backs on the fundamental tenets of democracy really is something this Government are getting far too used to doing. The more they get a taste for it, the further they want to go. We saw them illegally prorogue Parliament and push through Brexit, and now we see plans for a bonfire of thousands of EU regulations that protect our rights. We saw the attack on devolution through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and now we see them block a democratic decision rightly taken in Holyrood, cranking up the disrespect yet another notch. We see their anti-protest laws becoming even more authoritarian, with plans for the police to arrest campaigners before they even have a chance to commit a crime, and now we have their anti-trade union agenda being taken to the next level with these blunt powers being brought forward to stop strikes.
The sweeping Henry VIII powers in the Bill, enabling Ministers to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation not yet passed, should chill the heart of any democrat. It is ironic that a Government so keen to turn their back on Europe lean so heavily on their excuse, “But that is what other countries do”. It is also deeply disingenuous, and as Unison has rightly pointed out, countries being cherry-picked by the Government, such as Italy and France, come to voluntary agreements through collaborative processes and have far less restrictive measures in place than we currently see in the UK. They do not have unspecified minimum service levels imposed on them by an Executive, as this Bill would enable this Government to do. Strikes are not the cause of the problems we face here; they are a symptom of the deep-rooted damage that has been done to our public service by this Government. The fact is that nobody downs tools without very good cause, especially during a cost of living crisis.
Whatever motivation workers may have, they are under attack on all fronts by this Government, and I commend the unions for taking action to protect their members. If the Government continue to be determined to go down this destructive path, further damaging industrial relations, they must devolve employment law now, so that the Scottish Government have the powers they need to protect the rights of the people of Scotland from the damage of this Government. Workers are not just striking for themselves. They are striking for the very future of public services, which they witness being run into the ground. They are protecting the cohesion of our communities, the standards of living we should all be able to enjoy and the rights of all workers. I stand in solidarity with them, and I will always fight to protect the right to strike from irresponsible attacks such as this. This Bill should be refused any further consideration, and I urge every Member here tonight to stand against it and vote it down.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
May I first welcome you to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker? I place on record my thanks to all public sector workers for the excellent work they have done—not just during the pandemic, but for many years prior to it.
As we all know, the country is facing a difficult period of economic hardship. Yes, it is partly because of the war in Ukraine, and yes, it is partly because of our active response in the fight against the pandemic, but we need to be conscious that we are here to support workers, and not all workers are members of unions. It is fair and reasonable, and I always come back to the theme of being fair and reasonable, to suggest that some of this legislation—and I will be supporting the Bill—is about making sure there is a correct balance between those in the unions who wish to strike and those, who are a majority of my electorate, who continue either to run their own small companies or to work in smaller industries that rely on public services, such as the railway network.
As many Members will know—I have said this in this place before—while I represent quite a lovely constituency, public transport very much runs north and south, and when there are rail strikes, my constituents can get around only with extreme difficulty. While that may not necessarily hurt those who have the ability to access a car or, in extremis, pay for a little cab, those who we should be supporting the most are actually the ones most affected by this—the ones who are not able to use the bus to send their kids off to school or to get to their GP surgery for a doctor’s appointment.
Reference has been made to the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, which I know has had a really tough time over many years. I would like to place on record my thanks that it was not one of the bodies that had a strike over recent weeks. Unfortunately, I have had to use its services over the last few weeks and months, and I know that it is literally saving lives in doing the excellent work it does in very difficult circumstances.
One of the things I want to make the public aware of is that, post pandemic, we have adapted the way we work. Yes, we are very supportive of people such as rail workers, but the general population will adapt. I am a firm believer that we should be encouraging people to get back to work, which may mean commuting to London, as it does for a lot of my constituents. However, if that proves too difficult, they will just turn around and say, “Actually, we’ve already adapted, post pandemic, to working from home”. That means we will hollow out the urban areas of our country such as central London, where instead of a vibrant high street, as we have had with Victoria Street, we will very quickly have high street retailers, such as the Pret A Mangers of the world, closing up shop because they do not have the footfall to support them.
Reference has been made to international comparisons. I for one think we have got the balance right with our support for workers, but also, counter to that, for wealth creators. As someone who comes from a small and medium-sized enterprise background, I know that I was fully reliant on one, two or three workers in, in my case, a furniture retail shop, to make sure the business could run, and I could not have done it without them. They were not part of a union, but 80% of our economy is reliant on SMEs, so while unions are excellent in the work they do for large public sector bodies, other workers out there are not members of a union.
Finally, my great friend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) mentioned that our armed forces and the police have not been able to strike for over 100 years. That system has worked, so I am not necessarily worried about this particular piece of legislation.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am proudly a trade union member, as will be no surprise to anybody. I will save the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, time and say that the donation to me three years ago was actually my final month’s salary from the GMB. I would rather have clean donations from trade unions any day over anything that the Conservative party receives from non-doms.
The attacks on the rights and freedoms of our constituents are only becoming more apparent. Lutonians have written to me concerned about the plans to restrict their right to strike not just for themselves, but for the services they rely on. We are all desperate for our public services to be stronger, faster, more effective and cost-efficient, but it is not the fault of the selfless and hard-working key workers in our health, rail and teaching sectors that public services are in the skeletal state they are or that nurses are having to use food banks. It is the fault of 13 years of Tory Governments.
As for many others in this Chamber, the prosperity of public services and their workforce is personal for me. I was care worker, I worked in the fire brigade and I was a healthcare assistant doing shifts in hospitals. I have also been a trade union member for nearly 20 years, and I have been a trade union officer working on pro-manufacturing campaigns, bereavement leave for foster carers, stopping the abuse of agency workers, training airport staff and ensuring survivors of domestic abuse are safe at work. I say this not because it is particularly extraordinary, but because this is all in a day’s work for trade unionists, and Conservative Members should bear that in mind while they denigrate the work of trade unions.
This is not just political; it is also personal. My partner works in education, while my father was a firefighter and my mother was a nurse. They took great pride in their work, and so they should. When we face crises personally or nationally, it is these workers we rely on to keep us safe, to heal us, and to protect our homes and our loved ones. Why then are this Government determined to punish those workers with real-terms pay cuts, job losses, worse terms and uncertain futures, yet still reward bankers with unlimited bonuses?
Not only are British public service workers seeing their pay declining or their jobs cut, they are now told that they cannot speak up about it. The message to public sector heroes from this Bill is: “Put up and shut up”. Unfortunately for this Government, that is not the spirit of this country or of the party of these Benches. Our constituents know the value of their work, and they know the dignity they deserve. When it comes to civil liberties, oh, the Conservatives talk a good game about freedom of speech, but on the basic rights to strike and to protest, this Government—one of the most extreme Tory Governments—are on the wrong side every time. They fight for the rights of holocaust deniers, climate change sceptics, and out-and-out misogynists to say whatever they like online, in an effort to appear anti-woke and pro-freedom of speech, yet when it comes to the freedoms of nurses, teachers, doctors, paramedics, firefighters, support staff and healthcare assistants, the Conservatives are not on their side, and they do not want them to have the same freedoms as everyone else.
Ordinary working people such as the ones Ministers are now trying to gag fought for our rights—the right to maternity leave and bank holidays, the right to be safe at work and have equal pay, and the right to remove our labour. The right for people to have their voices heard when those in power are not listening. Time and again, the Tories show that they are on the wrong side. All they have to do is listen and negotiate. They are the reason why people need strong trade unions and a Labour Government, because the Tories will never be on the side of working people. I will always be on the side of working people, and I will vote against the Bill today.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
This is a debate about the balance of rights, and balancing the right to strike of our constituents who work in essential public services with the rights of our other constituents, and their right to get to work, to school, to have their operation, and even in the case of blue-light services, their right to life. That is what we are talking about. The Bill is not about views on the rights and wrongs of the current strikes. It is certainly not an attack on public sector workers, and suggestions otherwise from Labour Members are both disgusting and an attempt to stifle genuine debate.
I deeply value the work of nurses, teachers, firefighters, ambulance drivers and rail staff across Rushcliffe and the country, and of course they should have the right to withdraw their labour. The Bill is about how they can do so safely. The Labour party would have us believe that this is some outrageous attack on workers’ rights—“political violence”, said the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne)—and something that no civilised country could possibly contemplate. No civilised country other than Spain, Italy, Germany, France, or indeed the United States, Australia and Canada, which in some areas have an outright ban on strikes in blue-light services. Normally, Opposition Members idolise Europe’s approach to employment rights, but on the issue of minimum services they are keeping very quiet. Why? It is because their paymasters in the unions do not want to let them do otherwise. I understand, I do—[Interruption.] I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Sam Tarry
Most Labour Members will be proud of the fact that trade union members in their local branch meetings vote democratically to make donations to local Labour party Members of Parliament. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw that preposterous, outrageous and untrue comment.
Ruth Edwards
I certainly will not, because the hon. Gentleman failed to declare in his intervention that he received £13,000 from unions. I notice there are a lot of proud union members who are not declaring their donations. That is not me being party political—it is a requirement of this House.
I understand the position of Labour Members. It is not easy to turn round to the union barons who have given them and their colleagues more than £1 million in the past four years and tell them that they are wrong. The Bill builds on principles in the Trade Union Act 2016, which put higher vote thresholds on important public services when unions ballot on strike action. It builds on the principle of life-and-limb cover, and will prevent the situation that we had at the end of last year when different ambulance services had different agreements in place with unions. That resulted in a postcode lottery for patients, which is unacceptable.
The Bill complies with the criteria set out by the International Labour Organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) set out in detail. In short, the Bill sets out a pathway for workers to exercise their rights safely. It should not be controversial. It has precedent in the UK, all over Europe, and in international conventions. We are making the responsible choice to protect all our constituents. On the Opposition Benches, however, it may be a new year, but it is the same old Labour, still acting as the mouthpiece of their paymasters, the union barons. They have been bought by the barons, and are still doing their bidding.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in which Members will find no money from oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, oil barons or oil companies—nothing but from trade unions, and I am quite happy with that.
Here we are, a little more than 18 months since the end of lockdown, and the Government have gone from clapping to slapping key workers. It did not have to be this way. In the wake of covid, the Government had a choice. They could, like the 1945 Labour Government at the end of world war two, have chosen a new path, a different path, and a new social settlement that recognised the sacrifice and efforts of key workers. They could have rewarded them by embarking on collective sectoral bargaining, and invested in rebuilding our public services and in housing after more than a decade of decay. They could have built a new social settlement, recognising the role that those workers played in that national crisis. Instead, they chose to look to the first world war, and to the Geddes axe, when the post-war Conservative Government slashed public spending, attacked workers’ rights, and told the poor they and not the wealthy must bear the brunt of the costs of the war.
The Bill puts beyond a shadow of doubt whose side this Government are on. It is certainly not the public, because those public sector workers who are being denied their democratic rights are the public. They are the ones defending public services, not the Government, and they are the ones fighting to stop trains without ticket offices, and railways with a reduced number of safety precautions. They are the ones fighting to stop a healthcare system that is run from silicon valley by surveillance companies such as Palantir, and fighting for our education system, which 44% of teachers plan to leave within five years. The Government, however, are on the side of employers such as P&O, British Gas and British Airways, with a Bill that gives a green light to the practitioners of fire and rehire, poverty pay and a race to the bottom. And yes, as ever, the Government are on the side of the rich and wealthy, as they have always been.
But the Bill is also part of a longer term, anti-democratic trend, and part of a raft of anti-democratic legislation passed by the Government. It is a trend of transferring power away from workers and citizens, and eliminating their limited rights and freedoms in the workplace and across society. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 criminalised political protest. The Elections Act 2022 will disenfranchise millions through voter ID, and it undermined the independence of the Electoral Commission. The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 limits the power of courts to remedy unlawful Government action on the part of the Executive. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 means that 6 million in this country could now be stripped of citizenship at the whim of the Home Secretary, and although the Government have temporarily gone quiet on this, we know they also want to repeal the Human Rights Act.
The British public have had enough of being told by this Government to suck up failing privatised public services, corrupt politicians, collapsing living standards, a dying environment and a falling democracy. They have had enough of being told that there is no alternative, that politicians will always be caught on the take, that the rich and powerful will always be able to buy influence, that foodbanks are inevitable, that the NHS will always be in crisis, that our rivers will always be polluted, and that a race to the bottom on employment rights is inevitable. History will show that the Bill is the act of a Government on the ropes, bereft of direction, and lashing out at the very public they claim to protect. This grim 50-year-old ideological experiment is in tatters all around, and I will be voting against this piece of rubbish.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I welcome you to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). I was struck by something he just said. Yes, the rich and powerful can always buy influence—we need only see the number of people who have made declarations this evening.
This simple and effective Bill is aimed at ensuring that the right to collective bargaining and the withdrawal of labour does not conflict with the right of the average British citizen to access lifesaving or potentially important services while unions and the Government negotiate. The debilitating strikes of the past six months have wreaked havoc on this country, dragging us into a virtual state of second lockdown, and preventing workers from travelling to offices and shoppers from accessing high streets, and putting additional pressure on the NHS. We understand that this is driven in part by the inflationary pressures that we are encountering as a nation.
No one is disputing the right of workers to withdraw their labour as part of a negotiation, however unreasonable some of those demands end up being; no one is saying that at all. All that we are asking for is some proportionality and responsibility in how that is done. Our nation should not be held hostage and have lives risked simply for want of minimum safety standards. That is what we are talking about.
We are not talking about blanket enforcement; just recognition that some services are simply vital. Those include health, fire and rescue, health and education. Few of us will forget the impact of shutting down schools during the pandemic. They also include transport—the Mayor of London cannot stick to his zero strikes pledge—the decommissioning of nuclear installations; the management of radioactive waste, which is surely a no-brainer and one that we can all agree needs to go on; and border security.
The Bill ensures that people can access an ambulance when they call for one, count on fire responders in an emergency, send their children to school and travel to work. Why should people be held to ransom by militant, unelected trade union officials? If they want that power, they should stand for election and not simply buy support from the Labour party.
Chris Clarkson
No, I will not.
Minimum service levels are not an anomaly. France, Spain and Italy have given minimum service levels during strikes, and I thought that the Labour party was in favour of more European alignment. The Government do not want to use the Bill, but it is vital to have in place a system that allows the British public to access services during strike days and go about their lives in an ordinary way.
We have to ask ourselves: what are the strikes really about? I will highlight rail because I am a regular commuter. Union bosses have refused to accept that the pandemic has fundamentally changed how travellers use the rail network. Modernising the network is essential to ensuring that it is sustainable for future generations. The Government stepped in with support of more than £30 billion for the rail industry during the pandemic. That is not pocket change.
I have seen at first hand the impact of what rail strikes have done to the west coast main line, where at one point we faced coach journeys of up to 10 hours because of the lack of flexibility. That is fine for me because I can afford to be flexible with my working arrangements and I have a good, guaranteed wage. However, plenty of my constituents do not have that, so if the service is not there when they need it, they are in serious trouble. The hypocrisy of the trade unions, who say that they are fighting for workers, is palpable. Travel is unavoidable for millions of workers who do not have the option of working remotely. Those people are driving Britain’s economy, despite the obstacles put in front of them by the trade unions. Let us look at the collateral effects: December’s rail strikes cost UK hospitality £1.5 billion, and huge swathes of businesses and jobs were lost.
The simple fact of the matter is that, with more than £15 million donated by the trade unions to the Labour party, it is no wonder that Labour Members sit on their hands while trade unions cripple our vital services. Even the Leader of the Opposition knows it—that is why he is not here leading the debate but instead rubbing shoulders with bankers in Davos.
The strikes have become contagious, spreading from one sector to another, holding the British public hostage in the hope that the Government will surrender. That is not how a democracy works. I support workers’ rights, but that is not limitless. I welcome the commitment to the rights of the British public to access vital services during strike action, and I look forward to supporting the Bill later tonight.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) with that extremely interesting speech. I would like to put on the record that I am a proud member of Unite the union and the GMB. I will vote against the Bill and stand in absolute solidarity with all those in Liverpool, West Derby taking industrial action in defence of their pay, their conditions and their colleagues, as well as in defence of the public who rely on those services. I am proud to stand alongside workers on picket lines and will continue to support those workers in their struggle with pride. May I offer a word of advice to Conservative Members? Go to the picket lines and speak to the people on them. Maybe then the demonisation will not slip so easily from their lips.
This is a pernicious Bill that shames the House and the nation. It is designed to attack and demoralise public service workers who are taking industrial action as a very last resort. I have spoken to nurses, firefighters, civil servants and posties in Liverpool at our food pantries, who have been forced into food poverty because of the wages that they have received after 12 years of austerity—a political choice made by the Tory Government in 2010. We are now living through the wreckage of that choice, with the destruction of our NHS and public services.
Let us be clear: the reason why these workers are having to take industrial action in the first place is because of the Government and their decisions. Never, ever forget that the hunger and poverty that many public sector workers face at the moment is a political choice that the Prime Minister unfortunately finds so easy to make. We have a multi-millionaire Prime Minister who will never know what it is like to feel hungry—he will never fear the creep of poverty at the door of his home—telling public sector workers facing this dire situation that they will be sacked if they withdraw their labour when they are simply saying, “Enough is enough.” It is obscene.
We have a morally bankrupt Government with financial scandal after financial scandal, and second job after second job, bringing in draconian legislation to outlaw industrial action for the very people we clapped during covid for everything they had done for us as a nation. The Bill is purposefully lacking in detail. It is a practically unworkable and potentially unlawful attempt to undermine the right to strike. Instead of bringing it to Parliament, Ministers should have been spending time negotiating meaningfully with the trade unions about pay and conditions. They could also have used that time to write the long-promised employment Bill.
The Bill must be voted down. The draconian drift is becoming a raging current. Any parliamentarian who believes in the democratic rights of our citizens must see that clearly and kick this wretched piece of legislation out of this place.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Industrial action has impacted on many aspects of people’s lives in Guildford over the past few months. I regret the decisions made by multiple trade unions to strike, leaving no train services for commuters and key workers in my constituency, Christmas cards to loved ones arriving in January, and delays at the UK border for those returning from breaks with family and friends. And this evening we hear that our children’s education is to be disrupted again. That is deeply saddening news.
I welcome the Government’s minimum service level legislation, which delivers on our manifesto commitments and protects the rights of workers to withdraw their labour while ensuring that the general public can go about their daily business safely. This pragmatic legislation will bring the UK into line with other industrialised nations such as France and Spain, which already have such common-sense agreements in place.
During periods of industrial action on the railways, constituents in Guildford and those travelling to town for work have found themselves cut off from the railway network, with no services being run by South Western Railway on those days. That has forced them either to work from home, to find alternative transport such as using their cars, or simply not to work at all. It is often those who earn the least who cannot work at home. Over the Christmas period, the overtime ban that was in force also reduced the levels of service provided to Guildford station.
I know from conversations with constituents on the doorsteps and from my inbox that local people are rightly concerned about the level of public transport provision that they are currently receiving. A recent YouGov poll placed the level of support for this legislation among the wider public at 59%, and I know that feeling is reflected locally in Guildford. The deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), said in her opening speech that Labour would repeal the Bill. Labour Members are showing themselves yet again to be out of touch with my constituents and out of touch with the country.
Rail Partners, the organisation that represents the owners of train operators, including FirstGroup, which owns the majority share in South Western Railway, has said that the Bill’s approach
“seeks to appropriately balance and protect the right to strike and the rights of others to get to work or school and access necessary healthcare.”
I agree with its assessment. The safety of the general public must always remain the primary responsibility of any Government. I welcome the measures proposed in the Bill to do just that. I will be supporting this legislation.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I will not be supporting this legislation, for three reasons. First, the Bill is not really about safety levels at all. Secondly, claims that the Bill reflects current practice elsewhere in Europe are inaccurate. Thirdly, there is the very real risk that these proposals are in breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the European convention on human rights and international labour law. As other hon. Members have said, the word “safety” does not even appear in the Bill. It is a Bill about minimum service levels, not minimum safety levels, yet repeatedly Conservative politicians have talked about minimum safety levels and seem very happy for confusion between the two concepts to be caused. I suspect that is because this is a deliberate attempt to hide from the public the real intentions behind the Bill.
Secondly, on European standards, most European countries, as others have said, have a very different model of labour relations from the United Kingdom, which, thanks to successive Tory Governments, has one of the strictest systems of regulations of industrial relations in Europe. In other countries, trades union rights are protected in their written constitutions. Labour law experts will tell you that in most European countries minimum service levels are established by collective bargaining and, in so far as legislation exists, it provides a framework for these agreements, rather than for top-down regulation. The Bill would enable the Secretary of State to impose sweeping regulations from the top on millions of workers in a number of different sectors.
That brings to me to my third point. As I said when I intervened on the Secretary of State, the measures in the Bill go considerably further than the minimum service levels envisaged by the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill published last October. The Government’s own human rights memorandum which accompanied the previous Bill set out in some detail, with reference to existing legislation, the reason their lawyers then said that minimum service levels imposed by legislation were not justified in fire services, health settings and education. Yet that is what they are now proposing and their human rights memorandum for the Bill is very different. I can absolutely guarantee to hon. Members across the House that as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I will be making sure we scrutinise very carefully the difference between the two human rights memorandums.
On compliance with international labour law, the International Labour Organisation has enshrined the right to strike in its convention, to which the UK is a signatory. It is true that minimum service levels are allowed, but not if they are imposed from the top down. They need to be set by negotiation or, if the negotiation breaks down, by an independent body, as happens in Italy. Only in European countries well known for flouting fundamental rights, such as Hungary and Russia, do we see Government-enforced minimum service levels leading to the sacking of workers and the bankrupting of unions fighting for fair pay and conditions. Yet that is exactly what the Tories want to do in the Bill. Perhaps we should not be surprised that, despite all their anti-Putin rhetoric, the Tories want to emulate Putin’s approach to striking workers. Perhaps it is not so surprising given that the Deputy Prime Minister told us he is not ruling out leaving the European convention on human rights and the Home Secretary is keen it should happen as soon as possible. Given that they are keen to be on the same side as Russia on human rights, it is perhaps not surprising that they are doing that in the Bill.
The bottom line is that key workers are striking because their wages have not begun to keep in line with inflation and because the interest rate hikes caused by Tory economic incompetence mean they cannot afford their rent or mortgage. The Government need to recognise the stark reality of those people’s lives and work with their unions respectfully to reach agreement.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Bill is about duty, fairness and balance—nothing more, nothing less. The first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe. The Bill is about ensuring we have minimum levels of safety and service across our essential public services. I heard what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said about safety, but when we are talking about ambulances and accident and emergency departments, it is about safety. But it is also about fairness. Due to the hard work and dedication of all the ambulance workers across Essex and all the NHS workers at Southend Hospital—every doctor, every porter and every care assistant—nobody in the wonderful city of Southend and in Leigh-on-Sea has suffered any disruption in the service. They have been served with the same dedication and care every day since the strikes began. Why should those who are not lucky enough to live in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea not get the same service? Of course they should because they are all—
Anna Firth
No, I won’t because of the time.
This is about balancing the right to strike with the right to a minimum level of service for those who are paying for it. Of course, the right to strike is something that we on the Conservative Benches consider to be important. It is a key right.
Anna Firth
No, I won’t because of the time.
That right has been a key part of our labour laws since 1906. If I can introduce just a moment of levity into this debate, one could say that collective action actually started in 1381 with the peasants’ revolt, which started in Essex.
However, it is undeniable that strikes are incredibly disruptive. In October last year, we lost 417,000 working days due to strike action, and 2022 is set to have the highest number of days lost to strike action since 1990. Whether it is our trains, ambulances, hospitals or postal service, the strikes disproportionately affect the poorer people in my constituency. Two million people journeys were made from two stations in my constituency of Southend West. These are people who cannot work from home, who cannot afford taxis to get to and from work, who are not allowed the indulgence of hotels that—let’s face it—those of us who work in this place are able to claim. And this affects children. People travelling to our brilliant grammar schools in Southend generally do so by train from different parts of Essex. Our children’s education has suffered enough due to covid. There must be minimum levels to ensure that our children get the education they deserve when they are in school.
On fairness and equality, by ensuring that we have minimum safety levels in our public services, we are ensuring that a service funded by taxpayers equally, serves every taxpayer equally. How could anybody object to that?
This should not be a controversial opinion. Police officers and members of the armed forces are already prevented from taking strike action. Too often, we have to rely on the armed forces, who cannot take strike action because theirs is an essential service. Life and limb are involved. Yet we rely on them—
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud union member.
The Bill is an affront to Parliament. It will not protect the public, it will worsen industrial relations and it will undermine the unity of the United Kingdom. It should be voted down tonight. There has been much heated argument about the provisions in the Bill. On all the moral and pragmatic arguments, I stand firmly on the side of working people and their right to withdraw their labour, and against what the Government seek to do in the Bill. However, I do not consider that those moral and pragmatic arguments are likely to change the minds—or more importantly the votes—of Conservative Members. I therefore want to put forward an argument against the Bill that I believe they both can and should accept: it is damaging to our constitution and to the Union.
The reason the Bill is so short is that it delegates to the Secretary of State the power to set out all the relevant law in regulations through statutory instruments—regulations which receive only the most minimal scrutiny in this place and cannot be amended. So it is the Secretary of State, not Parliament, who will make regulations to determine the levels of service in relation to strikes, who gets to define the nature of the services to be provided, the number of people who are to provide them, the time at which they are to be provided and the manner in which they are to be provided during a strike. Extraordinarily, the Bill also proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power by regulation to
“amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under primary legislation”
in this House. So statutes passed by Parliament can be amended by regulations drafted by the Minister without full parliamentary scrutiny. In a recent report by a Committee of the House of Lords, “Democracy Denied?”, their lordships state:
“A substantial groundswell of concern is developing about the shift in power from Parliament to ministers.”
This Bill is perhaps the most egregious example yet of a measure brought forward by an increasingly autocratic Executive to strip Parliament of its role in determining what, for many of us, is a critical area of employment and human rights.
It gets worse. The primary legislation that the Secretary of State can amend or repeal is defined to include an Act of the Senedd or the Scottish Parliament. That should set alarm bells ringing for all of us, nationalists and Unionists alike. What is being proposed is that the Secretary of State in Westminster should have the power by regulation to override devolved legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd—and to do so with minimal scrutiny in this House. If the Executive had intended to provoke constitutional outrage and call into question the very basis of the devolutionary settlements, they could not have designed a piece of legislation better guaranteed to do so.
That the Secretary of State in Whitehall should claim the power to legislate by regulation to interfere in devolved areas of government and to impose restrictions in different parts of this Union on the right to strike in transport, education, health and other public services in Scotland and Wales is more than unwarranted. It is more than inappropriate. It is a deliberate provocation and offence.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend like to comment on why the Government have refused even to agree to the super-affirmative procedure?
Barry Gardiner
That is quite simply because they are introducing a party political measure that is designed to provoke this House.
I call on all Conservative Members, if they care about the Union at all, to vote against this wrecking ball of a Bill, which will only provide succour to those voices seeking to destroy our constitutional settlement and our United Kingdom. Under the Bill, the employer has the unilateral right to identify in a work notice the individual workers required to operate the MSL. A worker who refuses to comply after having been requisitioned in this way will lose unfair dismissal protection.
The Government are thus authorising employers to do what not even a court in this country can do. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992:
“No court shall…compel an employee to do any work or attend at any place for the doing of any work.”
However, once the union is notified of the identity of the workers to be requisitioned, the Bill requires the union to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that all its members identified in the work notice comply with it. It is ironic that, under the Bill, the same trade union may be required to discipline or expel—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry that I had not given notice, but we are going down to three minutes to get as many people in as we possibly can.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I should first declare that I am a member of the British Medical Association. As an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I take a great interest in the Bill and particularly in its impact on health. During my career, I have worked—indeed, I continue to work—with many fabulous NHS staff. However, as many hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the pay rise of over 19% demanded by the Royal College of Nursing is simply unaffordable.
The pay rises being demanded would also continue to drive up inflation at a time when the Government are working night and day to keep it down. Because of the way in which NHS staff are paid, we cannot give one group a pay rise without giving it to others in the same pay band. Although different unions give the impression that they are negotiating separately—the ambulance staff, the nursing staff, the middle and junior managers—in reality, they are all on the same banding scheme. A rise for one is a rise for all, with each 1% rise costing £700 million.
It is clear that the Opposition seem to have misrepresented the Government’s policy as an attempt to take away the right to strike, when that is so clearly not the purpose of this legislation. When it comes to the NHS, it is not right that those who are in desperate need of medical care cannot get an ambulance or receive care because of strike action. These are measures designed to protect lives and ensure that people who face an imminent threat to life or limb have quick access to care and treatment. How could anybody not want such care to be received? That is why minimum service levels are individually negotiated by the various ambulance services, but that leads to inconsistency across the country. A pre-agreed national minimum level will help to improve patient safety.
Another reason we need minimum service levels is that legislation on striking services does not require people to say whether or not they are striking. That has recently meant a situation in which people organising ward rotas have not known who is turning up to work, which makes it very difficult to plan even minimum services for shifts. That is all very well when you are dealing with parcel deliveries, but when you need a certain number of people to care for acutely sick people, it is vital to be able to plan. A minimum service level allows that.
Furthermore, the Opposition are suggesting that the Government want to sack people for striking. That, again, is a gross distortion. Striking is a collective decision; that is why it is voted on. The Government’s measures apply to those who, having agreed to be part of a minimum service level, then do not turn up to work. That would be a dereliction of duty under any circumstances, and in practice we all know that it is not going to happen, because NHS staff would simply never do that.
It has been clear for some time that Opposition Members are not brave enough either to say how much they would offer the unions or to criticise the strikes, even when they so clearly threaten the lives of their constituents. It is perhaps no coincidence that the unions behind the recent ambulance strikes are some of the Labour party’s biggest donors. In the meantime, the Government, my Back-Bench colleagues and I will continue to serve our country and our constituents. The first duty—
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I rise to speak as a proud trade unionist. I have been a member of a trade union all my working life, so I completely fail to understand the division that Government Members are trying to draw between union members and workers. The general public are not buying it either.
Our nurses, teachers, doctors, paramedics, rail workers and firefighters have all worked consistently hard over the past decade, particularly since covid, yet they face real cuts in their pay and drastically worse working conditions. NHS nurses are earning £5,000 a year less in real terms than in 2010; for midwives and paramedics, the drop is more than £6,000. We need to retain workers in those professions, but instead they are being driven away by the Tories running our public services into the ground. Instead of trying to resolve the issue at the heart of these strikes, this Government are undermining workers’ basic right to strike and are trying to turn the public against them. It is not working.
I am deeply concerned by the sweeping powers in the Bill, which will allow the Government to dictate what the minimum level of service should be in a given industry, with only a meaningless requirement for the Secretary of State to “consult” whoever they consider “appropriate”. It is disgraceful that employers will have the ability to pick and choose which individuals will be compelled to work and forced to cross a picket line or be sacked. That is not a balanced or fair approach, nor will it resolve any of the core issues that workers are trying to raise through these strikes.
There are already more restrictions on strikes than ever before, and they are being followed to the letter, so the strikes that are going ahead have already met the legal requirements. Steve Rice, the head of the GMB union’s ambulance committee, recently wrote to the Prime Minister to call out his dangerous claims that ambulance workers are putting lives at risk. Surely the Prime Minister knows that unions have been working with NHS trusts to guarantee emergency cover during the strike action; if he does not, that is really quite damning. In reality, on 21 December, when GMB ambulance workers undertook industrial action, the proportion of patients delayed for over an hour actually dropped significantly, so where is the evidence that striking essential workers are not already providing the minimum level of service? It is not there.
I understand any fears that the public may have of not being able to access emergency healthcare when they need it, but the Government should be honest with constituents rather than demonising hard-working staff who want to be able to provide the best service possible. Better yet, the Government should meet workers to negotiate and understand their concerns instead of dismissing them. It is not striking workers who are causing the crisis in the NHS; it is a decade of Tory mismanagement.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I believe in the right to strike. I do not think strikes work, but I do believe in them.
I was brought up in Doncaster. As a young man, I saw the picket lines, the oil drums and the people—mainly men—standing around trying to keep warm. They were trying for an extra 4% or 5% on their wages, with the unions backing them. Often they won—they often got that extra bit of a pay rise that they wanted—but move forward five or 10 years, and what did we have? We had closures. We had thousands and thousands of redundancies, and closures. That is what happens when people go on strike.
The customers of the industries on strike were not paying while those services were being taken away, but my constituents do not have a choice. They have to keep on paying, and when they pay they expect a service. They pay whether they get the service or not, and this Bill is before us now because the unions are taking advantage of the place in which the country finds itself through no fault of its own, just as they did in the 1970s and 1980s.
I have employed many people in my life. There have been times when we have had too much work and times when we have had too little, but neither my staff nor I have ever abused the upper hand. The unions are, I believe, abusing the position in which the country finds itself. They are trying to hold the country to ransom, and the Opposition are backing them because they are donors.
We are legislators, and we should legislate only when there is an issue that requires our intervention. This appears to be one of those moments. I understand that the Government will be seeking talks with unions and employers to see where the level of minimum service sits, and I hope that those talks are entered into with the right spirit and a voluntary arrangement can be made. If such an arrangement can be made, it should be, and then we can all move on quickly and get our country back on its feet.
Let me once again thank all the nurses at Doncaster Royal Infirmary, who voted against striking because they know that their best efforts are made while they are at work, not while they are on picket lines.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I am not funded by unions—or Russia—so before I even get on to the Bill, it is important for me to highlight the fact that the laws on trade unions in the UK are already among the most restrictive in Europe. Ministers claim that such Bills are common in France, Spain and Germany, but they leave out the fact that this Bill is much harsher than any of the examples that they cite. UK workers will lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal, for instance. Ministers also claim that the Bill is about ensuring that a minimum level of service is available for the health and safety of the public, when they know fine well that life-and-limb agreements are already in place.
The truth is that this Bill is designed to undermine and attack both workers’ rights and democracy. It carves out yet another door through which Westminster can further erode and undermine the Scottish Parliament. It is so bad that it might fall foul of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right of workers to assemble as they wish—the very same convention that the Tories want to take us out of. I wonder why.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Are we not seeing a pattern of behaviour? When the Government could not reach the child poverty targets, they scrapped them. What they are doing now is moving the goalposts and introducing a hostile environment and hostile legislation to attack workers’ rights and human rights.
Mhairi Black
Absolutely—and that leads me neatly to my next point.
I have previously spoken about the dangers of sleepwalking into fascism if we are not careful. I did not say it lightly then and I do not say it lightly now, but history is undeniable. The slide into authoritarian and anti-democratic politics has always been underpinned by anti-trade union rhetoric. Over the years, we have listened to countless right-wing politicians and Governments claiming that Brexit would in no way affect workers’ rights, yet here we are.
The reason trade unions organise industrial action is that it works. It has always been the only language that those who hold power understand. The only reason any worker has any rights at all is the existence of trade unions, and the ability of workers to organise collectively in defence of their jobs and their livelihoods. People who bleat about the disruption that strike action causes are missing the point entirely. If your day is disrupted by someone not turning up to their job, it just goes to show how crucial that person’s job is, and why their pay and conditions should reflect that.
There is another myth that I have heard. In fact, people do not undertake strike action lightly. Strikers lose money. Strike action indicates a crisis. Our nurses, doctors, teachers, cleaners and supermarket workers are the very people who have kept the world turning through a global pandemic, a cost of living crisis and 13 years of Tory austerity, but this Government choose to ignore and demoralise them at every turn. This Government would rather blame striking workers than acknowledge the fact that the root causes of strike action lie directly at their door. We have the lowest pensions and sick pay in Europe, we still do not have a living wage and we are living in economic chaos, with inequality getting worse.
The only people who are putting the health and safety of the public at risk are the members of this Government —a Government run for Twitter; a Government of clicks and culture wars, with no serious answers. Ultimately, trade unions work, and that is exactly why the Tories are going after them.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I withdrew, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I was not present for the opening speeches.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Not at all, Mr Deputy Speaker! But thank you very much.
I rise to speak in opposition to this Bill. I am not currently a member of a trade union, I have never been a trade union official, and I do not get any money from a trade union. Last week I even found myself—much to my own surprise—in agreement with the Secretary of State when he said to the House that when we need an ambulance, we need to know that one will turn up. I agreed with that, but I did not agree with the context in which he meant it. We should be able to rely on such a service all the time, not simply when there is a strike on.
I would even have continued to agree with the Secretary of State, and I could even have found myself thinking about supporting the Bill, if I had felt that it was an attempt to address the problem, but it is not. It not about problem solving; it is political posturing. It is an empty, detail-light, vague promise of a mandatory minimum level to replace existing voluntary arrangements. It will simply ramp up the rhetoric, without saying how anything will be achieved or offering any progress towards the solution that the public need.
None of us—those in this place, those at home watching television, those working on the railways, in hospitals or in any other sector, or those working as teachers—wanted this wave of strikes, because it further undermines recovery in those sectors, which were already stretched before the pandemic. Let us not get into the argument about whether the pandemic or the war in Ukraine is causing this, because neither is the case. The cause of these strikes is the deterioration in our public services that the Government have not just allowed but, at times, seemed to foster—and what are they doing? They are introducing this Bill, which is somewhat akin to taking a mallet to peel a peach.
The Bill will not undo that deterioration, and it will not help our public sectors. Already too many people go to sleep at night worried that if they have a heart attack or a stroke there will be no ambulance, and the Bill does not attack that problem. The reason we have a crisis this winter is this Government’s inaction. They have failed the workers in the public sector. It is nothing to do with trade unionism; it is to do with the Government’s failure. We always say that when there is a strike, it is a failure of both sides. It is a cliché, but the thing about clichés is that we use them because they are usually right. These strikes are a failure. With this Bill, the Government are doing nothing to undo that.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of a trade union, and as a politician who has received donations from trade unions to my constituency Labour party. I am proud that all that is declared on public record.
My constituents want a minimum service level when it comes to transport. Unfortunately, they are served by train companies such as Avanti or TransPennine Express, so even when it is not a strike day, getting a train on time is sometimes impossible. My constituents want to know that when they phone an ambulance it will get there in time, but the reality for many constituents I have heard from, particularly in rural parts such as Preesall and Knott End, is that when they phone an ambulance, the waiting times not on a strike day are already unacceptable.
This legislation is not an attempt to fix our public services and to resolve the disputes that are raging around the country right now; it is to distract from the failure. This piece of legislation has come with no consultation and no impact assessment. This Government have come forward with no employment Bill that could actually outlaw fire and rehire or that could ensure that people have decent rights at work. That could go a long way to fixing the broken relationship that seems to exist and that this Government seek to stoke with the legislation before us tonight. These disputes will be resolved only by negotiation and reasonableness. By introducing this legislation, the Government do nothing but stoke that division. The legislation just makes strikes more likely to happen. Where minimum service levels are in place on the continent we see more days lost to strike action, not less.
In short, this legislation is draconian. It is there to sack the nurses. It is counter-productive. It will cause more days to be lost to strike action and it is unnecessary. I really do hope that the Government will, instead, take some opportunities to visit picket lines in their own constituencies and speak to those workers who are out on strike. I speak to striking workers across Lancaster and Fleetwood, such as the postal workers on Fenton Street. I know they are suffering. They are losing a day’s pay, but they are doing it because they are desperate to preserve that public service, to make sure that everyone gets decent, fair pay, a decent pension and safety in the workplace. That is what trade unions are about. I urge the Government to be reasonable and look again.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I stand as a former shop steward and convener. I proudly refer to my register of interests—do have a look. I cannot begin to express my anger, dismay and disgust at this piece of draconian legislation. I send my solidarity to those demonstrating outside as we speak, as I know many in the Chamber do. They will demonstrate until we get rid of this draconian piece of legislation.
Across the country we are seeing the worst strikes in decades. Railway workers are on strike; nurses are on strike—for the first time ever the Royal College of Nursing is on strike—postal workers are on strike; bus drivers are on strike; ambulance staff are on strike; civil servants are on strike. Now, teachers are on strike, and many more. I will have missed somebody from the list because that many people are on strike.
They are striking for a reason: the cost of living crisis. The mortgages go up, the gas bills go up, the electricity bills go up and the food bills go up. They have a fundamental right. I heard some Members on the Government Benches talking about freedom, including freedom of speech. What about freedom to organise, to campaign and to negotiate for a cost of living pay rise? It is a fundamental British right. This is a real attack on democracy. Some Government Members I have worked with cross-party should be ashamed of themselves, certainly on this point.
Instead of taking responsibility and addressing the real issues, the Prime Minister is playing politics with people’s lives. Those very public servants are some of the inconvenienced public that the Government Members are talking about. Hey presto! A strike does inconvenience people. Let us stick to the facts. North West Ambulance Service workers, who I visited in the Warrington area not long ago, just before Christmas, were striking as a last resort. They did not want to do that, but they were providing the minimum level of service—life and limb. I saw the ambulances going out. I have heard lots of myths this evening about that. The current arrangements under the status quo actually work, but I will stand together with everyone tonight and vote against this draconian, disgraceful piece of legislation, and stand up for British workers and British people.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I am speaking as a Unison member and, prior to that, someone who was a member of the RCN since 1984. I am proud to have stood on picket lines recently with the RMT, the Communication Workers Union, the GMB and the RCN. My constituents are members of unions. They are workers and they form part of all the workforce who are engaged in industrial action at the moment.
I want to give the few Conservative Members remaining in the Chamber a bit of a reality check. It is not good enough for them to say that it is everyone else’s fault but theirs, when the fault lies fairly and squarely at their door. Let me be clear: it was not this Government that did the heavy lifting during covid; it was the doctors, nurses, firefighters, railway workers, postal workers, other key workers in supermarkets and many others. It was every key worker that the Tory Government now want to demonise and threaten. They are the heroes of the pandemic, but this Government now treat them with utter contempt. What kind of a thank you is it to say, “We are going to force you to work and we will not help you any longer”? They are striking for decent pay and minimum safe levels to prevent risk to life and limb.
The Bill purports to be about minimum service levels. If only that were true. Try telling that to the NHS staff with an impossible workload or the fire and rescue teams denied access to proven vital health and safety processes. Let us take nurses as an example. In relation to minimum levels, nurses in this country work with roughly two to two and a half times the workload of that recommended by the Royal College of Midwives and the RCN. The international comparisons that the Government have set out do not take account of this intolerable workload or of the fact that patient-to-staff ratio in other countries is significantly better than it is here.
The Government pretend they are being responsible but they are being anything but. They complain about affordability, but I mentioned earlier the amount of money that has gone into the hands of the 1%. It is not $21 trillion; it is $26 trillion. All the while, the Conservatives partied and profiteered throughout the pandemic while those key workers were on their knees. The people of the UK are on their side, and striking is the only means they have to stem this vulgar neo-conservative tide of greed and restore dignity to their lives.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a lifelong and proud trade unionist, I want to send my solidarity and support to all striking public sector workers. This Government have already lost in the court of public opinion because of their refusal to negotiate with striking workers, so instead of getting round the table, they are changing the rules of the game.
The Bill grants the Secretary of State unprecedented powers to disrupt striking workers by allowing management to pick and choose which of their employees should be on a strike rota on rota days to maintain a legal minimum service provision. This will essentially give managers carte blanche to target union organisers and force them to cross their own picket lines under threat of losing their job and risking financial penalties for their union for failing to meet minimum service requirements on strike days. The TUC has said it has major concerns about the significant risk of discrimination if this is pushed through. Workers fighting for their jobs, pay and conditions should not be threatened with the sack.
No worker votes for strike action lightly. It is always a last resort, particularly for frontline services. The RCN had never been on strike in its 100-plus-year history until recently, and it never did so under a Labour Government. Minimum service level agreements already exist in key life-and-limb services where health and safety is at risk. Indeed, we often hear of situations where staffing levels are better on strike days, due to legal requirements, than on non-strike days, because of the massive shortfall in NHS staffing levels.
We are facing the deepest crisis in our NHS since it began, with record waiting times, a collapse in staff recruitment and retention, patients waiting for hours in ambulances or on chairs in corridors, decades of wage stagnation and 13 years of austerity and selective amnesia from Conservative Members. A minimum service law will not solve our problems, as the Minister well knows. The Government’s impact analysis warns that the Bill could lead to even more strikes, worsening industrial relations, prolonged disputes and reduced conditions for workers.
I conclude by congratulating the National Education Union on its successful strike ballot. Its teachers are saying that enough is enough, and this Government need to recognise that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If Members can shave a few seconds off their speeches, it would help to get everybody in.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I ask myself what problem so afflicts the British state that its Government see fit to bring forward a major piece of primary legislation. Is it really the case that militant pickets are preventing people from getting life-saving treatment? Is it the case that callous trade unionists are refusing to negotiate life-and-limb emergency cover, and that people are dying as a consequence? The answer to all those questions is no. In fact, we know of countless stories in which trade unionists have left their picket-line protests to make sure that people do not die. When I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to say how many lives would be saved by this legislation, he refused to answer, perhaps because the answer is none.
So why is this Bill being introduced? I think the answer is quite simple. We are approaching the fag end of this Tory Government. Their poll ratings are in the toilet, their members are disillusioned and their Back-Bench MPs are increasingly despairing about their own survival. In a desperate attempt to revive their fortunes, they are trying to resurrect the strategy of the Thatcherites a generation ago. They are trying to monster ordinary working people who are fighting for their rights. They are trying to pretend that ordinary working people are other, that they are somehow against the public interest and are therefore not deserving of public support, but it will not work this time, because they have gone too far and there are too many people involved. There is not a family in this land who do not know someone caught up in this dispute and who do not recognise the justice of their cause, so the Government will not be able to do it this time round.
Hannah Bardell
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we speak, firefighters who ran into Grenfell are suffering and dying from cancer, and it is workers like them who will be prevented from protesting and striking? That continues to be a disgrace.
Tommy Sheppard
Indeed, I do. Across the public sector we see people who, in recent years, saved us from the trials of the pandemic. These are people who should be venerated, not demonised. They should be paid, not punished.
The international comparisons made in this debate are so spurious when we look at them. Not a single country in Europe has legislation like this. The minimum standards everywhere else are negotiated. There is no other country in which a person can be sacked for going on strike if their employer says they cannot, as proposed in this Bill.
The proposals in relation to Scotland and the devolved Administrations are the most pernicious. Is it because the Government are jealous or frustrated at the fact that the Government in Scotland take a different view—that, rather than demonise trade unions, they will sit down with them, respect them and try, within the constraints, to get a negotiated deal? Are the UK Government so furious with the Scottish Government for doing that that they now see the need to export, across the border, a conflict in our industrial relations? That is what is coming, and it is a slap in the face to everyone who supports devolution. This Bill proposes that, in devolved services such as transport, health and education, the parameters for operation will not be set by the elected Parliament in Edinburgh but by this place, even if the parameters do not fit the circumstances. People in Scotland will reject these proposals, as they reject the other attempts to erode the limited power they have. And they will call for complete control of industrial relations in Scotland—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Not everyone is going to get in. If Members take interventions, more people will not get in.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It was always going to come to this, where the ideological and deliberate attack on workers, along with the carefully choreographed under-resourcing of the public services that the people of this country hold dear over these past 13 years, which have been so blatantly carved up by the spivs and the profiteers, comes hard up against the inevitable neoliberal endgame of in-work poverty; and where workers are left with no choice other than to stand up for themselves and their service by withdrawing their labour. They do so not simply because their wages are insultingly, woefully insufficient and shrinking in value, and do not pay enough for them to pay their soaring bills, and rip demand out of the beleaguered and disastrously managed economy; they do so also in order to save the very service that they so cherish.
What is the response from this lot on the Government Benches? Instead of listening to workers and coming up with a fair deal that they can accept, or producing a plan to sustain public services into the future, they hit out and turn the screws, depriving working people of their basic civil liberties and human rights to organise and campaign for a better deal. I am proud that the Labour party has made it abundantly clear that this anti-worker, anti-trade union, “sack the nurses” Bill will be immediately repealed when Labour comes to power, and that we will bring in the new deal for working people that our people so desperately need.
This attack is not new; at every turn, especially in the Thatcher era and during the past 13 years, the Conservatives have demonised trade unions as being the enemy within, instead of seeing them as the force for good and for economic and social change for the benefit of the working class that they truly are. With their nasty, pernicious propaganda spewed out by their chums in the right-wing press, this Tory Government have delivered the biggest rallying call to working people that there has been for many a year. I urge all those workers who want to protect themselves and their industry, profession or calling to join a union today, if they have not done so already. Yes, I am urging them to take back control and join the fight for a better deal for themselves, their families and communities.
This Bill is not the way to build good industrial relations—it is the exact opposite—so this is an important moment in our history. I have no doubt that the British people will have their say in fulsome measure when they turf these dreadful Tories out of office, and that day cannot come too soon.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Let me declare my interest as a proud member of the trade union movement—I have been all my life and will be until the day I die. People in this debate need to recognise that we should not be surprised by the actions of the Government, because they have crashed the economy and people cannot put their heating on and they cannot eat. People are struggling to feed their families and they cannot pay their mortgages. So what happens? They get together and the Tories revert back to what they believe they are best at: attacking ordinary working people; attacking the trade unions. They relish it; they love it. That is what this is about. The Secretary of State should admit it: the Tories are running scared, they are finished, they are a busted flush after 13 years of austerity. They should accept that, but no, they are attacking ordinary working people.
I think I speak for a lot of the people when I say that there is nothing in this world, and no one on this planet, that could conscript me to cross a picket line. It does not matter what legislation the Tories wish to push forward and it does not matter what rules, regulations or Government diktat they put in place, thou shalt not cross a picket line.
Let me refer, in the short time I have left, to the attacks on ordinary working people. The Government are demonising the people who brought us through the pandemic: the posties, the transport workers, the bus drivers, the train drivers, the people who work on the transport system, the nurses, the NHS workers and the ambulance drivers. These are not mad Marxist militants. They are not forced to be part of a trade union; they join a trade union. As sales of champagne and luxury yachts go through the roof, sadly, our key workers are forced to use food banks. I will oppose the Bill tonight and urge every other Member of Parliament to do so as well, out of respect for the ordinary people who brought us through the pandemic and who work hard for this country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I entered politics as a teaching union rep. I am still a trade union member. I am also co-chair of the Justice Unions Group and, contrary to the myth that the Conservatives like to propagate, I have taken not a single penny from the unions—I do it for political reasons and values. I am sure that it comes as no surprise, therefore, that Plaid Cymru will be opposing this reprehensible legislation tonight.
Nobody seeks to strike, least of all the workers who lose a day’s pay. The strikes of health workers are a last resort for over-worked staff who fear that patient safety is suffering because of increased demand and staff shortages. What do the Government propose to do? They propose to bring in sanctions that threaten to sack those very staff. Yet the UK Government have no interest in working with our key workers. They would rather pursue this socially divisive legislation in an attempt to distract from the daily disruption to public services caused by their own party’s butchering of budgets 365 days a year.
Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the legislation will cause further disruption to businesses by undermining commitments made in the trade and co-operation agreement to
“protect and promote social dialogue on labour matters among workers and employers.”
It is not to reduce that legislation, but to build upon it, and that is not what we are talking about today.
It is becoming increasingly clear that our rights are not safe under Westminster control. First there was our democratic right to protest, now our democratic right to strike, and next a bonfire of the protections, hard won when workers were protected by membership of the EU.
Of course, the UK Government’s disregard for Welsh workers comes as no surprise. Last summer they announced their intention to scrap the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017, a law passed by our Senedd to protect workers in Wales. The only way to give Wales the power to protect workers’ rights for good from relentless Westminster attacks is to devolve employment law to Wales, as is already the case, and well before devolution took place in the late 1990s, in Northern Ireland. I urge the Labour party to drop its opposition to this policy and support workers in Wales and Scotland as a matter of urgency.
In the little time that we have left, and to bring my remarks to a close, the easiest, safest and fairest way of guaranteeing minimum service provision is to ensure that key workers are able to do their jobs effectively by improving working conditions, by bringing forward the long-promised employment Bill and by giving workers the proper pay increases they need. On the question of pay, there must be recognition that public services in Wales face additional pressure due to a funding system that perpetuates high levels of poverty and the knock-on effect that poverty has on health, and the reality of having an older population than the rest of the UK. Now is the time for Westminster to recognise this and to commit to the needs that public services in Wales require.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud union member and I was a trade union official before entering this place.
After 13 years of Conservative Government, life for ordinary people in this country has got harder. This country is again an outlier on workers’ rights, and has been for some time. What a sad indictment of a Government who purport to be a standard bearer of democratic rights in defence of a free society. This legislation, amounting to yet another brazen attack on an already fragile settlement for workers in this country, flies in the face of the basic liberty to withdraw one’s labour. This legislation does not protect the public—quite the opposite. This Bill, hastily put together, is incoherent and unworkable, and I am sure that in time it will prove unlawful.
This bosses’ charter will make it easier to sack workers across several sectors: our paramedics, firefighters, nurses, train guards and many more. It will not make those workplaces safer. Key workers are demanding a decent settlement amid an economic crisis they had no part in creating. Those workers received the adulation and applause from Conservative Ministers throughout the pandemic, only to be abandoned, threatened and dehumanised when the going got tough. I will oppose this Bill with every fibre of my being.
It was the trade union movement that delivered the weekend, paid holidays, paid sick leave, equal pay, maternity and paternity rights, and the minimum wage. Our collective role now in Labour is to defend the trade unions, provide a voice for their members and our constituents in this place, and prevent this latest attack on our communities. If Conservative Members want to know how Labour would resolve these disputes, they should tell their leader to call a general election and we will soon find out.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As a proud member of a trade union, I begin by referring the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The proposals before us today are unworkable. They do nothing to address the reasons why workers go on strike and instead attack workers’ rights. The Government are imposing these measures as a distraction from fact that for 12 years they have given us an economy where wages have been squeezed and conditions have worsened. Let us be clear: the strikes are a result of this Government’s economic failure.
Industrial action is always a last resort. Workers on low pay do not choose to lose a day’s wage unless they absolutely have to. I know, because I have been on strike as a low-paid teacher. I know that the colleagues I taught with were concerned about not just their loss of income, but the impact on the pupils we taught. To suggest that striking is a decision that is taken lightly is simply wrong.
Going on strike is a difficult decision personally, but practically it is not easy either. We have some of the toughest trade union laws in Europe. Online voting in strike ballots is prohibited and there is a high threshold for both turnout and votes in favour. That only puts into context the strength of feeling among those workers who have voted to withdraw their labour.
Industrial action on the scale we are seeing today has not happened in a generation. In 1984, 14,000 miners went on strike in Barnsley, and 200,000 across the country, to defend their industry. We still feel the economic effects of the loss of the pits today. That was an attack on one industry by a Government determined to destroy mining in this country. This is an attack on all workers across the public sector, in a clear attempt to get workers to pay the price for this Government’s economic mistakes.
Teachers, bus drivers, rail workers, Border Force, ambulance drivers, NHS staff and nurses have all voted to strike. The Government are trying to label them the new enemy within, but these are the people who kept our country going during the pandemic. They want decent pay to provide for their families. If the Government want to get the country moving again, they will pay them a decent wage and stop threatening them with the sack.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Have we not been told so often throughout the course of this Parliament that one reason we do not have an employment Bill is that there is no parliamentary time? Yet when we see on television the likes of Mick Lynch and Dave Ward, who the Government seem to think have a big button to cause chaos, all of a sudden a Bill comes forward that gives huge amounts of power to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Frankly, looking at clause 3 of the Bill, I would rather put Robert Mugabe in charge of the Electoral Commission than allow the Tories the opportunity to be in charge of workers’ rights.
It is already incredibly hard for workers to exercise their most basic, fundamental human right to withdraw their labour. The thresholds are already very high, and the people I stand alongside on picket lines, whether at Royal Mail or Glasgow Central station, do not want to be on strike. They are doing it knowing they will lose a day’s pay. The attitude of the Government and, in particular, this Secretary of State towards unions is about creating a wedge issue, trying to generate a huge division and pit worker against worker. The reality is that we in this country—or in these countries—already have a very large public service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said, huge numbers of people, in our families and in our neighbourhoods, are taking industrial action.
In reality, this legislation is not necessary. It is not national security legislation. It does not have to be rushed through in a day. The tawdry programme motion would ram the Bill through in the space of five hours even though we would be radically altering people’s terms and conditions and their ability to work. That raises bigger questions about the direction of travel that this Government have taken.
As colleagues have said, the Government already want to remove people’s ability to protest and the ability of the Scottish Parliament, which is democratically elected, to vote. Tonight, they are seeking to block legislation that has been passed by two thirds of that Parliament, which has legislative competence. This Government are going in the wrong direction. Frankly, to respond to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), this makes the case for us. It is why we and the people of Scotland do not want to be a part of this absolutely crumbling democracy that has no legitimacy in Scotland.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am really grateful to those of you who have kept your remarks to well under three minutes; it is good.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a proud member of Unite the Union.
Politics costs money, and I am proud to be backed by organisations that represent the working class, rather than by the billionaires, oil and gas profiteers and big businesses that bankroll the Conservative party. They represent no one but themselves. There was a brief period in the pandemic when we all recognised who keeps our country running. It was not city bankers, hot-shot lawyers or big business executives; it was the people who drive our buses, sweep our streets, post our mail, teach our kids and nurse us back to health. Briefly, even Conservative Members thanked them. They called key workers “heroes” and clapped for them when the cameras were rolling. But as keyworkers knew, clapping does not pay the bills and, after a decade of falling wages, they could not go on. As the cost of living soars, workers are saying, “Enough is enough” and demanding a better deal. Of course, the Government’s line has changed. Conservative Members are now calling workers greedy and selfish. They have started pitting workers against each other, saying that railway staff should not get a pay rise if nurses do not, but that nurses were not allowed one either. Now they have stooped to an anti-worker Bill that threatens the civil liberties of us all.
This new law would see key workers such as nurses, railway workers, firefighters and teachers fired for going on strike—from clapping nurses to sacking nurses. The Government say that it is about safety, but that word is not mentioned even once in the pages of the Bill. They say it is about bringing us in line with other European nations, but Britain already has some of the most restrictive anti-union laws in the western world. No matter what they say, it is definitely not about resolving current disputes; it is only about inflaming tensions and making negotiations harder. What the Bill is really about is shifting the balance of power: weakening the power of workers and making it easier for bosses to exploit them and for the Government to ignore them.
I will finish with a message to those watching at home who are not sure about the strikes. If your pay is too low and your bills are too high, if you are struggling to make ends meet, and if you cannot get a doctor’s appointment, you are not alone. But the problem is not striking workers, immigrants, refugees, trans people or whoever the right-wing press are scapegoating today. The problem is this Tory Government, their 13 years of disastrous rule and the rigged economy they have built. Alongside record numbers of food banks, Britain has record numbers of billionaires, record profits for big businesses and record wealth for the top 1%. Let us bring together everyone who has had enough and, from the picket line to Parliament, let us fight for a better deal.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
I rise to speak as a proud trade unionist, which I have been since I was 16 and will be until the very end.
The Government do not care about patients, passengers, parents or the public. That is not what their minimum service levels Bill is about. It is a shameful attack on the democratic right to strike. At just six pages long, the Bill does not even set out the boundaries of what is permissible. They say that that will be decided later by the Secretary of State—not by Parliament—through regulation. Shockingly, it also gives the Government the power, without scrutiny, to override legislation made in the devolved legislatures of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. That is not democracy; it is government by diktat and authoritarianism writ large.
The Bill gives the Government the power to deny workers their fundamental basic human right to strike, allowing employers to bring injunctions to prevent strikes, sue unions and sack employees across the public sector—including in the NHS, transport, fire and rescue, and education—and undermining workers’ rights to a fair wage and improved terms and conditions. Strikes are a symptom, not the cause. Workers are being dragged into poverty and having to resort to strike action to make their voices heard, and this Government are trying to break them. From voter suppression and the attack on our right to protest to this anti-strike Bill, the Government intend to crush workers’ basic freedoms. Yet we live in a democratic society. Strike action is the tool of last resort and the best negotiating power workers have against unscrupulous and callous employers. The Bill seeks to erode the rights of trade unions to organise, and to drive fear through the very soul of workers who could lose their protection from dismissal.
Our trade union and employment rights legislation is already weak. For evidence of that, we have only to look to some of Leicester’s garment industry, where workers are still being paid less than the minimum wage, on zero-hours contracts, in Victorian workhouse conditions. No enforcement agency is able to break the scandalous mistreatment of workers who are fearful and whose powers have been weakened to near silence. In today’s Britain, not a single garment factory in Leicester will recognise a trade union.
In the same way, the Bill seeks obedience at the will of the state. It allows for the punishment of unions and workers who do not comply with a so-called work notice. The Bill is not about providing a basic level of service to the public; it is about breaking the growth of the trade union movement. The right to strike will be controlled by the state and permissible only on Government terms. To resist will mean to be liable to huge penalties.
The Bill is a threat to our basic rights. It is draconian, dehumanising and bullying. It is class war. For the sake of our hard-won freedoms, we must stand firm.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I proudly draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It should be recorded in this House that, in our country’s history of progress, it was the trade unions that ended child labour, it was the trade unions that made workplaces safer, and it was the trade unions that gained us holidays, maternity and paternity pay, paid sick leave, equal pay legislation, pensions, workplace anti-discrimination laws, and even the weekend. The Government would do well to remember that trade unions have made an immensely positive contribution to society. A strong trade union movement is the cornerstone of any healthy, functioning democracy and a more equal, fair and prosperous society. The good news is that trade union membership is on the rise, with a net increase of 200,000 members over the past three years and online inquiries to the TUC surging by 700% this summer. Organised labour is back and it is going absolutely nowhere.
Shocking leaked emails from this Government show that Ministers are deliberating on an outright ban on trade union membership and strike action, and even introducing further restrictions on the democratic right to withdraw labour. Why might that be? Striking workers in various sectors—from bus drivers to BT engineers—have won for themselves double-digit pay rises, as well as better conditions and an end to outsourcing, while public support for strike action is at an all-time high. Many trade union leaders are more popular than any Government Minister right now, in 2023.
The Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill says that it could mean that more action is taken more frequently, as a way to pressure employers. In rail, the Bill seems particularly short-sighted and even at odds with what many train operating companies want. What happens when, as Mick Whelan from ASLEF asked, 100% of passengers try to get on 40% minimum service level trains? Ultimately, the Bill will do nothing to help resolve disputes or support good industrial relations; in fact, it will do absolutely the opposite.
Last week, the Secretary of State told me that ILO common practice authorises minimum service levels, but he neglected to mention that the ILO imposes restraints on the circumstances in which such powers can be used, the antithesis of the blank cheque that the Bill will give him and other Ministers. This Government’s attempts to draw comparisons with minimum service levels in Europe wholly ignore the broader context of industrial relations across the continent, where there are far higher levels of collective bargaining agreements. In fact, I would say that these proposals are more akin to the practice in countries such as Singapore and Turkey, where strikes can be undermined at the whim of the Government. It is totally disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
The Bill will give Ministers extraordinary powers. Firefighters, nurses, teachers and the same key workers the Government have praised will find themselves liable to be prohibited from striking. It is unnecessary. We should not be back to the days of the Tolpuddle martyrs.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is half an hour before the wind-ups start and there are more than 10 Members wishing to speak, so do the maths. Please come within the three minutes in order to get everybody in.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group and my membership of the Unison Glasgow City branch.
The Government started with clapping workers on their doorsteps and they are ending with clapping them in irons. Each of the staff mentioned in this Bill worked hard to protect our communities through crisis after crisis, but if they now wish to protect their own families, they are being threatened with dismissal. The false respect shown to them for their dedication and commitment has now become the removal of their most fundamental human rights.
None of the countries that Government Members have mentioned—they have also mentioned the ILO—imposes these restrictions on balloting or these notification requirements for strike. If the Government want to be consistent about the ILO, let us bring back the Trade Union Act 2016 so that we can discuss those thresholds and restrictions.
Another problem with the Bill is arbitration. In Europe, there is a social partnership model, so workers and employers try to reach agreement on things, but the Bill’s proposals seek to remove the Central Arbitration Committee and turn co-operation into conflict. We are now being advised that this Secretary of State would be the sole arbiter—this Secretary of State whose arrogant and ignorant performance this afternoon showed us everything that we always suspected: the Government are clueless when it comes to industrial action. This is a Secretary of State who tweeted last year calling the weekend a non-strike day and he is to be the arbiter of this. As Denis Healy once said, there are some people who should be gobsmacked at birth.
Trade union activists could be used as a weapon, with them picked to be the ones attending work, so that they will be the ones challenged to cross a picket line, and if they do not do so, they will be dismissed. That is a completely disproportionate action. In Europe, the norm is that they would lose their pay, which would seem more proportionate than automatic dismissal, with no protection to take that matter forward to industrial tribunal. I will be fundamentally opposing this Bill today, tomorrow and any other day of the week.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am a member of Unison.
My constituent, Peter, died in February 2021. He was a proud railwayman. He lived in Leamington and he died of covid. He worked on the frontline through the pandemic. I saw him every week. Like many of the public, I was only able to get to my place of work because of people like Peter, Charlotte, Joe, Nick and others. Elsewhere, emergency service workers, healthcare workers and other frontline workers held this country together, and they are why I want to speak tonight.
We were urged to clap. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister partied. Emerging from the worst of the pandemic, these workers deserve not just our gratitude, but the right reward. The public understand that, and they want resolution to the disputes. They want due recognition for those workers, because the public also understand that, after 12 years of pay frozen or near frozen through austerity, they deserve better. The public know that for many, real wages have fallen since 2010. Nurses receive £5,000 less in real terms. We have the highest inequality of major nations in Europe.
The great irony is that this Government are incapable of meeting minimum standards or service, with the serial breaking of the ministerial code, two Prime Ministers breaking the law and a Government who illegally prorogued Parliament. The public know that this legislation is not necessary. It is a deliberate attempt to distract and to divide opinion, and a further attempt to erode workers’ rights. If Peter were still with us, he would be standing by his colleagues, and he would be striking. It is for Peter and for all those workers that I will be opposing this legislation.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a lifelong trade unionist and a proud member of the GMB and USDAW.
This is truly a winter of discontent visited on the country by the Conservative Government. Railway staff, posties, ambulance staff, bus drivers, border staff, highway workers and driving examiners are on strike, and, for the first time in their 106-year history, so are nurses. Rather than threatening hard-pressed workers, the Government should be sitting around the negotiating table and trying to secure a solution. I support the trade unions and colleagues at the TUC who work tirelessly day in, day out to make life better for working people.
The Bill is a mark of the Government’s failure: they have failed to engage in effective negotiation and now they think that they can legislate their way out of the mess that they have created. Clearly, this is about trying to divert attention. The Government know that the Bill is unworkable and impractical. The Transport Secretary admits that it will not work and the Education Secretary does not want it. It represents one of the most restrictive and interventionist attacks on the right to strike for generations. The Government’s proposals are simply undemocratic. The Bill is clearly not about public safety; as we have heard time and again, it does not mention safety once. We all want minimum standards of service and staffing in the NHS and on our railways, but Ministers are failing to provide it at all with their abdication of responsibility.
Collective bargaining is widely recognised as the most effective route for delivering sustainable pay increases; tackling inequality at work; and promoting investment in skills, training and productivity. Rather than adopting the worst practices from other countries, the Government should commit to improving workers’ rights by putting an end to exploitative fire and rehire tactics and promoting collective bargaining.
As a Labour Member of Parliament, I am proud to be working alongside our trade unions to secure a Labour Government, who would provide a new deal for working people and oppose any attempt to undermine trade unions or workers’ rights. A new Labour Government would repeal these measures and sign an employment Bill into law within the first 100 days. When in power, we will end the Tories’ strikes chaos with a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and Government, so that issues are resolved before strikes. Workers in Britain know that Labour is on their side, so let us have that general election and let us have it now. I will oppose the Bill tonight.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I join many of my hon. Friends in declaring an interest in the register. I am proud to be a member of Unite the union and to have spent more than 54 years of my life in the labour movement, fighting for workers on the shop floor as a steward and convenor, and across the north-west of England as a Unite regional secretary.
The Business Secretary sought to assure hon. Members that the Government will “always defend” workers’
“ability to withdraw their labour”.—[Official Report, 10 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 432.]
I can only conclude that, in his rush to steamroll the Bill through the Commons, he has neglected to read it, because it sets out to do the direct opposite—to deny working people their democratic right to engage in lawful and legitimate strike action.
Last week, I warned that the Government are attempting to achieve through legislation what they have been unable to secure in negotiations with the trade unions, but the Business Secretary is gravely mistaken if he believes that the Bill will put an end to the wave of industrial action that we are now witnessing. It is not a recipe for harmonious workplace relations, but the exact opposite. Indeed, this draconian response to the same key workers who Ministers applauded through the pandemic will only strengthen the strikers’ resolve while forcing unions to find more creative and disruptive ways to make their voices heard.
The Business Secretary must also understand that the labour movement is prepared to fight these proposals all the way through this House and in the other place, through the courts, and through workplaces all over the country. He believes that he can bully working people into submission; we will prove him wrong. Soon enough, the Government will find themselves in court having to explain how the Bill can be reconciled with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, not to mention convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation.
The legal minefield awaiting Ministers in the court of law is nothing compared with the reckoning that awaits them in the court of public opinion. The British public do not support this Bill. When they see the architects of austerity condemning frontline workers for striking for fair pay, they know whose side they are on. They recognise that the issues now driving ambulance drivers, nurses and firefighters to the picket line—from low pay to unsustainable workloads—are the same issues that they face in their own working lives, and they understand that strikes are not to blame for our broken rail network and overwhelmed hospitals. These strikes are not the cause but rather the symptom of a crumbling public sector that has been hollowed to its core by 12 long years of Tory cuts.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of Unite the union.
“The trade unions are a long-established and essential part of our national life. We take our stand by these pillars of our British society as it has gradually developed and evolved itself, of the right of individual labouring men to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike.”
They are not the words of a trade union giant, nor even of a Labour politician. They are the words of the late Winston Churchill, but today his own party intends to unashamedly deny workers the very fundamental rights that he believed in with a Bill that threatens key workers with the sack for simply exercising their right to raise the alarm on low pay, erosion of terms and conditions, and grave concerns over the safety and future of their sectors.
Worse still, the Government do this in the full knowledge that the provisions of the Bill are almost certainly illegal. That includes breaching the Human Rights Act 1998, the European convention on human rights, International Labour Organisation conventions and various other statutes. The Government shamefully claim that the reason behind this legislation is that NHS trade unions were not providing minimum service agreements on strike days. That just is not true. Our ambulance workers, like our nurses, have never gone on strike without first putting agreements for life-and-limb cover in place. It is therefore no surprise that the Government have refused to publish any required impact assessments. What is even more absurd is the notion that this Bill will somehow reduce the propensity for strike action. We only need to look back in history to know that such authoritarian legislation has the opposite effect.
Instead of introducing this Bill, the Government should be listening to the concerns of key workers and facilitating negotiations. Instead they seek to divide a nation and demonise, demoralise and even threaten to sack the very workforce who have tried to hold our country together. Returning to Winston Churchill, there are no Winston Churchills on the Government Benches today, and I have no doubt that he would be absolutely devastated and disgusted that his party is treating our workforce with such disdain.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was also a trade union lawyer for 10 years before being elected to Parliament.
This Bill comes in the context of an attack on the right to vote, an attack on the right to protest peacefully and, now, an attack on the democratic right to strike. I want to read out what Human Rights Watch said last week:
“In 2022, we saw the most significant assault on human rights protections… in decades”.
It went on to warn that
“fundamental and hard-won rights are being systematically dismantled.”
In the light of that, I want in the time I have to look at a few key provisions in the Bill, which is part and parcel of that authoritarian attack on our hard-won rights. The very first clause makes no bones about it. Clause 1 explicitly says that the Bill is about restricting
“the protection…to trade unions and employees in respect of strikes”.
Moving on to the schedule, it talks about the
“Power of Secretary of State to specify minimum service levels”.
The Bill does not specify what the minimum service levels should be, so we have to ask ourselves this question: do we think it is right to hand to the Secretary of State as an individual the power to make such decisions? What level of service requirement would be seen as going too far in the eyes of an anti-union, union-bashing, right-wing Conservative Secretary of State—40%, 60%, 85%, 90%—if there is some trouble in the Tory party, and they want to throw some red meat to their hard-right Back Benchers and party members? This should concern us all.
We then move on to the broad categories of the services covered. How will “education services” or “transport services” be interpreted? Very widely I expect. The Bill states that a work notice must
“identify the persons required to work during the strike and…specify the work required to be carried out”.
This is chilling authoritarianism. Workers who lawfully voted to strike will be ordered to go to work. That is chilling. Finally, work notices offer no protection if a union fails to take reasonable steps. That completely changes the role of trade unions. It is absolutely appalling. Trade union officials will be expected outside the workplace on picket lines, telling workers who voted lawfully to strike to go to work. That completely subverts and changes the role of trade unions and attacks them as institutions. This Bill is appalling—it needs to be dropped.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I stand as a proud trade unionist in solidarity with my constituents who are taking strike action, and with workers across the country. We are seeing widespread strikes in the public sector because of the abject failure of more than 12 years of Conservative government. The Government have pushed nurses, ambulance workers and other dedicated NHS staff to the brink. They are taking strike action not only on pay, but as part of their campaign for patient safety and, as they have told me, to save the national health service. The Government now want to repay them by threatening to sack them for doing so. My constituents have written to me to tell me that they are appalled. The Bill is a shameful attack on the rights of working people. Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, said:
“The introduction of minimum safety levels does not comply with the United Kingdom’s legal obligations under Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organisation on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
He is one of many who expect there to be legal challenges to the Bill.
Last October, the Government published the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, allowing minimum service levels to be introduced during strikes in certain transport services. It seems that that Bill has now been superseded by the one we are debating. In the European convention on human rights memorandum that accompanied the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, the Government set out why minimum service requirements would not apply to other sectors. Just a few months ago they were clear that “important factors” already existed in other sectors
“to mitigate the impacts of industrial action in those sectors on wider society.”
For example, in health, they pointed to the fact that unions include guidance to their members on their approach to life-and-limb arrangements. So why have Ministers changed their minds?
The Government now say that they are
“introducing this legislation to ensure that striking workers don’t put the public’s lives at risk.”
That is an insult to workers who kept the country running during the covid-19 pandemic, putting themselves at considerable risk. In particular, it is an insult to nursing unions and representative bodies that worked hard to ensure that there would be cover for urgent cases during their strike. As the TUC points out, the Bill is the Government’s
“latest attack on the right to strike”,
and I will be voting against it this evening.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud former employee of the University and College Union. I am also a proud member of Unite.
This Bill exposes this Tory Government’s contempt and disregard for working people, whose difficulties have been caused by them. Its purpose is to dismantle the trade union movement and workers’ rights, and it entrusts yet greater powers to the Government. It is authoritarian and an affront to democracy. The Bill does not establish minimum service levels for strikes. Those will follow in regulations, deprived of the proper scrutiny afforded to primary legislation. It does not ensure the safety of the public in times of industrial action—unions in relevant sectors already do that. So what is it for? As Mick Lynch of the RMT has said, this law is “a form of conscription” that would allow employers to choose how many striking employees they wanted to force to work.
The Conservatives have spent 12 years creating a low-pay Britain. Now that trade unions are effectively organising to lift people’s pay, the Tory party is concerned that it has lost control, and wishes to restore it. The Bill allows employers to sack individuals for participating in legitimate industrial action. It enables employers to sue trade unions for not forcing workers to cross the picket line, placing unions at risk of incurring significant costs that could cause the demise of trade unions. It will give enormous powers to the Secretary of State and to employers.
The Bill is also drafted without necessary detail or substance. There has been no consultation and no impact assessment. It is an imposition to weaken and even dismantle the trade union movement.
The UK Government are introducing a Bill that will overrule the powers and policies of the devolved Governments as the Welsh Government introduces a social partnership Bill. As Welsh Government’s Counsel General, Mick Antoniw, said:
“It is a fundamental attack on freedoms, and as Welsh Government we will give it no credence or support”.
Having sat in the Chamber and listened to all contributions intently, I must take issue with the myths propagated about, and vilification of, our key workers and trade unionists. All people want is fair, decent pay, terms and conditions and to protect our vital public services. Surely all of us in the Chamber should support that. I will oppose the Bill this evening.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I ask those who took part in the debate please to come to the Chamber for the wind-ups, which will begin no later than 9.40 pm.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would be worried if I did not—that would show that my constituency Labour party fundraising strategy had failed.
It is important that the Conservatives know this. We know what the motivation for the Bill is. Do not insult the intelligence of this House or the British people by saying that it has anything whatsoever to do with emergency measures. We have all negotiated those over the years—they have been in existence for decades, since the beginning of the trade union movement.
The motivations are these. First, the Bill is an attempt to try to threaten those in negotiations at the moment. Well, that has really worked: today, nine out of 10 teachers voted for industrial action. The second was the usual distraction. In the past, when Tory Governments were failing, they would usually create a war and send a gunboat. Mrs Thatcher then decided that the real enemy was within. We have heard that same language today of trade union “barons” holding the country to ransom—all of that. That is distraction. The real motivation is the one that they have had since the 1980s, which is to shift the balance of power from labour to capital and from workers to employers. That strategy has worked. It has worked so well that it has impoverished working-class people, and that is why they are coming out on strike. They cannot survive on the wages that they have got.
Labour Members will oppose the Bill in this House. There will be opposition in the other place as well. Labour will scrap the Bill as soon as we get into power. But I warn the Conservatives of this. The real opposition will not come in here; it will be out there. It will be from working people—trade unionists. When the first trade unionist is sacked and the first trade union is fined, the Government will foul the industrial relations of the country for a generation, and the people will be out there. I will be out there with them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to be a Unite and GMB member—I point to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—as well as the former head of health at Unite, negotiating level of service agreements. I have never heard such misinformation as I have in the House today. Amid an economic crash and public services on their knees, we know that the morale of working people on the frontline is at rock-bottom as they are stressed out of their minds and struggling with low pay. This reckless Bill not only impacts on them but sours industrial relations and does nothing to resolve disputes. In fact, it will stoke more strikes and push workers into working to rule. The Minister will then have a problem on his hands as he learns how much unpaid overtime working people give.
The strikes are the canary in the mine of the biggest retention crisis in the history of our public services. Ministers should heed those warnings before things get even worse. Tonight, I am proud that we are voting against this regressive legislation, because I would rather have clinicians and frontline workers negotiating safety agreements than Ministers in Whitehall, who are clearly so out of touch.
When it comes to the ambulance service, there are 10 trusts, and each one negotiates its safety levels, as does each hospital and each clinic. That is because there are different pressures on each one, and it is vital that each has a separate negotiation determined locally to ensure that services are safe locally, not dictated by Whitehall. All the Minister needs to do is aggregate those negotiations to achieve those safe working levels. “Life and limb” was set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—he can read it for himself—where there is an obligation to ensure that human life is saved.
We know what happens on strike days: they are safer than the rest of the time. Trains are not running, hospitals are not properly staffed and there are 133,000 vacancies in the NHS, yet on strike days Christmas day cover, essentially, is provided. Hospitals that were running red, ran green on strike days. Waits for the ambulance service were cut by 10%. They were safer for the public because frontline workers really care about their patients—that is why they are still working under such dreadful conditions.
This is a sham of a Bill, while there is still a need to put money on the table, to negotiate and to resolve these disputes. I say to the Government: stop walking away and stop playing games. Get back to work and get back to the negotiating table.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Geraint Davies, GMB, Swansea West constituency Labour party. [Laughter.]
The Tories have impoverished Britain and now working people who cannot afford to put food on the table, heat their bedrooms or pay their rent or mortgage, face a pay cut or the sack if they vote, along with over 50% of their trade union members, to defend their families, communities, towns and cities. It is an absolute disgrace. The Tories refuse to negotiate. They prefer disruption and chaos to cause political division. They just say, “Like it or lump it” unless, of course, you are a banker with a bonus, a crony with a contract or a donor with a dividend.
Our nurses witnessed thousands of their colleagues dying through a lack of personal protective equipment and, alongside that, billions of pounds given to Tory donors to provide that PPE. Nurses who spent their own money for three years to get a BSc now face a starting salary of £13.84 an hour, when they could start in McDonald’s for £12.25 without the stress and with the overtime.
The NHS faces long covid, more older people coming back from the EU, sicker people, and one in four people in poverty. It costs more to treat those people and there is much greater pressure on the system, yet the Tories turn their back and threaten NHS workers with a strike. The truth is that had the economy grown at the same rate as it did under the Labour Government, average wages would be £10,000 higher and we would not be facing this appalling situation. Instead, the Tories want strikes to create a diversion from that and to create a sort of Dickensian Britain where capital gains and labour loses.
The right to democratically vote to go on strike and not be sacked is a fundamental right. The Tories are torpedoing talks, whether on rail, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea or the nurses. They want to create strikes to cast blame, but frankly the public will not be fooled by their political attempt, in their authoritarian journey, to divide Britain. That is not who we are.
The Tories are isolating Britain. They are shaming Britain. They are dividing Britain. Britain deserves better. Britain deserves a Labour Government and a Labour Government will repeal this appalling draconian Bill.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me start by declaring my interests and my registrations as a trade union member.
This has been a hugely well-supported debate, with no fewer than 38 speeches from the Opposition Back Benches. As many of those speeches identified, there is certainly a pattern with this Government. When people began to protest in large numbers against their policies, they responded by making it harder to protest. When the polls turned and people made it clear they wanted to vote them out of office, they responded by making it harder to vote. Now, when paramedics, nurses, transport workers and many other professions decide, in desperation and as a last resort, to go on strike, rather than listen to them and negotiate, the Government are responding by making it harder to strike. Let me put it in simple terms for Conservative colleagues: “The problem isn’t them—it’s you.” The Conservative party has built this Britain of low pay, low resilience and insecurity, but instead of listening to the voices of the people most affected, Conservative Members have turned up today to try to take away their rights.
The Bill is not so much a proposal as an alibi. It is an attempt to deflect the blame for this country’s problems, particularly the condition of public services, away from the Government and on to the workforce themselves. It is a fairly transparent attempt to pretend that industrial action is the cause, rather than the symptom, of the poor state of public services. I think I speak for every Member on the Opposition Benches when I say that we reject that cynical attempt entirely. When we clapped key workers, we actually meant it. I can only imagine how they will feel watching this debate and having to listen to the people who crashed our economy, adding thousands to mortgage payments, giving them lectures now on pay restraint.
Imagine a police officer who has seen the Conservatives cutting the police so much that they can no longer respond to burglaries, a teacher struggling with class sizes and special educational needs and disabilities referrals, or a nurse on an understaffed ward in a busy NHS hospital this weekend. Imagine those workers hearing this Government having the audacity to talk today about minimum guaranteed levels of service. We have not had a minimum level of service from this Government for 13 long years. After 13 years of a Conservative Government, not a single public service is working better today than it was when the Conservatives came to power.
Even worse is what has happened to growth, productivity and wages in that time. Let us remember that we are not expecting to see UK wages return to 2008 levels until 2027. That is why times are so hard. That is why we are seeing so many people taking strike action—and that is despite the fact that in the UK it is actually quite hard to go on strike. We do not have a legal framework that allows industrial action to happen lightly.
Even so, many of the strikes that we have seen recently could have been avoided. Nurses have never been forced to strike in this country—until now. The offer to halt strike action before Christmas was made. All that was needed was negotiation. We needed the Government to listen, to negotiate, to work through the problems, to compromise and to lead, but that is not how this Government operate. Instead we have this Bill. As we have heard from so many of my hon. Friends today, its proposals are unnecessary, unethical and unworkable. In the brief time that I have, I will address each point in turn.
First, this legislation is unnecessary and is likely to make industrial disputes worse. Minimum service levels are not a recipe for industrial stability. What I find so abhorrent about the Bill is the assumption it makes about working people. We have heard it so many times today: the assumption that striking workers do not care about the people who rely on their services or the patients they are nursing back to health. That is completely wrong. As every one of my hon. Friends has said, in essential sectors we already see minimum service agreements being voluntarily negotiated. We have seen viral videos of workers leaving picket lines to implement those voluntary agreements. Where national agreements are not made, such as with the ambulance service, it is because they are done on a local basis, reflecting local circumstances. What this legislation will do is undermine the good will and good faith that are essential to making minimum service levels work.
We have also heard a repeated claim that the Bill will simply bring us in line with other European countries—remarkably, it seems that the Conservatives have finally found an area in which they see the advantages of common European alignment. But those countries combine their laws with much stronger employment rights, including collective bargaining, and these measures are part of that package. More than 95% of employees in France are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Additionally, it is still a poor argument because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said, France has lost almost six times as many days to strikes as the UK in recent times. In Spain the figure is more than double, and minimum service levels there have led to protracted legal battles, further prolonging disputes, not solving them. The evidence is compelling, if we look for it, that this approach is flawed.
Secondly, these measures are unethical. The scope of the Bill is huge, affecting as many as 6 million workers. Whether we agree or disagree with the merits of any one particular strike action, the right to strike is a fundamental right that every one of us has, except in the specific circumstances applying to occupations such as the armed forces. So many Conservative speakers have said today that they support that right, as long as the strike in question has no impact. That is meaningless. Conservatives used to worry about the power of the state over the individual, but we have not heard much of that today—and, crucially, the Conservative party has no mandate for this, because the manifesto commitment mentioned only the transport sector. That is likely to be a significant issue in the House of Lords.
Finally, these plans are unworkable. They will start a torrent of legal claims and counter-claims as people understandably resent the direction that the Government have taken and seek to challenge it. They will also prolong disputes by preventing workers from making the point that industrial action is designed to make.
The Business Secretary said something revealing in his opening statement: he said that he hoped he would never have to use these powers. In other words, this is all for show. It is a weak attempt by the Government to say that they are doing something when they are not doing anything to address the underlying causes. All the Members who will vote for the Bill tonight must be praying that its provisions are indeed never activated, because if the Government ever do use it, the net result will be teachers, doctors, nurses, firefighters and more turning up at Conservative Members’ surgeries or standing outside their offices, asking their MPs if they really do want to sack them. Has the Conservative party really thought this through? Is that how we will improve public services, and address the recruitment problems of which we are all aware? The truth is that the Conservatives have gone from clapping workers to sacking workers in just three short Prime Ministers.
These proposals strike me as the last gasps of a Government who are at the end of their tether. This is not a serious proposal to resolve the industrial action that the UK is experiencing. I repeat that it is a sideshow, it will not work, and in fact it is likely to make things even worse. Above all, it completely fails to recognise what every good business knows: that the biggest asset any organisation has is its people, and when those people are driven to extremes and are going on strike in record numbers, we simply have to listen to them. Look at the turnouts in the ballots, and at the strength of the votes that have taken place. We do understand that: there were no nurses’ strikes under the last Labour Government, and there are no rail strikes in Wales under the Welsh Labour Government.
Our plans will address the workforce problems in the NHS with revenue from ending the non-dom rule. Our plans for energy security, industrial strategy and making Brexit work will get the economy growing again, and we will put good jobs and good work at the heart of those plans. The simple truth is this: the Government cannot end these strikes because 13 years of Conservative Government are the cause of these strikes. The sooner they make way for the people who can build the fairer, stronger, more prosperous and more secure country that Britain could be, the better it will be for everyone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
I thank the Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate.
The clear objective of the Bill is to protect the lives and livelihoods of the public by enabling minimum service levels to be applied to our vital public services during strikes. It does not ban the right to strike. It finds the right balance, which was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra)—who made some important points about the needs of business—and my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for Southend West (Anna Firth) and for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti).
Let me turn to some of the other points raised today. Like others on both sides of the House, I pay tribute and express our gratitude to our public sector key workers. That point was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who have vast experience of working in the public sector. I have my own personal experience, as my mother worked in the public sector all her life—a life worked to rehabilitate offenders. I am aware of the contribution that public sector workers make to our society.
The deputy leader of the Opposition seeks to blame this Government alone for the challenging times we face, but she seems conveniently to forget that we are still not free from the after-effects of the covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I was very interested in a point she raised in her speech, when she said, “We would have resolved this dispute long ago.” At what figure? Would it have been 11% across the public sector? That would have cost the taxpayers of this country £28 billion. That is £1,000 per household per annum. Maybe the leader of the Opposition will reflect on that now that he is here, obviously having had a call from his union paymasters.
Members ask why the Government are focusing on legislating and not resolving the disputes. The Government recognise the pressure of the cost of living on people. That is why we have committed to halving inflation and growing the economy, and why we have provided £26 billion to support individuals and businesses. We are investing billions more in schools, the NHS and social care. All that supports workers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) is right to highlight the devastating impact of strikes on the economy—£6 billion, including £2.5 billion of lost income to the hospitality sector alone. That is why Ministers across Government have been meeting unions to resolve the disputes where it is possible to do so.
Sarah Owen
The Minister talks about the cost of strike action, but will he agree about the cost of the damage that the previous Prime Minister and the previous Chancellor did to our country and all the taxpayers and workers who we on the Opposition Benches are supporting today?
Kevin Hollinrake
I would highlight the downward pressure already placed on inflation, the changes to the money markets following the action taken by our Chancellor and Prime Minister and the stability being delivered through their future plan.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will shortly. Ministers across Government have been meeting unions to resolve the disputes where it is possible to do so. It is obviously apparent that unions exist to represent union members. Apparently, from today’s debate, so does the Labour party. The shadow Cabinet alone has received £350,000 since 2019. It is important to reflect on those figures. We need to have the confidence that when workers strike, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at risk, so we need the power to act. That is why this legislation is needed. The public expect us to act. It is no wonder that YouGov polling for The Times published last week found that 56% of voters support this legislation and only 31% are against it.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister will know that under this Bill it is possible for the Government to designate workers to perform under a contract when they have voted to go on strike. Will he at least give an assurance that there will be no attempt by any Secretary of State to designate a union official to break a strike that they have encouraged their union members to be involved in?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will deal with work notices later in my speech, but it is clear that it is up to employers to decide what workers are needed on certain days, and there is no discrimination between people who are union members and people who are not. That is very clear in the legislation. Hon. Members have questioned the sectors within the Bill. The sectors in scope of the Bill are justified as these sectors are where strike action causes disproportionate disruption to the general public.
Mr Gagan Mohindra
The Minister is making an excellent summing up, as always. Could he reaffirm that public opinion is with this side of the House rather than with the Opposition?
Kevin Hollinrake
I think that the polling is very clear. We have heard precious little about what the public think of this. We heard a lot about the impact on public sector workers, but the public themselves are with us on this legislation.
The Government have already announced their intention to consult on the application of minimum service levels for rail, ambulance and fire services. I welcome Members’ questions and suggestions on how minimum service levels will operate in specific services, and I note in particular the helpful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I look forward to the contribution of key stakeholders and experts during the consultation process. The Government will also engage with the devolved Administrations during the consultation process. The Government have been clear, however, that we may choose not to use the regulation-making powers in the Bill if adequate voluntary arrangements, where necessary, are already in place between employers in a relevant sector.
This legislation also equips employers to manage instances where a worker takes strike action despite being named to work on a strike day. It is at the discretion of employers as to what action, if any, is taken, and we hope that employers are fair and reasonable. The claim that it is a policy of this Government to sack workers is an unfair exaggeration.
I want to touch on the international examples, mentioned in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). The concept of minimum service levels is not new. They are used all over the world, including in the USA, Canada and a number of European countries including Spain and Italy. We all want to see an end to these strikes.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
No, we still have another two and a bit minutes to run, so I am using my discretion not to accept that.
Kevin Hollinrake
In response to questions regarding the consistency of this legislation with the UK’s—
David Linden
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
The House proceeded to a Division.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said that it will cost the Government £28 billion to settle the dispute with our public service workers. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that it will actually cost the public a significantly lower figure, £14 billion, to meet the public sector demands. Is there a way in which we can get the Minister to correct the record on the Floor of the House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of any speeches, be they ministerial or Back-Bench contributions, but it is well evidenced that if any Member finds out that they have unwittingly misled the House, they must correct the record at the earliest possible opportunity.
Business without Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 to 8 together.
Ordered,
European Statutory Instruments Committee
That Richard Thomson be discharged from the European Statutory Instruments Committee and Peter Grant be added.
Procedure Committee
That Bambos Charalambous be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Tonia Antoniazzi be added.
Select Committee on Statutory Instruments
That Richard Thomson be discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and Peter Grant be added.
Treasury Committee
That Alison Thewliss be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Douglas Chapman be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
Cancer Outcomes: Tees Valley
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I would like to open my remarks tonight by paying tribute to the late Professor Stephen Bonner, whose obituary features in The Times today. Professor Bonner delivered marvellous service to the people of Teesside in his various roles delivering critical care at James Cook University Hospital, including the major expansion in the number of our intensive care and high dependency beds and his astonishing success in making James Cook the best place for junior doctors and student nurses to train in intensive care in 2016. It is entirely fitting that in a debate on health services in the Tees Valley we should recognise his enormous contribution to our lives locally. So many of my constituents have reason to be grateful to him. Professor Bonner’s obituary tragically relates:
“With their sons growing up, Bonner and his wife planned for a gradual retirement, but just as he was about to put the plan into action he received a diagnosis of inoperable bowel cancer. Bonner had spent decades improving the system, but the bowel screening test that would have diagnosed the cancer early…had been cancelled during the pandemic.”
That brings me squarely back to the subject of this debate and the particular importance of cancer screening, because ultimately that is at the heart of making sure we improve cancer care nationally as well as locally on Teesside.
A cancer diagnosis is news none of us ever wants to receive, but the reality is that someone in the UK does every 90 seconds. One in two of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in our lives. Even those of us not directly affected will undoubtedly have family members and friends who are. Some of the most emotional conversations I have had with constituents have been about the struggles faced by loved ones supporting relatives in their final weeks.
The scale of the challenge posed by cancer is particularly acute in the Tees Valley. The north-east of England has the highest age standardised cancer rate of any English region for both men and women. The incidence rate for female patients is 15% higher than in London, which is the region with the lowest incidence. The difference for male patients who experience higher incidence rates overall is more than 8% higher than the best performing region. The Tees Valley’s industrial heritage is, I am afraid, yielding a grim harvest. There are particular challenges with regard to historic exposure to environmental carcinogens resulting in higher rates of lung cancer and myeloma in particular.
My home area is now at the forefront of progress on much of what is good about the Government’s levelling-up programme under the leadership of Ben Houchen, but the legacy issues persist from our very challenging economic past and the deep deprivation our area continues to suffer from. Smoking and obesity rates are higher than the national average. That context at the very least contributes to Middlesbrough being ranked 140th out of 150 local authorities for premature cancer deaths by Public Health England.
The good news is that thanks to research, many more people are either beating cancer or living much longer with cancer. Macmillan estimates that in 2020, 3 million people across the UK were living with cancer. That is forecast to rise to some 5.3 million by 2040. Median cancer survival has improved hugely as a result of advances in diagnosis and treatment, but there is a lot further to go. We ought to pay tribute at this point to the fantastic effort of those individuals and community groups who are touched by this horrible disease and have decided to make a positive difference to the challenge they have faced. I refer here to Guisborough-raised jockey Bob Champion, who has done a huge amount through the Bob Champion Cancer Trust. He has raised some £12 million over the last 30 years.
On a smaller and more local scale, I pay particular tribute to Claire Starsmore and the amazing East Cleveland Pink Ladies, who have raised £131,000 for Cancer Research UK over the past decade in memory of their much-loved friend Jacqui Hampton. The annual Pink Ball is one of the highlights of the East Cleveland social calendar—I am very much looking forward to attending the 10th version in November, which is firmly in my diary. That kind of event makes the cancer fight very personal and very tangible.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am pleased that another Tees MP is so engaged with the subject. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Professor Bonner for all his work for people in my constituency as well as in his own.
The right hon. Gentleman has already recognised the importance of the early diagnosis of cancer and other diseases to tackling health inequalities in his constituency and mine. Will he join me in congratulating North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council on their joint campaign over many years to secure a diagnostic centre for our new-look town centre, which was confirmed by the Minister earlier today?
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: this is a subject that crosses party boundaries and constituency boundaries. The contribution of everyone who has fought to ensure that we deliver the best possible cancer care across Teesside is undoubtedly to be applauded. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks about what the Government’s pioneering work to deliver community diagnostic centres will bring to the Tees valley.
I referred a moment ago to the Pink Ball. On the same note, I pay tribute to Councillor Craig Holmes of Skelton West in my constituency, who has raised thousands of pounds for cancer charities through events including the annual Minersfest, an extraordinary music festival in East Cleveland, at which you would always be welcome, Mr Deputy Speaker. Such efforts are incredible tributes—in this case, a tribute to Craig’s mum Alison, who sadly lost her battle with cancer in 2013—and bring huge enjoyment to thousands of local people.
There is much more that we need to do to reduce the average of 460 deaths per day from cancer in the United Kingdom. One of the strongest predictors of cancer outcomes is how early a diagnosis is made and treatment is started. It is estimated that for every week earlier that the treatment of cancer commences, the chance of five-year survival increases by at least 1.5%, so it makes a material difference.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
May I share in the warm words of tribute to Professor Bonner from the right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour? Like me, he is very much aware of the superb, world-class work that goes on at the James Cook University Hospital’s oncology department. It has six linear accelerators with a lifespan of about 10 years, but half of them are now reaching the end of their natural life, and as they break down they are becoming less efficient. Does he share my plea to the Department of Health and Social Care and the Treasury to ensure that the necessary funding is made available to the James Cook University Hospital and the trust to carry on their vital, life-saving work for our constituents across Teesside and beyond?
Mr Clarke
I echo what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of ensuring that our equipment is absolutely the best it can be. I had the privilege of seeing the new equipment at the James Cook’s interventional radiology department before Christmas, which was incredibly impressive. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that such investment is vital to ensuring that once treatment commences, people can get the best possible care.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is being staggeringly generous in giving way; it is noted and appreciated. The technology is important, but what is also important is where it is. I echo the call for linear accelerators to be up-to-date so that radiotherapy treatment is as up-to-date as possible. That is incredibly important, but the National Radiotherapy Advisory Group also says that nobody who needs radiotherapy should have to travel for more than 45 minutes to get it. Areas a little more rural than Middlesbrough may face lengthy journeys; there is nobody at all in Westmorland who lives within 45 minutes of our nearest radiotherapy centre. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that having satellite units, with linear accelerators placed away from the main centre—for us, that would be in Kendal—would be one way of ensuring that people in more remote and rural communities get the treatment they need so that their life can be longer?
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Representing East Cleveland as I do, I have some insight into the challenges of distance in rural areas. Bringing care to people to the greatest extent possible and commensurate with the challenges is vital, particularly for things like screening.
That leads me neatly to a point raised by Mr Jonathan Ferguson, the consultant lung surgeon at the James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough and clinical cancer lead for South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. He has done much to bring to my attention the fantastic work that is already going on in the Tees Valley to increase early diagnoses. Much of that work is clearly led by him, although he is far too modest to say so. Jonathan is a linchpin of our local healthcare system, and a hugely impressive consultant. In the light of the impact of covid, this progress is more vital than ever. Macmillan estimated that by March last year there were still at least 37,000 fewer cancer diagnoses than expected as a result of the disruption caused by the pandemic. It is clearly vital for us to address that.
Over the last 12 months, Mr Ferguson has been the driving force for the new targeted lung health check programme in the Tees Valley. That region-wide service is now up and running, identifying curable cancers that would otherwise have been undetected for longer through effective collaboration between local NHS teams and an independent-sector diagnostic specialist. This approach has identified a curable cancer every two days, which is fantastic, through scanners operating 12 hours a day, seven days a week, from mobile units—a subject raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—in supermarket car parks, with the facility operating at a 97% occupancy rate, which is wonderful. The facility is staffed and appointments are managed by the independent partner, with target patients identified through NHS records and an initial telephone questionnaire.
This enables our brilliant local NHS teams to focus on treating patients and tackling the backlogs, which we know will allow them to deliver great results. The superb clinicians at the James Cook University Hospital have an excellent track record of innovating to improve patient care, with recent initiatives including the Macmillan-supported thoracic surgery community nursing programme, which won the Nursing Times award for the best surgical nursing team. It has reduced both the length of hospital stays and readmission rates for patients following thoracic surgery. Many of those are, of course, lung cancer patients.
It is exciting to hear the proposals for a new Tees Valley diagnostic hub in Stockton, which I think the Minister will say more about in her speech—I look forward to that. It was originally not expected to welcome patients until 2025, but it has been fast-tracked and is now expected to open much sooner. Mr Ferguson believes passionately that opening the hub this year would
“save more lives on Teesside than I have throughout my surgical career”,
so we should all welcome it warmly, given the practical difference it will make on the ground.
I know it is a mission of this Government to ensure that we address health disparities, and there is probably nowhere in England where a greater difference can be made than on Teesside. I am joined tonight by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), and we are all very grateful for the action that the Government have taken.
When we are looking at our future options, we should bear in mind that the more we can do with the private sector as well to increase our capacity, the better. Through what he has been doing with his supermarket car park screening, Mr Ferguson has shown the value of such partnerships in unlocking extra capacity. I urge the Government to look at all the options to ensure that we can get the maximum number of people through the system, receiving the care that they need through all parts of our healthcare system.
Coupled with last week’s exciting announcement about the cancer vaccines trial partnership between the Department of Health and Social Care and BioNTech—which could allow eligible patients in England early access to revolutionary personalised mRNA therapies through trials as soon as next autumn—are the Government’s significant steps to give cancer patients improved chances of survival, and to give families and friends more precious time to spend together. I know that colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in welcoming those efforts, which will make an enormous difference to our constituents.
This is a practical and tangible debate on an issue that touches nearly every family at some point. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that cancer outcomes across Teesside continue to improve in the way that has been so encouraging to us all so far.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Helen Whately)
Let me begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) for securing this debate. He has been working hard to make sure that his constituents get faster diagnosis and better treatment for cancer. He mentioned working together with his constituents on the clinical side, doing tremendous work to lead efforts to diagnose and care for people in his area, as well as fundraising. I heard him mention the Pink Ball, which sounds tremendous. I pass on many congratulations to all those involved and commend them for their work.
As my right hon. Friend said, many people are affected by cancer, whether due to a diagnosis themselves or somebody they are close to. Many people have therefore lived through that difficult experience of waiting to hear whether they will be diagnosed with cancer, or have the all-clear after being referred for testing. For patients with cancer, it is quite simple: faster diagnosis saves lives. That is why this Government are helping the NHS recover and transform health services in the aftermath of the pandemic, with a particular focus on the earlier diagnosis of cancer.
I will talk a little about what we are doing nationally, but I will focus on my right hon. Friend’s constituency. He mentioned the high prevalence of cancer in his constituency and the wider Tees Valley. To give a sense of the scale, in 2020, there were just under 4,000 cancer diagnoses in the Tees Valley, so that gives a sense of the number of people who could benefit from faster diagnosis, which we know can improve outcomes. There is more that we can and should do to prevent people, both nationally and in the Tees Valley, from developing cancer in the first place, such as policies that help people maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle and stop smoking, and promoting the uptake of the HPV vaccine, particularly in groups where coverage is lower.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister mentioned my magic word—smoking. Could she give us some indication of when the Government will bring forward the tobacco control plan? She recognises, as I do, that in the most deprived inner-city communities the incidence of smoking is higher and lung cancer is higher as a result. I would be interested to know what plans she has to bring that forward.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to pick up on what I said about the importance of supporting people to stop smoking, but for the sake of this Adjournment debate I will focus on responding to my right hon. Friend’s speech, particularly looking at cancer diagnostic services.
We want to level up diagnostic services for cancer around the country so that people with symptoms of potential cancer can receive an accurate diagnosis and begin treatment as quickly as possible. That is part of our ambition to reduce health disparities in more deprived areas, such as some areas in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, and to improve early-stage cancer diagnosis rates for all. A key part of improving early diagnoses is ensuring that people come forward when they suspect that they have cancer.
Sadly but understandably, during the pandemic we saw the number of urgent referrals for cancer fall, but it is positive that in the North East and North Cumbria integrated care board over 13,000 patients had their first consultation appointment following an urgent GP referral in November last year. That is an 18% increase from November 2020 during the pandemic, and nearly a 20% increase on the figures for November 2019 prior to the pandemic. That indicates that in the Tees Valley, as we are seeing across the country, people are coming forward to be diagnosed or discover that they have the all-clear from cancer, which is the case for most people.
In a moment I will talk about our innovative new community diagnostic centre programme, but first I want to highlight some of the other things we are doing to improve the early diagnosis of cancer. One important innovation is introducing the serious non-specific cancer pathway, which Tees Valley has successfully implemented. This means that GPs can refer patients into the service when there are possible symptoms of potential cancer, or someone has a gut feeling that something is not right. That is especially important for patients who do not fit specific pathway referral criteria but whose symptoms are more generic.
In addition, Tees Valley has initiated a programme of targeted lung health checks aimed at people aged between 55 and 74. My right hon. Friend referred to that and the impact that it is having. It is anticipated that the programme will result in around 530 diagnoses of lung cancer over the next four years. In deprived areas of Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Darlington, clinicians are taking part in a trial to assess the benefit of the new GRAIL test that looks for signs of cancer in a sample of blood. This is hugely exciting as it can identify cancer where no symptoms are even present, allowing for earlier diagnosis.
However, the waiting list for diagnostic tests in England currently stands at over 1.59 million patients, with around 26% of those patients waiting more than six weeks. In the North East and Yorkshire region, the waiting list for diagnostic tests has over 200,000 patients, with just over 20% of those waiting more than six weeks. These are figures that we very much want to improve because, as I have said, earlier diagnosis can mean better outcomes. We want to get to the point where 95% of patients needing a diagnostic test receive it within six weeks by March 2025. Equally, early-stage cancer diagnosis is a key ambition of the NHS long-term plan, which aims to ensure that 75% of cancers are identified at stage 1 or stage 2.
Tim Farron
What the Minister says about the waiting time for diagnostics is very troubling. What is even more troubling is that in my part of Cumbria 43% of people who have had a diagnosis of cancer are now waiting more than two months for their first treatment. In North Cumbria and Northumberland, the figure is 62%. Can she say what she is going to do to speed up treatment for those people who have had a diagnosis of cancer?
Helen Whately
Yes of course. More people coming through for referral for cancer diagnosis and increased early rates of diagnosis feed through into us needing to increase the rates of treatment. The NHS is treating more people for cancer, but of course this is taking time because of the increased levels of referrals. We are working very hard to do this.
I want to return to talking particularly about cancer diagnosis and what we are doing to do that earlier, and specifically about the community diagnostic centres that are being rolled out across the country supported by £2.3 billion of capital investment. Local health systems can bid for a share of that funding when they make the case for community need and clinical value, and I am delighted to say that 89 community diagnostic centres are currently operational across the country. Hard-working NHS staff have so far delivered more than 2.7 million additional checks at these centres. Specifically in the Tees Valley, I know that my right hon. Friend has been working with his local NHS to support its proposal for a new diagnostic centre in Stockton-on-Tees, and I can update him with the good news that this new site has been approved, with a planned opening date of December 2023.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Can I thank the Government for this fantastic investment in my part of the town? It will save lives. Also, importantly, can I thank the Government for challenging us locally to deliver it more quickly so that we can save more lives more quickly and make a bigger difference to the community? Thank you very much. We are going to do our best.
Helen Whately
It is good to be able to talk about good news. As my hon. Friend says, his area is not only getting a community diagnostic centre but getting it quicker because the timeframe for doing it has been brought forward. That is tremendous, and I look forward to his area achieving that later this year. It is great that we have been able to announce the date when it will open.
The new Castlegate site for the Tees Valley community diagnostic centre is planned for construction on the Castlegate shopping centre site as part of the local regeneration project. There are excellent transport links, which means that it will be accessible to the whole community. It is important to make these places accessible in order to get people to come forward for testing and screening. This will be the latest addition to the 14 existing community diagnostic centres in the North East and Yorkshire region and the four hub-and-spoke sites in the Tees Valley area, which have so far delivered over 250,000 tests.
Helen Whately
I want to respond to the other comments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who also raised the important role that the independent sector has to play in meeting the needs of patients. Last month, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care launched the elective recovery taskforce, bringing together academics and healthcare experts to advise the Government on how best to unlock capacity in the independent sector to reduce waiting times. The independent sector is also helping us directly to tackle the diagnostic backlog, providing additional capacity in underserved communities and forming productive partnerships with the NHS to run community diagnostic centres.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) asked about effective treatment, and I am pleased to say that the NHS has treated a record number of people for cancer in the last year, with more than 321,000 people receiving their first cancer treatment between December 2021 and November 2022, which is up by more than 10,000, or 3%, on the same period pre-pandemic. Within the North East and North Cumbria ICB, 1,690 patients started their first treatment for cancer in November 2022. The number has recovered following the pandemic—the equivalent figure for November 2019 is 1,652.
The NHS continues to offer cutting-edge treatments, including newly developed drugs and radiotherapy. Just a week or so ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signed a memorandum of understanding with BioNTech to bring innovative vaccine research to England, with the potential to transform outcomes for early-stage and late-stage cancer patients.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland for raising this important issue and for his continued commitment to improving cancer care in the north-east and Tees valley region. I encourage him to continue his excellent work with his local NHS system, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and the NHS as we meet the challenge of reducing diagnostic waiting times and improving cancer outcomes.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2023.
The draft order was laid before the House on 22 November 2022; I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate it. The order is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to devolution. It is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for legislative provision to be made where it is necessary or expedient in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
In this case, the draft order contains amendments to section 26(1) of the Transport Act 1985, as a consequence of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. Those provide new powers to the traffic commissioner to impose public service vehicle licence conditions on operators who fail to discharge obligations imposed on operators under the 2019 Act and this order.
The 2019 Act is also a multi-topic piece of legislation that was designed to deliver a more responsive and sustainable transport system for everyone in Scotland. The Act makes provision in a range of areas, such as pavement parking, roadworks, workplace parking licensing, smart metering, low emission zones and bus services, the latter three of which are the genesis of the draft order. The Act also empowers local authorities and establishes consistent standards in a range of areas to tackle current and future challenges for transport in Scotland.
I will now explain the effect of the order and the provision that it will make. It will permit the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Joint Air Quality Unit to share vehicle information to relevant Scottish bodies to enable the operation and enforcement of low emission zones.
The order will make provision updating the enforcement regime for the competition test under section 37 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. That will ensure that it applies to a Scottish local transport authority’s functions in relation to bus service improvement partnerships. This replaces the quality partnership model that was introduced in the 2001 Act. The amended enforcement regime will also apply to the making and varying of ticketing schemes made under the 2001 Act after the amended regime comes into force.
The order will make equivalent provision to that made under part 2 of schedule 10 to the Transport Act 2000 to apply a bespoke set of rules to certain agreements, decisions and practices made pursuant to bus service improvement partnerships, in place of the chapter 1 prohibition under the Competition Act 1998.
Furthermore, the order will make provision to ensure that the rights and protections afforded by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006—known as TUPE—will apply to employees who are affected when local services franchising is introduced in an area in Scotland. That includes provision allowing local transport authorities to request certain employee information from bus operators. In connection with that, the order will ensure that pension protection applies to circumstances that are to be treated as “relevant transfer” for the purposes of TUPE, when local services franchising is introduced in an area of Scotland.
Although certain transport matters are devolved to Scotland, I am pleased to support the important legislation through this Scotland Act order on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair of the Committee, Mr Hollobone. We support this draft statutory instrument. As the Minister said, it makes provision to support the enforcement of low emission zones and amends conditions for bus franchising.
Scotland played host to the COP26 conference in Glasgow in 2021, where the UK and others rightly made commitments on getting to net zero. If we are going to reach those goals, as we simply must, low emission zones have to be part of that across the UK. In Holyrood, Labour laid amendments during the progress of the 2019 Act to speed up the process of implementing LEZs and ensure that local authorities did not drag their feet. Has the Minister had discussions with the Scottish Government and local authorities to ensure that LEZs are implemented as intended?
My Labour colleagues in Holyrood successfully amended that Bill to lift the ban on councils running bus services, and thank goodness they did, because bus services in Scotland have deteriorated under the current model. In fact, even before covid, the number of bus journeys in Scotland had fallen by almost a quarter over the past decade—a drop of 107 million journeys.
The quality of bus services is particularly important, because people who use buses often rely on them. People earning less than £15,000 a year are the largest users of buses in Scotland, while 58% of users are women. Analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded that those living in low-income neighbourhoods in Scotland have their employment opportunities limited by unaffordable and unreliable public transport. What discussions has the Minister had with Scottish Government Ministers on ensuring that bus services are available and on time for those who need them?
The order allows employment and pension rights to be protected when franchises change, but, at the same time, the UK Government are introducing legislation to rip up the rights of workers across Britain. Does the Minister think that clapping for frontline workers is compatible with destroying their ability to fight for the pay they deserve?
I appreciate the Minister laying this statutory instrument before Parliament. As I said, we will support it so that we can make much needed progress towards net zero and improving bus services in Scotland.
John Lamont
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her valuable contribution. She asked a number of questions about the order and discussions that the Government have had with the Scottish Government and councils. The important point is that this is an enabling piece of legislation. It is up to local authorities to decide the location of LEZs, for example, and other measures that are being introduced. The intention is not for the order to prescribe those measures, but it will allow local authorities to implement them across Scotland.
The hon. Lady made a number of points on bus services. As a bus user, I very much recognise what she said about the importance of bus services and their availability. Again, that matter is devolved to the Scottish Government. I know from my constituency that the council’s work with local bus providers is key to ensuring that buses are more readily available and that local people are encouraged to use them more than they perhaps have.
The hon. Lady spoke about the legislation going through the House on strikes. The Government are unapologetic about our commitment to ensuring that key services are protected. Strikes should not deprive people of access to NHS services, including ambulances and other critical services on which our constituents are entirely dependent. It is right that the Government can take the action that we are taking to protect those services and our constituents. I am disappointed that she does not agree with those aspirations.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
The Minister must have convinced Scottish National party Members so brilliantly that they have not turned up to this Committee today. Would that be the case, or are they just not interested in devolution in Scotland?
John Lamont
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s important point. It is noticeable that there is no Scottish National party representative at this Committee. An hon. Member was named to attend, but they are not here. That speaks volumes about the party’s commitment to the measure and this extension of devolution powers.
To conclude, the draft order is an example of Scotland’s two Governments—the Scottish Government and this United Kingdom Government—working together for the betterment of Scotland. The order also demonstrates this Government’s commitment to strengthening the devolution settlement and delivering for the people of Scotland; I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I welcome the massive and unprecedented increase in the monitoring of illegal sewage discharges, and in particular the welcome steps taken by some water companies for live monitoring so that people can see in real time where sewage is being put into our rivers illegally?
Rebecca Pow
That is yet another measure that has been put in place. There is a requirement now for water companies to report all discharges from storm sewage overflows with dates and deadlines, but some water companies have gone over and above. They already have that in place and some companies, in particular around the coast, are reporting annually.
[Official Report, 12 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 686.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow).
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).
The correct response should have been:
Rebecca Pow
That is yet another measure that has been put in place. There is a requirement now for water companies to report all discharges from storm sewage overflows with dates and deadlines, but some water companies have gone over and above. They already have that in place and some companies, in particular around the coast, are reporting daily.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and your officers for allowing the time for this very important session; it is appreciated. When we met here in December, I asked the Environment Secretary if she had met water bosses to tackle the Tory sewage scandal that has had turned Britain into an open sewer. We are facing huge water leaks, drought and sewage pumping out across the country, and not a single English river free of pollution. Yet it was not seen as a priority that she clean up her own mess, because as a previous Environment Minister she literally opened the floodgates. Now she has finally met water bosses, can she say what firm commitments have been secured to finally end the Tory sewage scandal?
Rebecca Pow
I have been meeting regularly with water companies, as has the Secretary of State. In fact, we had a joint meeting just last week with the five poorest performing water companies. That was a very feisty meeting, as can be imagined. The water companies are being held to account. We now have the data we need, thanks to the monitoring and the programmes that this Government are putting in place, which were not in place under all those years of the Labour Government. It is no good standing up there and scare-mongering. At the end of last week I met South East Water, and this week it is South West Water.
[Official Report, 12 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 687.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow).
Errors have been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon).
The correct response should have been:
Rebecca Pow
I have been meeting regularly with water companies, as has the Secretary of State. In fact, we had a joint meeting just last month with the five poorest performing water companies. That was a very feisty meeting, as can be imagined. The water companies are being held to account. We now have the data we need, thanks to the monitoring and the programmes that this Government are putting in place, which were not in place under all those years of the Labour Government. It is no good standing up there and scaremongering. Last month I met South East Water, and this week it is South West Water.
Deposit Return Schemes: Digital Technology
Wera Hobhouse
I am pleased that the Minister recognises the possible advantages of a digital deposit return scheme, which, according to Resource Futures, could reduce the cost of the current scheme by £3.3 billion. We were promised a response to the latest DRS consultation, but it has still not been published. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect a response?
Rebecca Pow
Further details of the deposit return scheme, which will be so important to reducing waste, will be announced and published later this month.
[Official Report, 12 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 697.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).
The correct response should have been:
Rebecca Pow
Officials are working towards publication this month of further details of the deposit return scheme, which will be so important to reducing waste.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Leo Docherty
First, on the proportion of British Council contractors who have been notified and processed, I can confirm—that is a yes—a considerable number of principals have been processed and informed and granted forward processing. Their dependants number almost 300, so, in the round, it is quite a considerable figure.
[Official Report, 11 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 289WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
The correct information should have been:
Leo Docherty
First, on the proportion of British Council contractors who have been notified and processed, I can confirm—that is a yes—a considerable number of principals have been processed and informed and granted forward processing. With their dependants, this number is around 300, so, in the round, it is quite a considerable figure.
Leo Docherty
It is clear to me that the constraint—the limiting factor—will be the deplorable security situation. Regrettably, there are crippling and pernicious constraints on the ability of any Afghan to move and travel, and those are outwith our control and ability to influence. The situation is getting worse, not better. Of course, that is the constraint on the numbers able to travel, rather than any procedural, bureaucratic or quota constraint from the British Government.
[Official Report, 11 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 291WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
The correct response should have been:
Leo Docherty
It is clear to me that an ongoing constraint is the deplorable security situation. Regrettably, there are crippling and pernicious constraints on the ability of any Afghan to move and travel, and those are outwith our control and ability to influence. The situation is getting worse, not better. Of course, that is the constraint on the numbers able to travel, rather than any procedural or bureaucratic constraint from the British Government.
Mr Baron
The Minister is being generous in giving way again and I appreciate his generosity. When he talks about security, I understand what he is saying; all of us in this Chamber fully appreciate the fact that these people have to be security-checked. However, they have already been identified as legitimate, and at very high risk or high risk. I take on board his point that there has to be a security check, but once these people have gone through that, what I am sure he is saying to the Chamber is that there will be no impediment from a quota point of view to getting them out of the country. Am I right?
Leo Docherty
That is my firm expectation. I reiterate the fact that the constraint will be the highly unpredictable, regrettable and deplorable lack of security, and the actions of a regime entirely at odds with everything these people represent. That will be the constraint. I hope that is clear.
[Official Report, 11 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 292WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
The correct response should have been:
Leo Docherty
I reiterate the fact that an ongoing constraint will be the highly unpredictable, regrettable and deplorable lack of security, and the actions of a regime entirely at odds with everything these people represent. That will be a constraint. I hope that is clear.
Petitions
Access to NHS dental care in Blackpool
Planned closure of the Ambleside and Hawkshead doctors surgeries
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
Commercial Breeding for Laboratories
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 611810, relating to commercial breeding for laboratories.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The prayer of the petition states:
“Revoke all licences (PEL) for commercial breeders of laboratory animals. Require all Project Licences (PPLs) applications be reviewed by an independent Non Animal Methods (NAMs) specialist committee. Revise s24 ASPA 1986 to allow review. Urge International Regulators to accept & promote NAMs. We believe the use of animals is scientifically, ethically, morally and financially (taxpayer funded) unjustifiable. Defined in 1959, UK law enshrines the principles of the 3Rs. The UK must abandon these old principles and focus on the development and use of Non Animal Methods. Having an independent NAMs specialist committee review applications for Project Licences (PPLs) prior to their approval, so that a licence is only granted if there is no replacement method. Commercial breeders of laboratory animals are profit rather than animal-welfare focused.”
The petition received over 102,000 signatures and counting, including 144 from my own Carshalton and Wallington constituency. I thank the petition creators for taking the time to come and speak to me about why they set up the petition and why they thought it was so important. I also thank everyone who signed the petition and in particular everyone in the Public Gallery.
The inspiration for the petition, while broadly focused on the policy of animal testing, relates to an individual case, which I am sure hon. Members will want to reference, of the ongoing peaceful protest organised by Camp Beagle of a laboratory just outside of Cambridge. Activists have been sitting outside the MBR Acres site in Cambridgeshire for over 18 months. The petition is another way of supporting those trying to raise awareness of commercial breeding and animal testing. The petition creator also took the time to tell me that this is a first step in a campaign to try to change the law so that animals in facilities such as MBR Acres are protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, instead of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which they currently fall under. There is a lot of interest in the debate, so I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible so that everyone can have a say. I will set out the current regulations and processes for animal testing in the UK, before talking about the asks of the petition in more detail.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires research establishments to use scientifically satisfactory non-animal methods wherever possible. The premise of my speech is the fact that this requirement is not being properly enforced or regulated. The UK legal framework should ensure accordance with the principles of the three Rs, which stand for replacement, reduction and refinement. Under the law, a licence cannot be granted to a testing laboratory unless the Home Office is satisfied that a non-animal approach could not give the desired scientific answer. Applicants are asked to demonstrate that they have considered non-animal alternatives for the tests they propose to do, but in reality this is treated more like a box-ticking exercise, providing only the most cursory information, such as how opportunities to replace animal testing with non-animal methods were considered. The application is then evaluated by one of a very small number of inspectors—a medical doctor or veterinarian who is not necessarily an expert in that area of testing—and inspectors often have a background in animal testing themselves.
The reality is that applications are very unlikely to be refused. According to some research, no licences were refused for animal experimentation between 2018 and 2021. That is a problem, because analysis of the licences granted during the first half of 2020 showed that researchers often failed to adequately explain their strategy to search for non-animal methods. In one example, only a one-word answer was given on the application. Simply put, the legal framework to uphold the principle of the three Rs is not being effectively enforced. The implications of that cannot be overstated.
I came across a shocking statistic when preparing for this debate. In 2021, over 3 million scientific procedures were conducted on animals. If that figure was not large enough already, it was a 6% increase on the year before. The use of dogs increased by 3%, cats by 6%, horses by 29% and monkeys by 17%. I can only speculate why those increases occurred. Will the Minister share any data collected by the Home Office on the reasons for that increase? It seems counter-productive, because only a small proportion of animal experiments are conducted to satisfy regulatory requirements. In 2021 again, around 21% of experimental procedures fell into that category. That is a really low number.
A recent report from the animals in science regulation unit described deeply troubling animal welfare failings in British laboratories between 2019 and 2021. I am sure colleagues have been sent videos, pictures and links to many of them, especially regarding the MBR Acres site in Cambridgeshire. Those failings include a non-human primate dying after becoming trapped behind a restraint device, boxes of 112 rats being moved in error to a compacter, where they were crushed alive, and numerous incidents of animals being left without food or water.
In my view, the UK cannot claim to have high standards of animal testing welfare when we allow animals to die of starvation, suffocation or asphyxiation—whether they are used for testing or whether they become one of the numbered surplus that get slaughtered every year. To give some numbers on that, in 2017, 1.81 million animals were either bred for laboratory use and discarded as surplus, or killed for their body parts to be used for testing.
On a more positive note, the number of procedures being carried out by commercial organisations has fallen, although the number conducted by medical schools has risen. For example, 60% of procedures were commercial in 1988, compared with just 27% in 2020. However, no information is published about which establishments are primarily engaged in the breeding and creating of genetically altered animals, as opposed to experimental procedures.
The Government stopped publishing detailed information on procedures by establishment type in 2021. That means we do not truly know how many surplus animal deaths there have been. To be clear, that is animals bred only to be killed without any testing. This used to happen under an EU regulation, but since leaving the European Union, the UK is not required to publish statistics on the number of animals that die within the system without having undergone any testing procedures.
Currently, aside from the annual publication of non-technical summaries for projects granted licences for regulated animal research procedures, the Home Office is not obliged to release details of licence applications. Some information is actually prevented from release under section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That lack of transparency is concerning. A Government consultation took place way back in 2014 to consider amending that legislation, but no action has been taken since and the consultation results remain unpublished. Section 24 prevents an open debate and wider scientific scrutiny of the use of animals in research. I hope that the Minister can update us on the Government’s position on the future use of section 24.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out this extremely important issue to the House. Does he agree that it is crucial that the work taken forward should be based on evidence, and that as such we should have a public scientific hearing, as I called for in early-day motion 278, with support from Peter Egan, Ricky Gervais and the Betsy Beagle campaign, For Life On Earth? We must take forward this issue, but it has to be based on science, and we therefore need a scientific hearing to find the evidence base.
Elliot Colburn
I absolutely agree. The prayer of the petition calls for the establishment of a non-animal methods committee to look into this very issue. I hope we will hear some positive remarks on that.
The number of animal laboratory inspectors remains very low, with just 23 full-time equivalents in 2021. This is particularly concerning as the vast majority of non-compliances continue to be self-reported, rather than discovered through a series of inspections. Last year, the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals resigned from the animals in science regulation unit, citing concerns about the lack of in-person visits to animal testing sites by inspectors.
With so many procedures taking place—again, there were more than 3 million in 2021—and with so few inspectors and so much self-reporting, it leads one to question whether the picture of animal testing welfare in the UK is actually accurate. Could the Minister provide us with more information on the steps the Government are taking to increase the number of inspectors? Surely, 23 full-time inspectors looking at more than 3 million procedures cannot be enough.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend presents a worrying situation caused by having so few animal inspectors. The UK used to lead the world in animal testing, banning animal testing for cosmetics some 15 years before the EU. Does he agree that we should use this opportunity to once again make the UK a world leader by banning animal testing and ensuring that the NAMs come forward?
Elliot Colburn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK led the way on banning the use of animals for cosmetic testing. Indeed, just in this Parliament, we have passed so much animal welfare legislation. This issue does seem to be a glaring omission that I believe we should look at.
We can debate the merits or otherwise of animal testing in the past, but there is growing evidence and a growing consensus in the scientific community that we are reaching—if we have not already reached—the limit of any research potential of animal testing. There has been a lack of progress in many key areas of health that concern all of us, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and many other diseases, especially cancer. Animal experimentation is cited as playing a major role in the slow rate of progress, due to the significant biological differences between species, which prevent the translation of findings from animals to humans.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful presentation. On that point, is it not increasingly the case that animal experimentation is just bad science and, worse still, is actually hindering the development of treatments that benefit humankind? On both scores, it is something we should be consigning to the history books.
Elliot Colburn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The evidence demonstrates that animal testing has very little benefit. I think we are in the single figures when we look at the percentage of tests that have gone from being successful in animals to successful in humans. It is a waste of money, and we should therefore increasingly be looking to consign animal testing to the dustbin of history. To give a further example, a 2019 study found that it could not recommend any animal model that could reliably predict the efficacy of potential treatments for Alzheimer’s, which is one of the largest health challenges facing this country.
Finally, I want to talk about what the petition is calling for—a NAMs committee—and expand a little on what NAMs, or non-animal methods, are. Because of technological advancements, NAMs have the power not only to replace animal testing but to improve the robustness of the testing that we do, provide more accurate results and be more cost-effective. They are directly relevant to human patients, so they are much more likely to provide the scientific and medical breakthroughs that we are looking for than animal testing. There is growing evidence that NAMs are able to predict potential harms to patients from new drugs that were not identified by animal tests. For example, a recent study found that Emulate’s liver-on-chips were able to correctly identify 87% of drugs that caused drug-induced liver injury to patients despite passing through animal testing. University of Oxford researchers have developed an animal-free model of stroke by using organ-on-a-chip technology. They were able to replicate the blood-brain barrier and mimic a stroke, which creates new possibilities for testing stroke drugs in human cells.
Without regulatory change, the Government could create a NAMs committee to ensure that the UK legal framework is enforced. An independent NAMs specialist committee could review applications for project licences prior to approval so that a licence is granted only if there truly is no replacement method. If the committee felt that that was not the case, it could refer the application back to the applicant, and those assessing it, with advice on where to find appropriate NAMs to meet the research or testing need. That would help to ensure that, as the 1986 Act stipulates, animal testing licences are granted only if there are no appropriate replacements, and it would promote the wider use, research and development of NAMs. A NAMs committee could be constructed in the same way as the existing, animals in science committee: as an advisory, non-departmental public body that is sponsored by the Home Office. Members would be independent NAMs experts who represent a wide range of expertise.
Those proposals are not something that I or the petition creators have picked out of thin air; they are already being implemented across the world. The most recent development came just in December last year, when US President Biden signed the FDA Modernisation Act 2.0, which will make it easier for researchers to choose non-animal testing methods. I strongly believe that if the US can do it, we can do it too—and make a success of it.
I reiterate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) mentioned, our fantastic record of implementing animal welfare reforms, including the recent Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, the Ivory Act 2018, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum penalties for animal cruelty, and so much more. However, this issue is a glaring omission. I hope that the Minister can update the House on what steps her Department is taking to address problems surrounding commercial breeding, what investigations there are into the MBR Acres site, and what consideration she has given to establishing a NAMs committee, so that the UK can finally adopt the three Rs, adhere to the letter of the 1986 Act and move away from animal exploitation in favour of innovation.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob—be on their feet—if they wish to be called. I will not impose a fixed time limit at the moment, but roughly six minutes per speech should see us comfortably home and allow time for the Front-Bench spokespeople and Elliot Colburn to wind up.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on his excellent opening speech.
It might come as a surprise—it certainly did to me—that animal experimentation is on the increase in the UK. As we have heard, according to the Government’s own figures, in 2021 over 3 million scientific procedures were conducted on animals in Great Britain, which is an increase of 6% on 2020. The use of dogs increased by 3%, cats by 6%, horses by 29% and monkeys by 17%. Some 80% of experiments on animals were for research-only purposes. Commercial breeding exists to meet the demands and needs of this industry in animal experimentation; without that demand, commercial breeding would not exist, and there would be no need to have this debate.
I think it is fair to say that when I talk to members of the public about this issue, those who do accept animal research think that we have to have it because it is the only option and it really benefits humans. They therefore support commercial breeding for the same reason. However, I think most of those people are unaware that, when it comes to treatment for humans, there is a growing body of evidence that animal procedures produce poor-quality results, and in some cases can actually hold back progress.
Scientific progress has shown us that many assumptions we held as common sense were wrong; the discovery of DNA and the sequencing of entire genomes has shown the amazing close relatedness between the genetic make-up of different mammals. However, when it comes to how those genes actually function—the internal chemistry of animals—our common-sense assumption that humans are not the same as mice, dogs, monkeys, cats, or any other animals used in scientific research and testing, has proven correct. While supporters of animal experiments will point to the successes of the development of the cancer drug Herceptin and diabetic insulin, there are failures as well, such as TGN1412, where a dose 500 times smaller than the “safe and effective” dose used in animals killed five human subjects, and Vioxx; relying solely on its results when tested on monkeys resulted in the deaths of, and injuries to, nearly 8,000 people.
To be of value, a research method must prove reliably predictive results. Animal methods fail to do that, for a number of reasons. Major differences exist between species, relating to anatomy, organ structure and function, metabolism, chemical absorption, genetics and lifespan. A homogenous group of animals living in a controlled experimental setting cannot predict varied human patients with their individual life histories and wide range of environmental factors. Artificially created diseases in animals in laboratories cannot accurately reflect naturally occurring human illnesses. Common adverse reactions from humans, such as nausea, mental disturbance, dizziness, fatigue, depression, confusion and double vision, cannot be detected in animals.
A number of articles have been published in The BMJ and elsewhere criticising the lack of any systematic review of the efficacy of using animals in biomedical research. In fact, a bias in favour of animal research has been shown to be holding back progress in some areas—we have already heard the example of Alzheimer’s treatments. I fear that millions of pounds and tens of thousands of hours of research may have been wasted on a scientific dead end, but worse than the time and money wasted: a drug that damages animals in early tests and is therefore abandoned could be safe and effective in humans. Valuable drugs that were nearly lost because of their toxicity in animals include the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen and the leukaemia drug Gleevec.
We cannot know how many potential treatments have been overlooked in this way, but thankfully, as we have heard, there are alternatives that focus on human biological processes to investigate disease and potential treatments. Those use human cells, tissues and organs, and existing data and technologies such as organ-on-a-chip technology or artificial intelligence, along with other procedures. They are called the new approach methodologies. By providing results that are directly relevant to human patients, NAMs are much more likely to generate breakthroughs than outdated animal-based techniques.
NAMs and human-relevant research is a fast-growing sector, and one in which the UK has the potential to be right at the forefront of innovation, leading the way. At the University of Oxford, for example, Dr Paul Holloway has developed a new, animal-free model of stroke, as we have just heard. Using organ-on-a-chip technology, he was able to replicate the human blood-brain barrier and mimic stroke, enabling new possibilities to test stroke drugs in human cells. A 2021 report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research predicted that the UK NAM industry could contribute £2.5 billion to UK GDP by 2026, an increase of 700% from 2017. There is so much that the Government could and should be doing to promote that area of technology.
I support three of the proposals from Animal Free Research UK, which has urged Members to speak in this debate: to produce an action plan for encouraging the widespread adoption of human-relevant research techniques; to launch a well-resourced programme of practical support and training to improve awareness and knowledge of human-relevant techniques; and to provide funding to improve the human relevance of research on a scale that reflects the urgency and importance of the issue.
I urge the Minister to take whatever steps she can to move research away from the cruel, wasteful and unhelpful focus on animal experimentation, and towards a future of new technologies and research methods focused on human modelling that are better for us, better for animals and better for our economy.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the more than 102,000 people who signed the petition. I know there was some anxiety among them that we would not do justice to it today, and I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for doing it more than justice. There appears to be a degree of consensus in the room, and I hope the Minister does not let us down at the end of the debate but indicates the way forward.
Breeding animals solely for the purpose of animal testing all too often condemns them to a life of suffering, culminating in a painful death. As we have heard, conditions in such breeding facilities have been shown to be unhygienic and cruel, with the animals exhibiting signs of extreme stress and frustration. That is just in the breeding facilities, and we know that the animals then go on to the laboratory, where who knows what they will have to endure. I do not want to repeat the stats and everything my colleagues have said, but I do want to endorse the point that the three Rs are clearly not working as they should, particularly when it comes to replacing animals in testing.
I do not think we will see a “big bang” moment at which animal testing just stops, so I want to focus on the five incremental steps where swift progress is possible. There is really no excuse not to act. First, we know that not all animal experiments are conducted for the purposes of medical research; many animals are still used in the development and testing of products such as food additives and pesticides. At one uni, researchers tested cannabis on, I think, rats to see whether it gave them the munchies—given that they were based at a university, I do not think they really needed to test on animals to come to a conclusion on that! After the ban on using animals for cosmetics testing, and the more recent ban on using them to test household products, will the Minister tell us what is next? Let us keep moving the issue forward.
Secondly, the Government could restrict the types of tests that are licensed. Colleagues of a similar age to me will remember the campaign to outlaw the infamous Draize test, whereby toxic substances were dripped into the eyes, or on to the skin, of healthy rabbits. I have recently had several robust discussions with Bristol University about its use of the forced swim test on mice to induce anxiety, fear and stress—all to collect data of questionable quality. That raises another point, which has come up in some of the figures that have been mentioned: is scientific curiosity a good enough reason to carry out endless tests on animals that do not actually yield results? Surely they should be used only when trying to reach a conclusion, not just out of curiosity.
Thirdly, the Government could build on the success of the primate testing ban by restricting the range of animals that can be tested on. As we have heard, MBR Acres in Cambridgeshire continues to breed 2,000 beagles each year, solely for animal testing. Beagles, as opposed to other dogs, are favoured for this kind of toxicity testing precisely because of their docile, compliant nature. They are either injected or force-fed poisonous chemicals, and they are asphyxiated before an autopsy is conducted to assess the effects on them. Dogs bred for testing have also been forced to inhale pesticides or have been deliberately given heart attacks. We have also heard that cats, horses and monkeys are still being used. I do not think any of my constituents would support the continued testing on beagles, and we could have a quick win on this issue if we outlawed that.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, especially on the types of animals being used. It is abhorrent not only that dogs such as beagles and others, and horses, are used but that, as we have heard, they are increasingly being used. Some 3% more dogs, and more than 20% more horses, have been tested on this year. Does the hon. Lady agree that, with the physiology of these animals being so different from that of humans, we should not be increasing the number of dogs and horses that we are testing on? Does she agree that we should ban testing on dogs and horses?
Kerry McCarthy
I entirely agree.
Fourthly, we could reduce the number of licences issued by simply encouraging greater transparency. We have heard about section 24 of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that from 2018 to 2021, every licence that was applied for was granted, but we need to know the figures; they need to be out in the public domain.
We also need to avoid duplication. I know that commercial interests come into play, but, particularly with the UK leaving REACH—the EU’s chemicals regulatory regime—there is a real danger that we could end up with even more tests having to be carried out when they are already being done elsewhere. I know that campaigners and scientists have called for data sharing, but it is just not happening.
Again, the Government have been very slow to respond. The Environmental Audit Committee did an inquiry into chemicals regulation post Brexit, which was notable mainly because the now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), suggested that the British version of REACH should be called BREACH, which would not be ideal for a regulator. I hope the Minister can say a little about that.
My fifth and final point relates to what everyone has been saying about the development of NAMs and alternatives. I will not rehearse the arguments that have already been made about effectiveness, but I have certainly spoken about how effective animal testing is, as opposed to the non-animal methods that are being developed. Queen Mary University of London has set up its own unit. When I spoke to scientists who are involved in that, it was clear that there are real experts in the field who support a move away from animal testing and do not think it is effective. I will conclude on that point.
As I said, I am not expecting the Minister to say today that she is going to declare an end to animal testing. We want to see the three Rs—which have been Labour policy for a long time—being properly enforced, and I have suggested some ways in which she could make some progress in that regard.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for leading today’s debate on this important topic, and the 102,230 members of the British public that signed e-petition 611810, including 137 from my constituency of Rutherglen and Hamilton West.
The petition raises a crucial point when we think about animal testing. The breeding of animals specifically for this purpose may not immediately cross our minds. It is interesting and concerning that the Government’s response to the petition did not address this point. The text of the petition itself raises an important consideration about the model used in the UK:
“We believe the use of animals is scientifically, ethically, morally and financially (taxpayer funded) unjustifiable.”
With the use of animal testing so completely out of step with the large majority of public opinion, the financial aspect—the part taxpayer money has to play in funding continued animal experiments—should not be overlooked. The Government need to reconsider their position on this matter.
As an animal lover, laboratory testing of animals is an issue I feel strongly about, as do many of my constituents. That is why I tabled an Adjournment debate on the matter just before Christmas 2021. It is why I am also very disappointed to see a continued lack of nuance in the Government’s stance. At the close of the Home Office’s reply to this petition, it states:
“The Government is clear that the use of animals in science is justified, for the benefits it brings to human, animal and environmental health and safety.”
I am disappointed to be here almost 13 months exactly from my Adjournment debate, in which I covered the unpredictability of animal testing results when replicated in human medicine trials, to have to labour the same points once again. Let me be clear: it is well documented that animal trials cannot reliably predict, or translate to, outcomes for humans. One might think this would be common sense; as a species, we are inherently different to the animals tested on. That has been shown time and again by experts in detailed and peer-reviewed research, and in relation to a huge number of diseases, including—I will give just a small sample—diabetes, cardiovascular disease and HIV. About 100 HIV vaccines have been tested on animals and zero work in humans. In fact, Dr Richard Klausner of the National Cancer Institute said:
“We have cured mice of cancer for decades—and it simply didn’t work in humans.”
Even if we did not care about the suffering of the animals tested on, which I am sure is not the case for almost everyone, how can anyone justify the money and time wasted on seeking out cures and treatments through methods that we know do not work? Even if we take away all the reported issues with the scrutiny given to licence applications and the reliability of results, the key thing I cannot understand is why we are still relying on a legislative framework passed in 1986.
Investment into research and more sophisticated non-animal reliant methods and technologies is overdue. It is not acceptable that in 2021, 161,000 animals were involved in procedures judged “severe” or “non-recovery” in terms of harm caused. It is not acceptable that the Government view that as a necessary evil. It is not necessary, and a solution requires just a little more thinking and work.
I hope the Minister will provide a commitment that the Government will look seriously at this issue, and urgently publish a strategy that will see animal testing phased out and other methods better funded and researched. I hope she will acknowledge that the current framework is not fit for purpose, and that continued state-licensed animal experimentation is a stain on the reputation of the UK, which is at the forefront of animal welfare issues. The UK prides itself on being a leader in the animal welfare space. If we do not adapt and change immediately, we will fall behind our international allies; we already are falling behind.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing this e-petition debate. I also thank the 170 constituents of mine from Coventry North West who signed the e-petition.
Let me be unequivocal: Britain must reclaim its position at the forefront of animal rights protection. For years, this crucial issue has been sidelined. Key legislation, such as the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and the animals abroad Bill have gone missing without a trace. We cannot allow the same to happen with animal testing.
I am proud that our country outlawed the testing of cosmetics on animals in 1997. Although it was long overdue, it was a welcome achievement. However, over the past two decades, technological advances have changed the testing landscape dramatically, so it is time the law caught up. With fewer than 3 million procedures a year, animal testing is at its lowest ever level since 2004, and more humane and non-animal alternatives are used to achieve the same end. Many Members have spoken about the alternatives.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group, I have no intention to oppose legitimate medical research. However, as the RSPCA said, far too many animals are still being put through experiments that do not constitute vital medical research. Most concerning of all is severe suffering, whereby animals are subjected to the highest level of pain, debility or death in the name of research. Although there has been significant progress in recent years, with a 61% drop in the number of procedures causing severe suffering carried out in the UK since 2014, we need a cast-iron commitment to ending the procedure all together.
The time for action is now. A generation on from the achievements of the 1990s, we need a fundamental and binding review of the entire field of animal testing. Only a root and branch, searching inquiry will protect animals in the short term and prevent their use in testing in the long term, as more and more alternatives are developed. Equally, as we set goals for the future, we cannot neglect the animals that are suffering as we speak, so a review must also commit to examining conditions as they are today, and it should review the situation at Camp Beagle.
Despite the progress that has been made, I am deeply concerned that animal rights are on the verge of a dramatic leap backwards. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill could wipe thousands of vital regulations from our statute book overnight. That means that the ban on testing cosmetics on animals may be brought to a sudden end. More and more of my constituents are concerned about the dangerous pattern they see emerging from the Government’s action on animal welfare. New laws, long promised, are dropped the moment the spotlight moves to the next issue dominating the front pages. Even those that manage to slip through the net and reach the statute book are frequently watered down with enforcement mechanisms that nobody could honestly believe are transparent or effective. All that is taking place against a backdrop of a flurry of vital laws that are due to be jettisoned with no democratic oversight whatever.
Animal research and testing cannot be swept under the rug any longer, so I urge the Government to seek a compassionate and thorough understanding of the science and the consequences for both animals and people alike. Going backwards cannot be an option. As science makes more and more research possible without the need to involve animals, it is our duty in this place to react and ensure that the law keeps up.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and to take part in the debate, which is of great concern to many of our constituents. I am here on behalf of the 169 people in and around Canterbury who signed the petition, and of those who contact me regularly about animal welfare issues. I want to declare an interest as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and also as chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group. At a recent meeting, we heard from people who work for animal charities who outlined the trauma, abuse and suffering that some dogs experience in the laboratory settings used in commercial breeding. It is very traumatic to hear those cases and to see the footage gained, often at risk to the people who take it.
At first, “commercial breeding” as a singular term does not sound too controversial. It sounds as though we allow dogs to give birth and animals to be bred in order to save lives, and then give those dogs to a loving family, but, once we have had our eyes opened to the horrific practices that operate up and down the United Kingdom, that cloak of innocence is soon removed. I want to pay tribute to my friend Marc Abraham OBE, who arranges the events for our APPG to bring together professionals from the industry and to allow discussions to be had and strategies to be created. That ensures that debates such as this take place in which Members of Parliament have full knowledge of the issues.
It is important to reiterate that of the 3.1 million procedures conducted in 2021, 1.7 million were experimental procedures—often a codeword for abusive practices—and 1.3 million were cases of genetically altered animals. I acknowledge that there is a difference between trying to prevent life-limiting disease and experiments about whether rats get the munchies, as we have heard before, or about whether hair conditioner makes our hair more shiny, which, thankfully, are against the law now.
The annual statistics provided by the Government allow for analysis of trends. However, I have concerns that the data gathering does not record the type of establishment used—the data previously showed that—and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether there are any plans to re-commit to that type of data collection.
The petition calls for a number of amendments to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, a 37-year-old piece of legislation. Since then, we have of course had huge technological advances. I hope the Minister will agree that it is time for a new piece of legislation that not only addresses how state-of-the art equipment is used when genetically engineering animals, but how technology can help issue licensing and monitor the behaviour and operations of commercial breeding with the aim of bringing the cruellest aspect of that practice to an end.
With new technology being created every day, some of the procedures that inflict the most pain and suffering on animals such as beagles can now be simulated artificially through computer modelling, non-invasive scanning methods and cell cultures, to name a few. We have heard about AI as well. Those new opportunities can lead to better animal welfare, which is what the 102,000 members of the public who signed the petition, and many more, demand of us. Let us end the outdated, unpopular and barbaric procedures sooner rather than later and encourage investment in NAMs, which we know are the future of medical research.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I am here today because three separate constituents have come to my Friday surgery and opened my eyes to how the existing framework in this country is ethically, practically, morally and scientifically bankrupt. I pay tribute to the valiant protesters at Camp Beagle who, for 18 months, have been outside the gates of Marshall Bio Resources in Cambridgeshire—it is happening not too far from here.
I was sent some secretly obtained footage of just a couple of minutes, not highlights culled from several hours, and it was concerning and upsetting to see the barbaric conditions that the beagles are kept in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said. Beagles are good-natured animals who will not bite back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out. They are bred in factory conditions, with no space to run around. They have never experienced sunshine, wind, rain or any such things—no natural light. I think there were some pictures of them eating faeces, so God knows what diet they are given.
In those beagles’ lifetime, after 16 weeks—they are only babies, puppies—they go to laboratories and who knows what happens. They are injected with bleach, fertiliser and all such things, even at that young age. They are sentient beings, just as we are, and that should not continue. MBR Acres sounds quite nice, as if the beagles are running around, gambolling in the fields, but that is far from the case, and every time what happens to them is put to MBR Acres, it says it is fully compliant with the law and a fully licensed establishment. That law, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury pointed out, is the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—but 1986 was a different world. Even I was at school at then. How many Prime Ministers have we had since then—okay, we have had three this year alone—and there was not even the internet.
People ask: “What is the alternative?” We heard about NAMs, the non-animal routes we should be going down, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). There is a better way of doing things: cutting-edge technologies, modelling three-dimension cell cultures, organs on chips, artificial intelligence. That all harnesses scientific progress. Why are we still stuck in 1986, when “The Chicken Song” by Spitting Image—“Hold a chicken in the air”—was No. 1? It was a completely different world.
The Cruelty Free International pressure group sets everything out in a detailed plan. We could have a regulator, or even a committee to mirror the Animals in Science Committee, a NAMs committee that could monitor such things. ASPA, the 1986 Act, sets out just bare-minimum guidelines, not even best practice, for the care, transit, housing and killing of research animals. We have two sites in this country: the Marshall Bio or MBR one, and Envigo. If we look across the Atlantic at the USA, one of the Envigo sites in America was closed recently because of gross welfare violations. We were told that when we left the EU, we would level up and have higher standards than anywhere else, but that is very far from the truth and from what seems to be happening.
I am also concerned about how protesters are demonised—as recently as today—even though in this country we have a long tradition of civil disobedience, with the suffragettes, the Levellers, the Diggers and all such things. As a statement of MBR Acres puts it:
“Unfortunately, extremists, including long-time activists, are committing unlawful and dangerous activities each day.”
My constituent, Helen Cheese-Probert, is not what we might call a troublemaker. She is a scientist by training, who came most recently to my surgery on Friday. It is not only her; Ricky Gervais, Will Young and Chris Packham are all on side as well. It is not just the demonisation of protesters that worries me, but the validity of animal experimentation for human conditions. Some figures show that 95% of cases of things done to animals fail to translate to human conditions, so why are we doing it? When our kids are sick, we do not take them to the vet, do we? That stands to reason.
It is time to deploy NAMs technology to its fullest extent and to consign commercial breeding for animal experimentation—it just sounds horrible—to the history books, to the scrapheap or dustbin of the past. When people my age were kids we used to see videos of monkeys being forced to smoke cigarettes, but now we think that is totally barbaric and wrong.
I will end by saying that, as Gandhi put it, the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way it treats its animals. There is a lot of room for improvement and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about fixing this outmoded picture.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for being incredibly disciplined, as it has made my job very easy. I call Patricia Gibson.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Efford, and I am delighted once again to lead for my party in this debate on calls to ban commercial breeding for laboratories and to implement reform to approve non-animal methodologies. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening it so comprehensively.
Like many of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, I am one of the majority of people who believe that we need to act on what is widely accepted as the unethical, cruel, immoral, counter-productive and damaging use of animals in experiments, as has been explained by Members from across the Chamber. We have, of course, debated the subject before, most recently, I think, in October 2021. We have debated it many times, but it keeps coming back to us via the Petitions Committee, because it simply will not go away. The huge number of people who repeatedly sign petitions about the matter ensures that it will keep coming back for debate unless and until common sense prevails—until science prevails, as inevitably it must. However, we need that to happen as soon as possible for a whole range of reasons, many of which we have heard about today.
Before I go any further, I must thank all the organisations that have provided such excellent briefings for today’s debate, such as the Betsy, Beagle Ambassador For Life On Earth campaign; the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, or FRAME; the RSPCA; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA; and a whole range of other organisations that have campaigned on this issue for decades.
Animal experiments fail in the search for human treatment and cures. Penicillin stayed on the shelf for over a decade because the tests done on rabbits by that great Scot, Alexander Fleming, led him to believe that it would be ineffective in humans. There is a mountain of evidence to show that failure and that is why we need a rigorous public scientific hearing to demonstrate it. Anyone who wishes to argue the opposite, without any confidence or credibility, should relish the opportunity to demonstrate their views in the forum of a public scientific hearing.
We know that some Members of this House and some on the Government Benches would argue in support of the status quo, yet in the repeated debates that we have on the issue they never seem to turn out to defend that position, except for the Minister, of course, who has little choice in the matter. We have MPs in this House who believe that the current situation is the correct one. If that is genuinely a held view, it should be able to be defended. If it cannot be defended, these things ought not to be happening.
While we wait and push for change, the opportunities for the treatment of and search for cures of terrible diseases such as cancer are, according to the USA’s National Cancer Institute, being lost, because studies in rodents have been believed. Far from assisting and advancing the treatment of and cures for terrible human diseases, which is what we all want to see, the use of animals in experiments is actively frustrating that end.
The problem with the petition calling for the NAMs specialist committee is that the fear is that it would be able to act in only an advisory capacity, whereas a public scientific hearing would require animal researchers to prove their claims about the efficacy of the use of animals in animal testing. A rigorous scientific hearing would show that the arguments being made for animal testing simply do not hold up to scrutiny.
Reducing licences and the range of animals on which tests can be carried out is all very well and good, and they are important steps, but we need to be much more stringent. The best way forward—the only way forward—is a robust public scientific hearing to secure the overhaul of the industry that so many of us want to see. Of course, such an overhaul is challenging, because we know that interests have grown up around it that, which defend it even in the face of evidence that it is not really the best way forward. It is certainly not the best way forward for treating diseases or, indeed, for animals.
It is widely reported by experts that 90% of new medicines fail to pass human trials because animals cannot predict human responses. The former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal has indicated that it is almost impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk in human subjects and, if that continues to be the case, endorsement and funding of pre-clinical animal research seems, at the very least, misplaced. That chimes with the conclusions of Dr Richard Klausner, director of the National Cancer Institute, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), that we have cured mice of cancer for decades, but it simply does not work in humans. In the world of science and in the pharmaceutical industry it is openly acknowledged that animal models on drug development simply do not work.
We should have cause for optimism, however, because on 4 January the Prime Minister delivered a speech. In that speech, he set out his priorities for 2023 and declared that he wants to
“make this country a beacon of science”.
The UK of course comprises four nations, so I will generously assume that he meant to say “the UK” and not “this country”. Putting that aside, I look forward to his Government making good on that commitment, following the science on the issue, taking note of and acting on the significant body of science that tells us that animal experiments are not helpful and, worse, can even be obstructive as we seek to treat and cure a whole range of human diseases.
It is worth recalling the remarks of Dr Lindsay Marshall, the UK’s biomedical science adviser for the Humane Society International, who said:
“The UK cannot expect to have world-leading science innovation whilst we rely on failing animal-based research methods that are rooted in the past.”
She said that,
“animal models are really bad at telling us what will happen in a human body”
and are sometimes “dangerously misleading”. That is despite the UK Government response to the petition indicating:
“The UK’s strengths in research and innovation put it at the forefront of global science. The Government is committed to supporting this science base”.
If we are following the science, there should not be a problem after we have a robust scientific public hearing.
There was much excitement among campaigners recently when President Biden signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act 2.0, which removed the mandatory requirement that US-based animal tests are used in human drug development. That is a hugely significant step forwards, but animal data can still be used if those who are developing drugs choose to use them. There is no way round the fact that a public scientific hearing would be enormously helpful and useful as a global reference point for drug development.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act’s three Rs— replacement, reduction and refinement—established in 1959 for humane experimental techniques on animals, are a concept developed decades ago to benefit individual experimental design, not to address the need to understand and develop treatments for many human diseases. The three Rs policy, as we have heard from hon. Members, is not fit for the purpose of advancing scientific progress through a shift to innovation without using animals.
A significant body of scientific thought believes there is urgent and pressing need to modernise UK research to keep pace with advancements. Far from the Prime Minister talking about being a world leader, we need to modernise for that to be the case. That requires redirecting resources from unreliable experiments on animals and shifting to a focus more fully on superior, non-animal methods that will benefit humans, animals and the world of science. Otherwise, both animals and patients who are waiting for treatments for terrible diseases will continue to be failed by outdated methods. Could anybody argue that this picture is compatible with the Prime Minister’s vision of the UK becoming a “beacon of science”?
This Government have accepted that animals are sentient beings, and that principle is enshrined in law. However, it is a source of deep frustration, disappointment, concern and even anger that that recognition of sentience does not appear to extend to animals in laboratories, which are subject to painful, cruel and distressing procedures that are not necessary, and following which the vast majority are killed. The recognition of sentience must be extended to all animals through the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, so they can be protected by the unnecessary suffering clause.
We are often told that the experiments to which animals are subjected are not crucial to the development of any new human medicines. On the contrary, those experiments are failing the search for human treatments and cures, as is shown by unequivocal evidence and is widely reported in the peer-reviewed medical literature. We have heard today that the regulatory requirement that animals be used in tests before proceeding to human trials was first established in 1946 in the Nuremberg code. Since then, science has advanced by 77 years, so why are we still using outdated laws to govern human medical research practice? Where else has that happened—that there has been no change in 77 years? It is nonsensical and indefensible.
Our EU partners are moving away from animal experiments. We need a rigorous, public, scientific and transparent hearing, so that we can have a full scientific debate on the reasons for banning animal experiments, where those who disagree can present their evidence for doing so in a transparent and public forum. As I keep asking, why would those who defend the current position shy away from that level of transparency? If those of us who wish to see an end to animal experiments are correct in our views and beliefs and in the evidence that is presented, that will accelerate the arrival of human treatments and cures, while also freeing animals from the cruel and unnecessary fate that awaits them in laboratories.
I hope that when the Minister gets to her feet, she will have taken full cognisance of the very powerful and reasoned arguments made across the Chamber today, and will respond by telling us how her Government have every intention of moving away from the use of animal experiments, as our EU neighbours are doing. I hope that she and her Government will mandate a rigorous public scientific hearing on this matter, which will show transparently and beyond doubt that lab animal models are not capable of predicting the response of human patients, as well as the need to ensure that all creatures are recognised as sentient beings in the Animal Welfare and Animal Welfare (Sentience) Acts. That is what the vast majority of the population across the UK wants to happen, and it is long past time that this Government acted.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who made a compelling case for putting science first that should guide us all today. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for what I thought was an excellent speech, setting out the petition and its aims and the context in which we are having this debate; I also thank the 102,000 people who signed the petition, as other Members have, including the 128 in Croydon Central who did so. As a shadow Home Office Minister, I deal with immigration, police and security. Those issues dominate a lot of our time in this place, and it is good that members of the public push us to talk more about animals and animal welfare, because otherwise, I suspect we would not talk about them nearly often enough.
The e-petition we have debated calls on the Government to ban commercial breeding for laboratories, an issue that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington set out in some detail. As the Labour Front Bencher in this debate, I want to be clear that the Labour party believes that the unnecessary and prolonged suffering of defenceless animals has absolutely no place in a civilised society. That is part of the DNA of our party, and the history of our party is tied to the defence and protection of animal rights.
It is nearly 20 years since the Hunting Act 2004, when the Labour Government ended the cruel practice of hunting with dogs—a clear testament to the progress made since the days of bear-baiting, cockfighting and other awful things. The year 2006 saw the Animal Welfare Act, another landmark piece of legislation that put down serious protections in law for pets, livestock and wild animals alike. We introduced the offence of unnecessary suffering, mutilation and animal fighting, and we promised to end the testing of cosmetics on animals in our manifesto back in 1997.
The last Labour Government were, I like to think, the most animal-friendly this country has seen, and working from the foundations laid by our predecessors, that is what we would hope to be again if we were to get back into Government. This country should lead the world with high animal welfare standards. No animal should suffer unnecessary pain and degradation. It is not a binary decision to be for animal welfare or human welfare; they can and should exist alongside each other. Many hon. Members have set that out very clearly in the debate today.
It is welcome that animal testing practices have improved over many years and advanced over recent years, but as we have heard today we are seeing an increase in testing on some animals. I am concerned about the lack of transparency on animal testing project licence applications as well as the continued permissibility of “severe suffering” as defined in UK law. We heard that in 2021 there were over 3 million procedures involving living animals. Of those, around 1.7 million were experimental procedures on living animals, and the remaining 1.3 million were cases of the breeding and creation of genetically-altered animals. Over 160,000 animals were involved in procedures judged as “severe” or “non-recovery” in terms of harms caused. Some still argue that research on animals is a necessary evil and a key tool for scientific process, but as times, science and views all change, so too must our behaviour.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which we have heard much about, is now considered way out of date for modern animal welfare standards and is not properly enforced. We have talked a lot about the 3Rs, and I will not go into more about that now. The development of alternative methods using human cells, AI and modelling techniques was set out very eloquently by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) earlier in the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who had five very clear action points about the lack of necessity for experiments because of scientific curiosity. We heard much about the alternatives, which are very clear and in many cases much more effective than research on animals.
As the official Opposition and probably with support more widely across the House, we ask the Government to institute a comprehensive review of animal testing with a view to improving practice, limiting animal suffering and increasing transparency, as well as having a long-term objective of phasing out animal testing entirely. The Government must invest more in non-animal technologies as an alternative to animal testing. There are some very sophisticated technologies, as we have heard, which are becoming more sophisticated by the year. They are clearly the future.
The petition refers to licensing. It would be helpful to see greater transparency in the issuing of licences so that the public can see when and why animal testing takes place. According to the 1986 Act, wherever possible a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy not entailing the use of protected animals must be used. It is a requirement for those seeking a licence to demonstrate that they considered non-animal alternatives. I wonder if the Minister could clarify how that self-certification is then evaluated and whether licensing applications are assessed by a non-animal methods expert. It is important to understand the scientific rationale behind an application, to understand the procedures and to know that they will have the minimum possible impact on the animal in question. Will the Minister outline the steps that the Government will take to review the system and make it more transparent, and look at licensing applications in the round?
In 2016, Ipsos MORI found that 74% of people believed that more work is needed to find more non-animal alternatives. I am not quite sure why it was only 74%; I suspect it is now much higher. This is clearly a matter of great interest to the public, and this place should respond to what the public are demanding of us in this petition. Many other petitions on animal welfare issues receive hundreds of thousands of signatures each year. We can work harder. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and her all-party group on their work—lots of good work is done across this place—but, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, there are people in this place who think the status quo is acceptable. What is their argument, what have they got to say and where are they today?
In our opinion, the Government have been dragging their heels on animal issues for years. I would like the Minister to indicate when they will announce a review to identify and eliminate at least avoidable testing, and in the long term testing in its entirety. Will the Government commit to eliminating every unnecessary test? Will the Minister clarify whether the Government are committed to upholding firm standards on animal welfare? We have heard some horrible stories. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about the animal welfare side of things—I have not even touched on that—which is of course incredibly important.
I would be grateful if the Minister can set out where the Government’s views on higher and higher restrictions on animal testing sit in relation to the trade deals currently being negotiated and the post-Brexit world that we live in. We should remain firm in our commitments. We do not want to become more reliant on ingredients and chemicals that have been tested on animals abroad. The offshoring of animal cruelty and poor standards is unacceptable. It would be good to hear from the Minister about that.
Finally, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), answered a written parliamentary question just a couple of weeks ago and said:
“The Home Office assures appropriate protection of the use of animals in science through licensing and compliance assurance under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This legal framework, implemented by the Home Office Regulator, requires that animals are only ever used in science where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to animals is limited”—
and that was pretty much a full stop. There was no “We can go further,” “There are things we can do,” or “We can improve.” No inch was given on the status quo. I echo the view across the House that we can do better and go faster. Will the Government commit to that today?
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Minister, there is plenty of time for you to respond, but I would be grateful if you can leave a couple of minutes for Mr Colburn to sum up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing today’s debate, and I thank all other colleagues for their valuable interventions and contributions.
The Government recognise that this is a policy issue of huge importance and high public interest. It is therefore right and proper that there is scrutiny of the matters that we have discussed today. In opening, I would like to clarify the Government’s position on the use of animals in science and make some overall comments on progress in this area.
We all benefit from the use of animals in science. That can be through improved knowledge of how tissues and organs work to help find new treatments for disease and illness; the development and safety testing of medicines before they are trialled and then used in humans; the safety testing of chemicals to protect workers and the environment; veterinary research and medicines to support animal health; and the protection of the natural environment and the preservation of species. When we need medical care, we benefit from medicines and medical technologies that are possible due to knowledge gained from the use of animals in research. We trust those medicines are safe to use because of the rigorous testing requirements, including at times the use of animals.
Emma Hardy
There seem to be an awful lot of presumptions in the opening of the Minister’s speech, including presumption that we all benefit from testing on animals, despite the evidence that many Members have provided. I gave two examples, including a case where animals were used for testing, but when a dose 500 times lower was used on humans, it killed five. I ask the Minister to re-evaluate the assumption that humans always benefit from the testing of products on animals.
Miss Dines
With the greatest respect, the Government are not saying that humans always benefit from animal testing. It is in the nature of testing that it has to be rigorous. Sometimes what is being tested works, and sometimes it does not, but testing can take place only if it is necessary. No one wants unnecessary harm to animals, which is why the Government have the aim of replacing live animals in scientific research and testing with non-animal alternatives wherever possible. Perhaps we can all agree that that is the aim.
Miss Dines
I will make some progress first. Our approach has two fronts. First, robust regulation will ensure that animals are not used where a non-animal alternative could deliver the benefit sought, and secondly, our strategic aim is to facilitate and promote alternatives to animals in scientific research and testing. I therefore believe that we have a shared aim of fully replacing live animals as soon as possible, where that is safe and scientifically possible.
A number of Departments have a stake in the use of animals in science, including: the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which leads on science, research and innovation, including alternatives to the use of animals; the Department of Health and Social Care, which is responsible for the regulation of medicines; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is responsible for chemical safety and veterinary medicine regulations. The Home Office does not require or commission the use of animals in science. Instead, we regulate to ensure that all proposals for work are authorised only where there is justified benefit, that animals are used only where there is no alternative, that the minimum number of animals is used, that harm is minimised, and that the animals are appropriately cared for. I reject the narrative suggesting that that is not the case. My colleague Lord Sharpe has ministerial responsibility for this work.
By way of background, the debate on animals in scientific research has at its centre three critical strategic imperatives: first, the delivery of the benefits of the use of animals in scientific research; secondly, the delivery of a rigorous and robust regulatory system; and thirdly, the development of alternatives to the use of live animals in procedures. Taken together, these imperatives drive the Government’s policy on the use of animals in science. I will focus my comments on the issues raised by Members in this interesting debate.
Miss Dines
I will make a little more progress, and then I will, of course, come back. The issues raised include the use of animals in science and its regulation, the commercial breeding of laboratory animals, and the development, promotion and acceptance of non-animal methodologies. To be clear, as was said, the UK has never set out to use animals in science. Instead, we have set out to deliver public safety, world-class health innovations and breakthroughs, and to make life-changing discoveries, from new vaccines and medicines to transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions. Indeed, the development of the covid-19 vaccine was possible because of the use of animals in research. The use of animals in science must always be considered in the broader context. Animal research and testing is only ever a small part of a wider programme.
Miss Dines
I really must make progress.
In all these instances, the drive has never been to use animals, but to deliver benefits through the justified use of animals. There is significant public concern around the ethical and moral case for the use of animals in science. Animals are expensive to use and difficult to work with, and their use carries a burden of regulation. Animal experimentation is something that people, including this Government, do not like. It is therefore not a matter of choosing to use animals, but of using the best method for the scientific experiment, and ensuring that animals are not used when other methods can give the information needed.
Although much research can be done with non-animal models, there are still purposes for which it is unfortunately essential to use live animals. In many instances, that is because the complexity of whole biological systems cannot be replicated simply using validated non-animal methodologies. However, the Government are committed to looking at alternatives, especially where the safety of humans and animals needs to be ensured—a point that is central to some of the concerns we have heard today. The data from animal testing and research has an important function in the human drug development process, which primarily concerns the safety of new medicines. The use of animals is required by international regulators to assess any adverse effects before clinical trials. Such testing is crucial to protect the safety of participants and the public. If we were to remove the requirement for animal testing, many potential medicines would not progress on to the market, and the risk to humans in clinical trials would be considerably higher.
Under the UK’s regulation pertaining to the use of chemical substances—the REACH regulations, mentioned by Members—industry participants must understand the hazards and risks of the chemicals that they manufacture, place on the market and use. That is to protect human health and the environment from the effects of harmful chemicals. For some chemical hazards, there is no immediate prospect of developing a non-animal alternative test method that could be used as the standard test method across the full range of chemicals. These hazards include reproductive toxicity and bioaccumulation up the food chain in the environment. REACH contains the “last resort” principle for vertebrate animals. That means that an animal study can be carried out only once all other ways of assessing the chemical’s hazard have been exhausted.
The Government are clear that when animals are used in science, they must be protected. The use of animals in science is therefore highly regulated. A licence is required for every establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures with animals. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons, with legal responsibility for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body. Establishments are required to comply with published standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes.
Miss Dines
I apologise to hon. Members for not allowing interventions, but I want to leave time to respond directly to comments made.
We continue to develop our approach to regulation, so that we can continually improve compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We are modernising our approach to ensure that all establishments deliver stronger internal governance systems and processes.
If we are to achieve the benefits of the carefully regulated use of animals in science, there must be a supply of animals bred specifically for that purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said. Establishments that breed or supply animals for use in science contribute to activities that are critical to protecting human health and to making advances in science. Moreover, they are operating within a regulatory framework, set out under the 1986 Act, which requires an establishment licence and assessment of their compliance with regulation. In the UK, under the Act, establishments that breed animals for use in science are also required to provide care and accommodation to those animals in line with the published code of practice. Adherence to the code of practice and the requirements of the Act are assessed by the regulator as part of its compliance assurance programme.
I recognise the strength of feeling shown today on the subject of breeding animals, particularly dogs. It elicits an emotional response, and I understand that. However, I must be very clear that while we fully uphold people’s right to peaceful protest within the law, recent events at the dog-breeding site that was mentioned have gone beyond peaceful protest, leading to criminal investigations and sanctions. The tactics of protestors have included intimidation, direct action against staff doing their job, and the criminal theft of animals from the site. I confirm that sites are regulated and regularly inspected, so we can assure ourselves that such companies are conducting their work in a manner that complies with the law. It is important that we agree that individuals doing legal business, under an Act of Parliament made in this place, should have the freedom to continue to do that without threat.
The call for a ban on commercial breeders appears mainly focused on the breeding of dogs. It is important to recognise that under the Act no dogs can be authorised for use if the scientific objective can be achieved without using those animals or by using animals of less sentience. The majority of dogs used in science are required for safety testing potential new medicines, in line with international requirements designed to protect human health. Research using dogs has been a step in the development of more than 95% of all chemical medicines approved in the European Union in the last 20 years, including medications for use in treatments for cancer, heart disease, diabetes and specific genetic disorders.
Banning commercial breeding of dogs for scientific purposes could prevent potential new medicines from being tested in Great Britain. If that happened, safety testing work to assure public protection would no doubt have to be offshored to other countries. We cannot guarantee that such testing, or the treatment of animals there, would be carried out to the standard that we expect in the UK. Moreover, having exported that work, we may then be importing it back by means of new medicines. Seeking to close commercial breeders is not the answer. We must continue to address the issue on other fronts.
In supporting and accelerating advances in biomedical science and technologies, the Government are led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We seek to reduce the reliance on research and work that involves the use of animals, and to avoid some of the scientific limitations mentioned by hon. Members. Such advances include stem cell research, cell culture systems that mimic the function of human organs, imaging and new computer modelling techniques.
The UK has a world-leading reputation for the delivery of the 3Rs, which are the replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in science. Our framework is replicated internationally. We lead the way in various areas, and I do not accept the characterisation of the framework as defunct, old fashioned or out of date; we are leading on this work. The national centre received core funding of multiple millions of pounds, and the Government are committed to investing appropriately in that centre.
Since it was established, the centre has invested £77 million in research and £27 million in contracts, and it has recently published its new strategy to increase the focus on animal replacement technologies; it also champions high standards in animal research. We are seeking proper funding to move away from the use of animals. The UK contributes significantly to the development and embedding of non-animal methods in chemical testing internationally, for both human and environmental safety, through participation in a number of collaborative research and development programmes. That includes both leading on and supporting projects undertaken with the OECD to introduce internationally harmonised tools and guidance for new approaches.
I will mention briefly the points made so eloquently by the Members who spoke. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) that we must grip the new opportunities to move away from animal use, if we can. We are spending money, and we seek to move forward. To the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), I point out that we regularly commission independent work; the Animals in Science Committee gives valued advice on the development of policy. I can confirm that we have commissioned advice on the rabbit forced swim testing that was mentioned. She may want to look further at that important work for more information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned that the statistics in this area are not as informative as they should be. We have the most comprehensive system in Europe for the publication of statistics, via the Office for National Statistics. For example, we know that in 2021, the use of dogs decreased by 3%; last year it decreased by 7%. Over the past 10 years, advances have been made. Inspections were mentioned; there are regular inspections. The regulator publishes the number of inspections in its annual report, and we are running a modernisation programme focused on improving those inspections.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned, with eloquence, her desire for improvements in this area. I agree that we are a nation of animal lovers. We believe in high welfare standards. As a nation, we believe in public safety, environmental safety and the protection of animals where possible. That is why the Government’s approach focuses on alternatives that get us away from using animals. Animals will be used only when absolutely necessary. There were many other very useful contributions, which I value and have considered. It would be unfair if I took up all the time, but if there are any specific issues that I have not addressed, I would welcome any letters, to which I will respond when there is more time.
Elliot Colburn
I thank the petitioners who brought us here today, and thank colleagues for their contributions. I gently say to the Government that this is an issue that the Petitions Committee has to keep bringing back, because petitioners feel so strongly about it that they keep asking us to debate it again. It will not go away.
It is nearly 40 years since the regulatory framework was set out in the 1986 Act. While there were admirable ambitions in the Act for reducing animal testing and refinement, the fact that animal testing went up between 2020 and 2021 demonstrates that those ambitions are not being met. Technological advances have since overtaken events. There is inevitability here; we will have to move on this anyway. The USA did in December, and other countries are going in that direction already. International regulatory frameworks are already looking to revise guidance. The assumption that the 3Rs are being met, or that the undertakings on the search for alternative methods are being met, is demonstrably untrue, given the evidence collected by the third sector. The Government are sitting on a piece of work from 2014. I repeat my request for an update from the Home Office on what happened to that piece of work.
Ending animal testing is not just a nice thing to do; animal testing is demonstrably bad for animals, produces bad results and is bad for the economy. There is benefit to humans in massively increasing the amount of research and development we do through non-animal methods. I urge the Government to go away and look at the matter again, update the House on the 2014 consultation results, set up the committee, and move towards the ambition of reducing, and finally eliminating, the use of animals in testing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered E-petition 611810, relating to commercial breeding for laboratories.
Written Statements
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Reform of the Clandestine Entrant Civil Penalty Scheme
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
This Government are determined to crack down on illegal migration, to dismantle the organised criminal gangs behind it and to keep our borders safe and secure.
For over 20 years, we have run a scheme to help us to do just this, the clandestine entrant civil penalty scheme. The scheme is designed to complement law enforcement activity against criminals. It does this through tackling negligence by people who are not criminals but whose carelessness nonetheless means that they are responsible for a clandestine entrant gaining access to a vehicle.
During the financial year 2020-21, there were 3,145 incidents where clandestine entrants were detected concealed in vehicles, despite the covid-19 pandemic causing a lower volume of traffic. This rose to 3,838 incidents during the financial year 2021-22.
The Government are therefore concerned that the scheme is not having enough of an effect. Existing penalty levels have not changed since 2002. Drivers and other responsible persons are not taking the steps required to secure their vehicles, and clandestine entrants are continuing to use these routes to come to the UK.
The Government committed to reform the scheme in 2021, running a consultation in the summer of 2022. We are today publishing our response to that consultation, setting out plans to deliver what will be the first overhaul of the scheme since 2002.
Our reforms, including new penalty levels, have been designed to strike a better balance between disincentivising negligence and failures to comply with vehicle security standards, while ensuring that the regime is not overly burdensome on industry.
We will now be commencing relevant parts of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and further commencing relevant parts of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. We are also laying a statutory instrument to set out new security standards for all vehicles and to establish new maximum penalty levels. We are laying a new statutory code of practice to set out the circumstances in which a person might be eligible for a reduction in the level of their penalty. We are in addition publishing an economic note and an equality impact assessment.
It is our intention, subject to the will of Parliament, for these reforms to take effect on Monday 13 February 2023. Between now and then, we will deliver a four-week period of engagement with drivers and industry, to make sure they know about the changes that are coming and to support compliance.
The Government are committed to working with individuals and companies to support growth while delivering a strong and effective border. These reforms will help us to do just that.
A copy of the consultation response and the economic note will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
We are publishing further information at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clandestine-entrant-civil-penalty-scheme
[HCWS497]
Green Freeports in Scotland
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
On 13 January, the UK and Scottish Governments jointly announced that the Firth of Forth, and Inverness and Cromarty Firth have been successful in their bids to establish two new green freeports.
Green freeport status will support the creation of over 75,000 new, high-skilled jobs, drive growth and level up areas that have been previously overlooked. These areas will be backed by up to £52 million in UK Government funding, and potentially hundreds of millions in locally retained business rates, to upgrade local infrastructure and stimulate regeneration. This is alongside a generous package of trade and innovation support for businesses locating there.
Inverness and Cromarty Firth, and the Firth of Forth are excellent locations for these new green freeports, ensuring the benefits are felt right across Scotland. I wish to share my congratulations with the successful locations. Their strong bids demonstrated how they will regenerate their local communities, deliver decarbonisation, establish hubs for global trade and pioneer industries of the future.
Freeports are at the vanguard of levelling up: driving growth, creating jobs and, in turn, transforming the communities that surround them. Green freeports in Scotland will build on the UK Government’s successful freeport programme in England, where all eight freeports are open for business, with sites in Plymouth and South Devon, Solent, Teesside, Liverpool and the east of England recently being granted final Government approval. Green freeports are a tangible example of what can be achieved and delivered when Scotland's two Governments work together.
This Government remain committed to ensuring that the whole of the UK can reap the benefits of our freeports programme. We will be making a freeports announcement relating to Wales shortly and we continue discussions with stakeholders in Northern Ireland about how best to deliver the benefits associated with freeports there.
[HCWS498]
Grand Committee
Energy Bill [HL]
Monday 16th January 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 39-VI(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (13 Jan 2023)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Good afternoon, and welcome to the Grand Committee. I should remind the committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while the committee is sitting it will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 203: “Core fuel sector activity” and other key concepts
Amendment 213
Lord Ravensdale
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move this amendment in place of my noble friend Lady Worthington—who has just arrived, so I will leave it there.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I must start with an apology. My train was delayed for 45 minutes and many others were cancelled, so I am just about here on time. I thank my noble friend Lord Ravensdale for stepping in just as we started.
I am delighted to be here to speak to the amendments in this group which relate to the part of the Bill that seeks to take further powers to ensure that we have fuel resilience in our country. Amendments 213 to 219 seek to extend the scope of the Government’s proposals so that we have a more inclusive definition of fuel resilience beyond oil and liquid biofuels that includes gas.
The measures in this clause are a set of broad powers to allow the Government to ensure that economic activity in the United Kingdom is not adversely affected by disruption to core fuel sector activities, reducing the risk of emergencies affecting fuel suppliers. They give powers to the Government to issue directions for the purposes of managing risk, reducing potential adverse impacts and facilitating recovery from disruptions to core fuel sector activities.
The powers given to the Government by the Bill are extremely wide and potentially concerning, but I will come on to that. In essence they allow the Secretary of State to direct any core fuel sector participant to do anything for these purposes. More reasonably, they also allow the Secretary of State to require information and that certain types of incidents be reported. Leaving aside the wide-ranging nature of the powers for now, we have tabled these amendments to inquire why the definition of fuels excludes gas from the resilience proposals. I am sure I will be told that a draft version of the Bill was shared with the BEIS Select Committee, that no reference was made to gas as a core fuel and no complaints were made at that point. However comments from the committee in November 2021 were informed by the fuel shortages of autumn 2021 and since then we have seen a sharp spike in gas prices and some constraints on the supply of gas, which were exacerbated by the invasion of Ukraine. I should note that in 2021 the UK imported around 60% of its gas for use in all sectors. Although we have North Sea gas, we are by no means self-sufficient, so interruptions to fuel supplies raise problems. Gas is the sector where we remain very exposed—but that is certainly not true of biofuels. If we compare the two, the volumes are completely different and it seems odd to include biofuels but exclude gas.
Helen Thomas wrote last week in the Financial Times:
“The Rough offshore gas storage facility, partially reopened … by Centrica”
last year after having been closed for five years,
“has been steadily withdrawing gas … At about 54 per cent full … it is far from the 80 per cent-plus levels on the continent. And European storage capacity … is about 25 per cent of annual consumption compared with less than 1 per cent for the UK”.
That is equivalent to only three days, so we can see how tight some of these margins might be if there are disruptions. That could have left the country very short, especially had this winter’s weather been harsher than it has been.
Rough is not being refilled because the facility is being operated on a merchant basis rather than the strategic one which the Government might perhaps prefer. Whereas Governments in Europe can mandate storage, here, we are relying on Centrica to find a place where future prices make sense to it commercially to take storage into Rough, and it is of course looking for a decent return rather than strategic fuel resilience. The journalist added that no one thinks that storage operated on this basis will provide security of supply, and I tend to agree. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this question and on what more the Government could and should be doing to include gas in their fuel resilience strategy and indeed in this legislation.
It seems sensible that we would want the same powers, should we need them, to issue directions and to require reporting of incidents and the provision of information. Had we experienced a more severe winter, we could have come seriously unstuck, and I would like to understand how the Government would have intervened to ensure that critical businesses and households were prioritised. That is obviously an issue of some concern to the Government, given that these powers are being taken. Do the Government already have the necessary powers? If so, where are they and how would they work? I would be interested to hear more about that.
I have tabled Amendments 220 and 221 because I am seeking clarification and expressing concern about the wide-ranging nature of the types of financial assistance the Bill will allow. Certain types may be required, but why does the Secretary of State need powers to make grants, effectively, to firms involved in refining, transporting and storing fuels that are commercially very lucrative? We have all seen the headlines about how much money these companies are making, and it seems odd to take such a broad power, which could mean that public money was being spent with no requirement to pay it back to the public purse. It seems unnecessarily broad, providing the equivalent of a grant, and I would like to understand the justification for it. When looking ahead to the transition to net zero, we have described how we need to provide more public money, but it is right to say that investors in the current fossil-fuel-based energy system should have enough resources to ensure that they can meet regulations set by government without the need for further public money. That is a point that needs answering.
This is also arguably a sector that we would expect to go into managed decline as we look to electrify most of the demand being met by the current provision of these fuels, so it may be appropriate for assistance to be given. Transition loans, guarantees or even the Government taking a stake could be required to make the transition happen swiftly and in an orderly fashion, but simply giving out public money with no strings attached seems rather reckless. I would like to understand the specific circumstances and conditions under which a grant would be appropriate. If that cannot be dealt with in detail here, I would be happy to receive a letter outlining a case study that could justify this use of public money, given the economic climate we find ourselves in.
Finally, Amendment 222 is a modest proposal relating to the reporting of such financial assistance to Parliament. I could not see any reference in the Bill to the notification of Parliament in relation to these financial forms of assistance—only in relation to the scrutiny of statutory instruments or guidance. Is it really the Minister’s intention that this assistance would not be made public until BEIS’s accounts are published, which would obviously be after the horse has bolted and we would have to comb through the footnotes to understand what forms of financial assistance had been given under Clause 222? I feel quite strongly that, if it is important enough to have its own separate regime, it should be important enough to brief Parliament and there should be a protocol for notifying us of the intention to use these powers.
I have drafted an amendment that I hope the Minister will accept. If not, I look forward to assurances from the Dispatch Box about how and when Parliament will be notified before the expenditure is committed. With those remarks, I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, we on these Benches are generally supportive of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, but I would like to ask the Minister about some specifics.
Three key powers are taken under the Bill: the direction-making power, the information power and the financial assistance power. I am particularly interested in the information power. The government fact sheet states:
“The information required from industry will be limited to what is necessary and Government will work with industry to minimise any administrative burden incurred.”
What practical protections will be in place to ensure that this information is limited in this way, and what, in practice, is meant by:
“Government will work with industry to minimise any administrative burden incurred”?
I would welcome a response to those questions. If the Minister cannot answer today, writing will do.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for her amendments. I start by reminding noble Lords that this part of the Bill was published in draft and scrutinised by the BEIS Select Committee.
Amendments 213 to 219 seek to include gas under the definitions of core fuels and core fuel sector activity. These measures broadly seek to address threats to the security of fuel supply by introducing powers to ensure fuel supply resilience for the core fuel sector. They capture companies involved in oil-based products, which include heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas and gas oil, also known as red diesel.
I understand the reasoning for gas to be included in these definitions, given that it is utilised for heating and cooking in homes as well as fuelling power stations that provide electricity and contribute to overall energy security. Some forms of gas are, however, already included in this measure, such as liquefied petroleum gases—propane and butane.
I believe that my noble friend the Minister has previously written to the noble Baroness to highlight that the way gas is transported, handled and stored is different from oil, which operates under a separate regulatory regime. For the benefit of your Lordships’ House: gas is transported and handled across the country through a network of pressurised pipelines that connect gas terminals to the distribution network, and this infrastructure is owned by the national grid. I also highlight that the measures in the Bill are limited to the resilience and continued operation of the core fuel sector, which we traditionally refer to as the downstream oil sector.
The inclusion of gas generally would significantly widen the scope of this part and bring a wide range of stakeholders who are already heavily regulated into the scope of the Bill. The level of regulation and resilience in place for the gas industry is significantly higher than that of the oil sector and I caution against adding further regulation to the sector of the kind outlined by these amendments.
I assure the noble Baroness that the gas system is resilient and we have a highly diverse source of gas supply in Great Britain to rely on. It includes pipelines from the UK and Norwegian continental shelves, interconnection with the European continent and three liquefied natural gas—LNG—terminals, providing Great Britain with one of the largest LNG import infrastructures in Europe. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that last summer the UK was responsible for providing a significant amount of natural gas to mainland Europe through this land bridge.
National Grid Gas has robust, long-standing emergency procedures in place for the extremely unlikely event of an emergency on the gas network. The Government continue to work closely with Ofgem, National Grid Gas and other key industry organisations to monitor the gas supply horizon and prepare for the winter. The overarching aim is that fuel supply is maintained as we transition to a net-zero economy, and I assure noble Lords that the department is also exploring the longer-term options for gas storage and other clean energy, such as hydrogen.
I turn now to Amendments 220, 221 and 222, which relate to the financial assistance measures under Clause 222. It is important to highlight that the Government currently have no dedicated powers to enable spending for the purpose of core fuel resilience. I must emphasise that existing spending powers are limited in terms of their application. Current powers do not apply to providing financial assistance for the purpose of improving or maintaining the resilience of the core fuel sector.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I will indeed study her reply in detail; I am grateful for the information provided.
In the recently published net-zero review by Chris Skidmore, there was a statement that we would review the regulatory regime to make sure that it is fit for a net-zero transition. I wonder if some of the points made about how we traditionally define core fuels need perhaps to be thought about in the light of the transition that we are about to go through. It is clear that rising electrification and reducing demand for chemical fuels could cause unexpected consequences and shortages in the future. In fact, if we had had a different set of circumstances this winter, with less wind, more cold snaps and greater demand for gas across the continent—where it has been unusually warm—we could have found ourselves in a situation where we may well have had a very efficient gas transportation network owned by National Grid, but would have been reliant on access to a sufficient source of fuel to be transported through the network.
That is where storage comes in, which is why the focus has been on that rough storage site and what would now appear to be the rather reckless commercial decision not to keep that as part of our infrastructure. That is what I am trying to get at: are we seeing resilience as a holistic system-wide measure? It is clear that these things all interrelate. We cannot take the traditional view that there is a downstream fuel sector that relates just to oil and transportation needs and not consider chemical fuels being used for other vital sources of security and health—heating our homes, keeping ourselves safe and well through the winter months and other needs throughout the year.
I thank the noble Baroness for her response, but I would like to reconsider. Of course, at this stage I will not press those amendments.
On the question of public money, I am somewhat reassured that there “may” be a requirement to make it public that this sort of assistance is being granted, through transparency rules. I will look at them to interpret that “may”, because it is a rather weak word. It would be good if it was a requirement. These are potentially untrivial amounts of money going to a sector which, as has been described, is not short of resources to meet its needs. We need to be very careful in taking these broad powers.
If anything, the noble Baroness has worried me slightly further in saying that this is a non-exhaustive list and that it could happen anyway without these powers. I will give that further consideration and definitely look at the examples of housing and regeneration, but we are talking about a unique sector that is tied to our health, prosperity and security. We need to take a systems approach to resilience—the interconnectedness between all the different fuels and the electricity that will be a growing part of our energy system as it replaces these fuels over time. With thanks again for the response of the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
“Chapter 1Offshore wind electricity generationMeaning of “relevant offshore wind project”In this Chapter, “relevant offshore wind project” means a project involving the planning, construction, operation or decommissioning of—(a) a generating station in the UK marine area, that generates electricity from wind, or(b) infrastructure, in the UK marine area, used or intended for use in connection with a generating station within paragraph (a).”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause, to be inserted as the beginning of a Chapter 1 for Part 11 of the Bill about offshore wind electricity generation, defines what is meant by “relevant offshore wind project”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 222ZB, 222ZC, 222ZD, 222ZE, 222ZF, 242I and 246A in my name. They will deliver on commitments we made in the British Energy Security Strategy to support the simplification of the offshore wind consenting process while continuing to protect our marine environment and meet our international conservation obligations.
The UK is a leader in offshore wind—we have the most installed capacity in Europe, as the Committee will be bored of hearing me say. Our ambition is shared across the devolved Administrations and we recognise the key role of Scottish projects in particular, as well as Welsh projects in the Celtic Sea. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations as the Bill progresses through Parliament and as we develop subsequent secondary legislation to ensure a streamlined and efficient consenting process across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 222ZA sets out definitions for the subsequent clauses and Amendment 222ZB allows the use of strategic compensation measures to discharge obligations under the habitats regulations, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Scottish and Northern Irish equivalents. If all feasible options to avoid, reduce or mitigate any adverse impact on protected sites have been exhausted, the consenting authority may decide that an offshore wind project is in the public interest. However, it must first satisfy itself that sufficient compensatory measures are taken or secured before granting consent.
Identifying ecologically robust and securable compensatory measures in the marine environment frequently causes delays to project consent. To date, these measures have been delivered on a project-by-project basis. This is likely to become increasingly challenging. This amendment will enable earlier identification and agreement of suitable compensatory measures on a larger scale across multiple projects, which will help to support quicker decision-making on consents. Ministers in the devolved Administrations will retain their current roles in consenting. This amendment will ensure that they are also able to agree and secure strategic compensatory measures to satisfy compensation obligations for projects to which they consent.
Amendment 222ZC will enable the creation, operation and management of one or more marine recovery fund. The funds, once established, will be an optional mechanism for offshore wind developers to discharge a specified consenting condition that will help to compensate for damage to a protected site by paying into the fund. The Secretary of State will be able to delegate functions connected with the marine recovery fund. It is our intention to delegate the functions necessary for devolved Administrations to operate their own funds where appropriate, so that their Ministers may choose to use a marine recovery fund to undertake the delivery of measures related to projects to which they consent.
Amendment 222ZD will help to speed up the consenting process by streamlining assessments, including the habitats regulations assessment process. It will do this by enabling future regulations to address environmental protection of all protected marine sites early enough in the pre-application planning process to inform adequate and ecologically robust mitigation measures. This amendment also allows the Government to consider enabling developers to provide compensatory measures that improve wider marine ecosystems. I must emphasise that this broader approach would be considered only where developers have already avoided and mitigated their environmental impacts, and where like-for-like measures are not possible. Consent decisions will remain subject to advice from Defra’s statutory nature conservation bodies and their equivalents in the devolved Administrations.
Amendment 222ZE requires the Government and the devolved Administrations to consult each other, as well as statutory nature conservation bodies and marine regulatory bodies, on changes to the process prior to making regulations on environmental assessments.
In addition to Amendment 222ZA, Amendment 222ZF sets out some key definitions for the purposes of these new clauses. Amendment 242I ensures that the provision about affirmative procedures in the UK Parliament does not apply to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under Amendment 222ZD, which will instead be subject to affirmative procedure in the Scottish Parliament. Amendment 246A sets out the commencement date of the clauses in this chapter. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to congratulate and thank my noble friend the Minister and the department on bringing forward the amendments to which he just referred. He promised these at Second Reading and they form part of a package, from April 2020, in the British energy security strategy. So far, so good. However, as I mentioned at Second Reading, in the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee some two or three years ago we took evidence to the effect that there should be a moratorium, particularly given the scale of the programme, the numbers involved and the massive area to be covered by offshore wind development; as my noble friend said, that is a very ambitious programme. However, the government amendments are flouting the mitigation hierarchy that I am sure he would wish to sign up to. The amendments seem to be proceeding to the end stage, which is only meant to be a last resort in law: that is, mitigation and compensation.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to the government amendments, the accompanying policy statement and Amendment 242D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
There is absolutely a need for a real balance when it comes to the speed of getting both onshore and offshore wind online. There is no point in reaching net zero if behind us is the other threat that the ecosystems on which we all depend have started to collapse. The Environmental Audit Committee in the other place has already said that the planned fourteenfold increase in offshore energy production risks sensitive marine and onshore environments, so we really have to look carefully at how we get the balance between the two drivers. I share the view already put that some of the safeguards in the policy statement need to be toughened up and put in primary legislation, in a Bill.
The amendments give Ministers pretty broad powers. Although I am sure this Minister is wholly trustworthy, Ministers come and go. In common with the noble Baroness, I ask the Minister to support some strengthening of his amendments. First, there should be the clear presumption against development in protected areas, particularly marine protected areas, by avoiding those at all costs for renewable energy developments, rather than relying on shutting the stable door after the horse has gone by providing compensation. The mitigation hierarchy that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, outlined is fundamental to that. Its principles are, first, avoid; if you cannot avoid, then reduce and mitigate impact; and then, only as a very last resort, compensate. That needs to be enshrined in law, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on where the mitigation hierarchy is in legal terms.
There is a message that the Government need to give to developers of offshore and onshore wind and associated infrastructure: that, to be honest, avoiding protected areas, particularly MPAs, means avoiding hassle. If it looks too easy to focus on protected areas as part of the area available without too much hassle because that is all downstream, developers will not make the effort.
The second issue is compensation and making sure that it does not damage the coherence of the marine protected area network. There is an Environment Act target to have 70% of MPAs in a favourable condition by 2042; they will not be in a favourable condition if they have wind farms on them. We need a joining up of government, so that the left hand and the right hand are aware of what each is doing. Distressingly, we see that not happening from time to time in the relationship between BEIS, DLUHC and Defra. Perhaps we can urge the Minister to get the rest of government to walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. We need to make sure that there is a process for measuring the intentions of the compensation, reviewing that periodically and, if it is not working, doing something different.
The third thing that needs to be toughened is the clause—of which I am deeply suspicious—that makes it possible for Ministers to override the protections of the habitats regulations and the Marine and Coastal Access Act. I understand that the Minister will say that the imperative reason of the overriding public interest test will be used and compensation will be available, but that is no substitute for the statutory protections that have revolutionised biodiversity and ecosystem protection over the last 30 years. It would be greatly detrimental and, in my view, the thin edge of the wedge if we saw that diminution happening. We are going to have this argument in bucketloads on the retained EU legislation Bill. The reality is that these pieces of legislation have proved very effective and anything that undermines them would be a backward step. As I have said before, policy statements and ministerial commitments come and go.
Can the Minister tell us how his amendments can be strengthened to give statutory assurances that there will be no weakening of protection for designated marine sites? There is a lot of space and a lot of wind out there at sea; putting wind power sites in areas not long designated for protection—it is comparatively recently that all these marine protected areas have been declared—is not something we should see going forward. Can the Minister assure us that he will consider these concerns and come back with a way forward before Report?
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward these amendments to help us to reduce the delays that are often commonplace when it comes to investment in our offshore wind industry, which has been one of the crown jewels of the UK’s energy transition. We can all look back and say that it was a wise group of civil servants and Ministers who understood the sheer potential of that transition to a wind-based economy in the North Sea. Many of the jobs that have shifted from our offshore oil and gas sector in maintaining the oil rigs are now being deployed in the maintenance of this very important part of our new and clean energy system.
It is very rare that I deviate from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in my belief in preserving the wildlife, countryside and marine environment that we all enjoy—indeed, I started my career in conservation and it is a very deeply felt passion of mine. I therefore have sympathy for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, but—and this may seem a little heretical, I am afraid—I feel that we must take a systematic and holistic view of this. If we are going to start enshrining mitigation hierarchies in legislation, the very first place that we should apply those is to the fossil fuel industry, which this Bill largely concerns itself with. It would be disproportionate to introduce this merely for offshore wind in this part of the Bill. We should be seeking to avoid and mitigate before we compensate—certainly before we give money out to the oil and gas industry for fuel security reasons. It would be disproportionate to simply apply it to the offshore wind industry which, let us be honest, is part of the solution.
If we care about the marine environment and marine mammals specifically, the damage being wrought on those species and habitats from the existing fossil-fuel-based energy system should be first and foremost in our minds. We have no real evidence for why cetaceans are beaching. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, infers that it could be because of wind farms. We do not have evidence of that; what we have evidence of is the build-up of toxic chemicals in these mammals.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I just want to address the Minister on what the noble Baroness has just said. She has made an admirable case for marine protected areas being protected from all sorts of things. The opportunity in front of us is to do that job as the legislation is going through on offshore wind. I absolutely make the case that saying, “Let me be good, but not yet” is not in the interests of marine conservation and some of the hugely important ecosystems that are under threat from all sorts of other things. If we wait for all of them to be addressed before addressing offshore wind, we will wait for ever, and they will be gone.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
Since we are having this conversation, it is not a question of putting off these measures but of proportionality and ranking those impacts according to the scale on which they are occurring today, taking into account the positive impacts of offshore wind on no-take zones and the artificial reefs they create, as well as the advances in technology that mean that floating platforms will be more common.
Then there is subsea cabling. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, did not pick up on the fact that the 30% loss she cited is very old data. We do not see those losses now, with modern technology. Subsea cabling will be the future of connections into existing places where there are already reinforced grids, thanks to the closing down of thermal plants. I do not see that we should be unduly raising issues and putting more and more barriers in the way of clean technologies delivering great reductions in emissions, as well as providing energy security and jobs. I support the Government’s amendments and I am sorry that I cannot be more supportive of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, before I start, as we may talk about energy storage later, I declare my interest as a director of Aldustria Limited, which is into energy storage. I am also chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership.
First, I congratulate the Government on the Chris Skidmore report that has just come out. It is one of the best reports sponsored by the Government, and I look forward to hearing their reaction to its recommendations. There is some really good stuff in there that must be applauded.
Generally, I welcome these amendments. We know that we have to decarbonise our energy and, in particular, our electricity system; the Government have committed to do so completely by 2035. To do that, we have to make sure that we can deliver. Probably pretty well everybody agrees that methods of implementation, planning and getting wind farms into the gestation period all need to happen quicker, but we also know that there is a biodiversity crisis.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that I deal a lot with the Wildlife Trusts, and it is about nature recovery, not stopping stuff. No other organisation is more into pointing out that we have been in retreat, we continue to retreat and that we need to reverse that—and the ways of doing so, primarily through agriculture but also, in the marine environment, various other ways as well.
I get a bit involved in the Celtic Sea development, which, I am pleased to say, the Minister mentioned. Down in the south-west we have been saying that there needs to be a holistic look at the effects of that programme on the environment—marine and terrestrially, where it comes on board—and that the research needs to be done in advance. That should quicken it, in that it is done in one whole system rather than by individual planning applications for individual farms or floating facilities, and so on. Through that, there is not necessarily a conflict between the two.
I very much support the exposition of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the hierarchy, because I am certain that, as we know from onshore and things we have talked about before, off-setting as we knew it is an excuse, mainly for developers—I declare that I have a developer role. It is sometimes too easy to push the problem somewhere else and not confront it where you are actually causing the damage. One of the problems is enforcement and making sure that those things actually happen.
As I said, I generally welcome these amendments and trying to speed up the process, which is necessary, but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am concerned that we need to make sure that the powers given under these amendments are restricted to environmental improvement, in that they do not detract from that. I am particularly interested in how this compensation might work. The mitigation hierarchy absolutely needs to be put in primary legislation, but I want to understand from the Minister whether it is the Government’s intent that mitigation elsewhere should be a last resort. That is the fundamental question, and I would be very interested to hear the answer.
On the voluntary marine recovery fund, the idea of a voluntary fund seems very strange to me. What does it mean? I would like to understand from the Minister whether it means that, ultimately, it is voluntary. Is it voluntary for a developer that cannot do mitigation as we would all wish to contribute to this fund, or is it, at that point, compulsory? I do not get it. If it is voluntary, I am heavily concerned.
In addition, who will manage it in England? I understand well and I agree that it should be farmed out to the devolved authorities, but who will be the manager of that fund? I assume that it would involve rather large amounts of money, so how it is managed will be particularly important.
I also understand, although I do not think it is in the amendments, that there will be offshore wind environmental standards; I think that is in part of the briefing. I presume that these will have to be done by Defra. Defra is absolutely useless at doing environmental standards anything like on time. It has the whole of the EU repeal legislation Bill to do; I think the Defra Minister, Richard—
Lord Teverson (LD)
Yes; the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said that there were 1,200 pieces of legislation. I am therefore very concerned about how those standards will be produced and when. Perhaps the Minister could just give us an idea of those deadlines. I have a concern about enforcement generally but I am sure that the Minister will say, “They will be enforced.”
I have a further question in this area, which is around making sure in future that we have much better co-ordination on new developments and sharing infrastructure. I know this has come up in the Bill, but can the Minister assure us that this will be much better managed than in the past and that it will be a network rather than point to point? I again congratulate the Government on their agreement with the EU last month on the North Seas Energy Cooperation forum, which the UK has now joined. That makes complete sense to me. I will be interested to hear from the Minister what the next step on that co-operation is.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I start by thanking the Minister for his full explanation of the amendments in this group. I also thank all those who have contributed to the discussion so far and I very much look forward to the answers the Minister will give to the relevant questions that have been asked.
Obviously, the Government’s ambition of delivering up to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, including up to five gigawatts of innovative floating offshore wind generation, is to be welcomed. However, as we have heard, this is a challenge in terms of delivery and obviously, it poses questions about the impact on the wildlife in the areas where these installations will go.
I understand that Denmark is well advanced in this respect, particularly on innovative floating offshore developments. Are we in dialogue with Denmark about its experience in this area? What has it learned, and does it have the same measures in place? It does not seem that we need to be setting this out if some of these challenges have already been met or understood, or indeed through implementation. I know that one of Denmark’s real concerns is moving the energy off the island and how that will be achieved, but also energy storage. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to the thinking on putting in these installations and how we will get the maximum benefit from them without losing, as we have heard, some of the valuable energy delivered through the process.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and the broad support for the government amendments. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on summarising quite well the dilemma that we all face in these matters: we can spend lots of time doing lots of very detailed environmental assessments and take everything into account, but the practical effect is that we continue with the existing power generation system that we know is damaging. I am not pretending that any of these issues is easy, but we think that we have provided a balance.
I start by providing reassurance that these amendments will not change the level of environmental protection, only the responsibility for delivering those actions, to ensure that they are implemented at the earliest opportunity and across a broader area than planned.
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her Amendments 242C and 242D on the impact of offshore wind farms on wildlife and marine habitats. On her first amendment, I reassure her that the Government already have in place rigorous environmental protection processes which each offshore wind development must undergo. These include a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the relevant statutory nature conservation body and an examination of each application by an examining authority—in this case the Planning Inspectorate—which makes an independent recommendation to the Secretary of State. When developers submit their applications, they are required to provide information to enable the competent authority—in this case the Secretary of State—to undertake various assessments, including an environmental impact assessment and, where relevant, a marine conservation zone assessment and/or a habitats regulation assessment. These evaluate the impacts that the projects will have on the environment throughout their operational life cycle, from construction right through to eventual decommissioning.
Turning to Amendment 242D, I welcome my noble friend’s interest in our marine protected areas network. The current planning and legislative frameworks already ensure that offshore wind developments undergo rigorous scrutiny to identify impacts on marine protected areas, including the environmental assessments that I have just outlined. If at any stage of its life cycle the offshore wind farm would have impacts on protected sites and those impacts cannot be avoided, reduced or mitigated, but at the same time the project is considered to be in the public interest, then the Secretary of State, as the appropriate authority, has a duty to ensure that the necessary compensatory measures are put in place.
Defra is currently leading work with the offshore wind industry and other stakeholders to develop a library of ecologically robust and commercially feasible strategic compensation measures. Those compensation measures within the library will have had their effectiveness and feasibility tested before they are ever placed in that library. We also intend to introduce a set of offshore wind environmental standards for offshore wind farms, including a noise standard. The standards will apply across the industry and will, we hope, reduce the overall environmental impact of the sector.
It should not be automatically assumed that offshore wind developments will necessarily be harmful to marine protected areas. In many cases, such developments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington said, may be compatible with the conservation objectives of the marine protected area in question. In any event, the Secretary of State cannot provide consent for an offshore wind development unless they are satisfied that the sequential legislative tests have been met.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I understand that in Norway oil and gas firms are required to publish the environmental data that they hold. Would my noble friend see fit to ensure that the same happened here? What sort of environmental impact assessment is done before planning is given?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have just outlined to my noble friend all the different assessments that are carried out before permission is given. The Planning Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, and all those documents are published when relevant consents or others are given. If that is not the case, I will correct that for my noble friend, but as far as I am aware they are all published.
In respect of the comments that were made about the onshore grid, the amendments here apply only to the offshore elements of the wind farm development, which are the generation station itself and the offshore transmission. The building and the upgrade of the onshore network infrastructure—I am well aware that that is a very controversial subject in certain parts of the country, particularly East Anglia, at the moment—will always be subject to separate planning applications from National Grid, which is undertaking that work.
I reassure my noble friend that the wider offshore wind environmental improvement package has an evidence programme looking at all environmental impacts of offshore wind and how to address them, including a workstream on the impact of noise on marine mammals. The offshore wind environmental standards will use that evidence base to suggest any appropriate mitigation measures that developers can take. With that explanation, I hope my noble friend is reassured that existing legislation provides for robust protection for wildlife and for our marine habitats, and will therefore feel able to not press her amendments.
I turn to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about whether the fund is voluntary. The marine recovery fund will be an optional framework through which developers could discharge a condition of their consent, to compensate for any adverse environmental effects on a protected site or sites that cannot otherwise be avoided or mitigated. Developers will of course retain the ability to deliver compensation outside the MRF. Again, Defra is currently looking at a range of potential operators for the fund. We will set out further details in the regulations when they are tabled, and I am sure we will have further debates on that important subject. I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Would my noble friend explain the status of the mitigation package, with compensation coming last and mitigation, recovery and all the other aspects coming first? What is its status in law?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, of course, mitigation avoidance will always come first. It is only as a last resort, if it cannot be avoided or mitigated, that compensation will be looked at as an alternative—only at the very last stage.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
Has the Minister considered whether, if the development is actually increasing biodiversity because of the no-take effect, it should get credits, and maybe money back?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is a very interesting point from the noble Baroness, which we will take into account.
Lord Callanan
“Strategic compensation for adverse environmental effects(1) This section applies where a public authority is subject to one or more environmental compensation obligations in relation to one or more relevant offshore wind projects. (2) “Environmental compensation obligation” means—(a) a statutory duty (however expressed) to secure that measures are taken to compensate for adverse environmental effects of a project, or(b) a statutory condition (however expressed) requiring a public authority, before granting consent for the doing of an act by a person (“P”) in connection with a project, to be satisfied that P will take or secure the taking of measures to compensate for adverse environmental effects of the act.(3) The public authority may determine that—(a) measures taken or secured by the authority in the exercise of any of its functions, or(b) measures to be taken or secured by the authority in the exercise of any of its functions,are to count towards discharging the environmental compensation obligation or obligations to which the authority is subject.(4) In this Chapter, “adverse environmental effect” means—(a) anything that adversely affects the integrity of any site comprised in the national site network, or(b) anything that hinders the achievement of the conservation objectives stated for a protected marine area.(5) The measures referred to in subsection (3) may be measures taken at the site or sites of the project or projects to which the measures relate or elsewhere.(6) In this section—“act” includes omission;“the national site network” has the same meaning as in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012);“protected marine area” means an area designated under—(a) section 116 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 or section 13 of the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 (c. 10 (N.I.)) (marine conservation zones), or(b) section 67(1)(a) of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 5) (marine protected areas);“statutory” , in relation to a duty or condition, means imposed by or under primary legislation.(7) For the purposes of subsection (3), a public authority (“authority A”) may, with the consent of another public authority (“authority B”), treat measures taken or secured (or to be taken or secured) by authority B as taken or secured (or to be taken or secured) by authority A in the exercise of any of its functions.(8) In subsection (4)(b), the reference to the conservation objectives stated for a protected marine area is a reference to the conservation objectives stated for the area pursuant to (as the case may be) section 117(2)(b) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, section 14(2)(b) of the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 or section 68(3)(b) of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause provides that where a public authority is under obligations relating to the provision of environmental compensation in relation to one or more relevant offshore wind projects, the authority may allocate measures taken or secured by the authority towards the discharge of those obligations.
“Marine recovery fund(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment, operation and management of one or more marine recovery funds.(2) A marine recovery fund is a fund— (a) into which payments may be made in respect of relevant offshore wind projects, and(b) out of which payments may be made towards expenditure on measures to compensate for adverse environmental effects of one or more relevant offshore wind projects.(3) The following provisions of this section are without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1).(4) Regulations under this section may make provision—(a) for and in connection with the determination of the extent to which a payment into the fund discharges a compensation condition imposed on a person in connection with the granting of consent in respect of a relevant offshore wind project;(b) for a payment into the fund to be treated as discharging a compensation condition to the extent determined by virtue of paragraph (a).(5) “Compensation condition”, in relation to a person, means a condition requiring the person to take measures to compensate for adverse environmental effects of a relevant offshore wind project.(6) Regulations under this section may make provision—(a) enabling payments to be made out of the fund towards expenditure described in subsection (2)(b);(b) about the persons to whom such a payment may be made;(c) enabling conditions to be imposed on a person to whom such a payment is made in connection with the taking of measures described in subsection (2)(b).(7) Regulations under this section may make provision—(a) about the recovery of costs incurred in connection with the exercise of functions conferred by the regulations;(b) conferring functions, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, on the Secretary of State;(c) for the delegation of functions conferred on the Secretary of State.(8) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(c) may provide that a function may be delegated—(a) to a Scottish public authority only if the function relates to the taking or securing of measures in Scotland;(b) to a Welsh public authority only if the function relates to the taking or securing of measures in Wales;(c) to a Northern Ireland public authority only if the function relates to the taking or securing of measures in Northern Ireland.(9) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(c) must provide that the delegation of a function—(a) may be cancelled by the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations;(b) does not prevent the Secretary of State from carrying out any function delegated.(10) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.(11) References in this section to a Scottish public authority, a Welsh public authority or a Northern Ireland public authority are to a public authority whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (as the case may be).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the establishment by regulations of one or more marine recovery funds, out of which payments may be made towards environmental compensation measures required as a result of relevant offshore wind projects.
“Assessment of environmental effects etc(1) The appropriate authority may by regulations make—(a) provision for and in connection with the assessment of the environmental effects of relevant offshore wind projects in relation to protected sites;(b) provision about the taking or securing of measures by a public authority in compensation for any adverse environmental effects of a relevant offshore wind project in relation to protected sites (“compensatory measures”).(2) The appropriate authority is the Secretary of State, subject to paragraphs (a) to (c)—(a) the Scottish Ministers are the appropriate authority in relation to relevant offshore wind projects in the Scottish inshore region, other than in relation to qualifying Secretary of State functions;(b) the Welsh Ministers are the appropriate authority in relation to relevant offshore wind projects in the Welsh inshore region, subject to subsection (3) and other than in relation to qualifying Secretary of State functions;(c) DAERA is the appropriate authority in relation to relevant offshore wind projects in the Northern Ireland inshore region, other than in relation to qualifying Secretary of State functions.(3) In subsection (2)(b), “relevant offshore wind project” does not include a project relating to a generating station that has a capacity such that the construction or extension of the generating station would be a nationally significant infrastructure project (within the meaning given by sections 14 and 15 of the Planning Act 2008).(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes provision—(a) specifying the matters to be dealt with by an assessment;(b) about the procedure to be followed in carrying out an assessment, including when an assessment must be carried out and matters that must be taken into account;(c) specifying the person by whom an assessment, or a specified kind of assessment, must be carried out;(d) requiring an assessment to be carried out by a specified person in specified circumstances;(e) authorising or requiring the supply of information (including information the supply of which would not otherwise be permitted) for the purposes of an assessment;(f) enabling a person carrying out an assessment (an “assessor”) to require a person who has applied for consent to provide the assessor with assistance for the purposes of or in connection with the assessment;(g) prohibiting the granting of consent in respect of a project where an assessment has not been carried out in accordance with the regulations;(h) about when or how compensatory measures must or may be provided;(i) disapplying or otherwise modifying, whether generally or in specified circumstances or subject to specified conditions—(i) any of the provisions listed in subsection (5)(a), (b), (c) or (d) (as the case may be);(ii) any relevant Habitats Directive rights.(5) The provisions referred to in subsection (4)(i)(i) are—(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State—(i) section 126 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009; (ii) regulations 9 and 10 and Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012);(iii) regulations 6, 27, 28 and 30 to 37 of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1013);(iv) any other provision that relates to the taking or securing of compensatory measures, where the provision is made by or under an Act;(b) in the case of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers—(i) section 83 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 5);(ii) regulations 3 and 3A and Part 4 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (S.I. 1994/2716);(iii) regulations 9 and 10 and Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012);(iv) any other provision that relates to the taking or securing of compensatory measures in or in relation to the Scottish inshore region, where the provision is made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(c) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers—(i) section 126 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;(ii) regulations 9 and 10 and Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012);(iii) any other provision that relates to the taking or securing of compensatory measures, where the provision is made by or under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru;(d) in the case of regulations made by DAERA—(i) section 23 of the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013;(ii) regulations 3 and 3A and Part 4 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (S.R. (N.I.) 1995 No. 380);(iii) regulations 9 and 10 and Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012);(iv) any other provision that relates to the taking or securing of compensatory measures in or in relation to the Northern Ireland inshore region, where the provision is made by or under Northern Ireland legislation.(6) But regulations under this section may not disapply or otherwise modify, or make provision which could undermine or circumvent—(a) section 126(7)(a) or (b) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, section 83(4)(b)(i) or (ii) of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 or section 23(7)(a) or (b) of the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013,(b) regulation 64 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,(c) regulation 29 of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,(d) regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994,(e) regulation 44 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995, or(f) any provision about qualifying Secretary of State functions (unless the regulations are made by the Secretary of State). (7) Regulations under this section may make provision—(a) enabling the appropriate authority to direct a person to take steps or to refrain from taking steps;(b) requiring a person given such a direction to comply with it.(8) Regulations under this section may require the appropriate authority or a specified person—(a) to give guidance about specified matters;(b) to consult specified persons, or persons of a specified description, before giving guidance by virtue of paragraph (a).(9) Regulations under this section may confer functions, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion—(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary State, on any person;(b) in any other case, on a person other than a Minister of the Crown.(10) The functions that may be conferred on a person by virtue of subsection (9) include a function of giving advice in relation to the application or exercise of any other function, whether exercisable by that or another person, under or by virtue of regulations under this section.(11) In this section—“protected site” has the meaning determined in accordance with regulations under this section; and those regulations—(a) must be framed so that protected sites consist of natural habitats or habitats of species, and(b) must in particular include protected marine areas;“qualifying Secretary of State functions” means functions of the Secretary of State in relation to relevant offshore wind projects in (as the case may be) the Scottish inshore region, the Welsh inshore region or the Northern Ireland inshore region;“relevant Habitats Directive rights” means rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that continue to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (including as they are modified by domestic law from time to time), so far as derived from Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;“specified” means specified in regulations under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause enables the Secretary of State, the Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make regulations about the assessment of environmental effects of relevant offshore wind projects and about environmental compensation.
“Regulations under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc): consultation and procedure(1) The Secretary of State must, before making regulations under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc), consult—(a) the Marine Management Organisation,(b) the Joint Nature Conservation Committee,(c) Natural England,(d) the Scottish Ministers and Scottish Natural Heritage, so far as the regulations relate to relevant offshore wind projects or protected sites in Scotland, (e) the Welsh Ministers and the Natural Resources Body for Wales, so far as the regulations relate to relevant offshore wind projects or protected sites in Wales,(f) DAERA, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in Northern Ireland, and(g) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(2) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc) are subject to the affirmative procedure.(3) The Scottish Ministers must, before making regulations under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc), consult—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the Marine Management Organisation, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in England or the Northern Ireland offshore region,(c) Natural England, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in England,(d) the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in such part of the UK marine area as is beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea,(e) Scottish Natural Heritage, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in Scotland,(f) the Welsh Ministers and the Natural Resources Body for Wales, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in Wales,(g) DAERA, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in Northern Ireland, and(h) such other persons as they consider appropriate.(4) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc) are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(5) The Welsh Ministers must, before making regulations under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc), consult—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the Marine Management Organisation, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in England or the Northern Ireland offshore region,(c) Natural England, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in England,(d) the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in such part of the UK marine area as is beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea,(e) the Scottish Ministers and Scottish Natural Heritage, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in Scotland,(f) the Natural Resources Body for Wales, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in Wales,(g) DAERA, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in Northern Ireland, and(h) such other persons as they consider appropriate.(6) The power of the Welsh Ministers to make regulations under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc) is exercisable by statutory instrument.(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.(8) DAERA must, before making regulations under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc), consult— (a) the Secretary of State,(b) the Marine Management Organisation, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in England or the Northern Ireland offshore region,(c) Natural England, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in England,(d) the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in such part of the UK marine area as is beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea,(e) the Scottish Ministers and Scottish Natural Heritage, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in Scotland,(f) the Welsh Ministers and the Natural Resources Body for Wales, so far as the regulations relate to protected sites in Wales, and(g) such other persons as DAERA considers appropriate.(9) The power of DAERA to make regulations under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).(10) Regulations may not be made under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc) by DAERA unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.(11) In this section, “protected site” has the same meaning as in section (Assessment of environmental effects etc).”Member's explanatory statement
The new Clause inserted by this amendment sets out consultation and other procedural requirements relating to the making of regulations under the new Clause about assessment of environmental effects of relevant offshore wind projects.
“Interpretation of Chapter(1) In this Chapter—“adverse environmental effect” has the meaning given by section (Strategic compensation for adverse environmental effects)(4);“consent” means any consent, approval, permission, authorisation or confirmation (however described or given) that is required, or otherwise provided for, by or under primary legislation;“DAERA” means the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland;“England” includes the English inshore region and the English offshore region;“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act);“Northern Ireland” includes the Northern Ireland inshore region;“primary legislation” means—(a) an Act of Parliament,(b) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru,(c) an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or(d) Northern Ireland legislation;“protected marine area” has the meaning given by section (Strategic compensation for adverse environmental effects)(6);“public authority” means—(a) a Minister of the Crown,(b) the Scottish Ministers,(c) the Welsh Ministers,(d) a Northern Ireland department, or (e) any other person with functions of a public nature;“relevant offshore wind project” has the meaning given by section (Meaning of “relevant offshore wind project”);“Scotland” includes the Scottish inshore region and the Scottish offshore region;“UK marine area” has the meaning given by section 42(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;“Wales” includes the Welsh inshore region and the Welsh offshore region.(2) References in this Chapter to the English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland inshore and offshore regions are to be construed in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 322 of that Act).”Member's explanatory statement
The new Clause inserted by this amendment contains some further definitions of expressions used in the new Chapter consisting of the new Clauses inserted by the amendments in Lord Callanan’s name for insertion before Clause 225.
Baroness Sheehan
“Transparency of decommissioning costs(1) The Secretary of State must publish, within 6 months of this Act coming into force and not less than every 3 years thereafter, a statement on decommissioning offshore installations that includes—(a) a list of decommissioning relief agreements in force and the qualifying companies which are parties to each agreement,(b) the estimated likely range of the total future amount of tax relief to be granted in respect of any decommissioning expenditure under existing decommissioning relief agreements under—(i) current oil, gas and decommissioning prices, and(ii) expected future oil, gas and decommissioning prices,in current prices and as a proportion of tax revenue paid by qualifying companies which are parties to those agreements;(c) an assessment of how the estimates under paragraph (b) would be affected by world oil and gas prices equal to the lowest cost of global oil and gas production.(2) In this section—“decommissioning relief agreement” and “qualifying company” have the meanings given in section 80 of the Finance Act 2013;“offshore installation” has the meaning given in section 44 of the Petroleum Act 1998.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to bring greater transparency to the future taxpayer liability in respect of decommissioning relief agreements.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 222A and 227AA in my name. I put on record my support for Amendment 223 in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson; Amendment 227 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle; Amendment 227A in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds; and Amendment 232 in the names of my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to which I have added my name. I regret that I cannot offer support to the remaining amendments in this group, which I am sure will come as little surprise to those who tabled them.
I start with my Amendment 222A on decommissioning tax reliefs, and why I think it necessary. I hope that I can provide some useful background information, taken mostly from the National Audit Office report of January 2019 entitled Oil and Gas in the UK—Offshore Decommissioning. The report sets out the landscape of oil and gas decommissioning so that Parliament is in a position to consider whether the various government departments involved are protecting taxpayers’ interests effectively. The report states that:
“There are currently around 320 fixed installations, such as oil platforms, in production in the UK, primarily in the North Sea. … Oil and gas operators … are increasingly decommissioning their assets as they are reaching the end of their useful economic lives … Decommissioning affects the government’s finances because operators can recover some of their costs through tax reliefs. These enable operators to deduct decommissioning costs from their taxable profits and potentially claim back some taxes that they have previously paid.”
That is all well and good, and fairly normal practice. However, the report goes on to say:
“With decommissioning activity increasing, the government is paying out more in tax reliefs for decommissioning at the same time as tax revenues have fallen due to a combination of lower production rates, a reduction in oil and gas prices and operators incurring high tax-deductible expenditure.”
That represents a triple whammy for UK taxpayers such that, as the report says:
“In 2016-17, the government paid out more to oil and gas operators in tax reliefs than it received from them … for the first time”.
While oil and gas expansion looks artificially secure, with very generous tax reliefs, it is nevertheless clear that government is, on behalf of taxpayers, taking on a liability that is ultimately unknown. The lower and upper estimates of decommissioning costs from the Oil and Gas Authority, now known as the North Sea Transition Authority, are £38 billion and £61 billion respectively, but even that is only a guestimate. With another round of new licences being issued—potentially up to another 100—the risk is enormously compounded. Furthermore, it used to be that a ceiling was kept on the overall cost to the taxpayer by the fact that a firm cannot claim back more in decommissioning tax relief than it has previously paid in tax. However, since 2017, when firms default, government has explicitly said that partner firms that pick up the Bill can claim back more in tax relief than they have ever paid.
This amendment is designed to put more information into the public domain about who the taxpayer is on the hook to; what the liability amounts to, as a proportion of tax received; and by how much this amount will increase in a low-demand world, which is the way in which we are headed.
The amendment asks for three things. First, in proposed new subsection (1)(a), it asks for
“a list of decommissioning relief agreements”
and who has signed them—because at the moment we have no idea. We know how many there are—approximately 100—but not who those agreements are with. As the taxpayer faces a liability from each of these agreements, at an average of £200 million per agreement, some public transparency is desirable.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I shall speak to my Amendments 223 and 232, but I am in sympathy with my noble friend Lady Sheehan’s amendments. On flaring, we are undoubtedly the dirty man of the North Sea. Although the Minister may say that over the past year we have reduced our flaring by some 20%—we are starting to get there—as my noble friend said, really it should be zero, as many North Sea neighbours have been able to do.
Amendment 223 effectively bans fracking. It is straightforward, in black and white. I shall go through a bit of modern history—this Government’s view of fracking. In November 2019, there was a moratorium on fracking. In September 2022, fracking was allowed. In October 2022, fracking was banned. Let us be clear about this: we need a little certainty and the firm smack of decisive government here. Let us put this to bed by putting a ban on fracking in primary legislation.
With the cost of energy from gas at the moment, the problem is that in the UK we are still overdependent on gas, but our production, even with fracking, would be minuscule in terms of global production, so it would have little effect on the market price. Looking back to last February, Kwasi Kwarteng tweeted
“UK producers won’t sell shale gas to UK consumers below the market price. They are not charities.”
Indeed they are not. Fracking in this country will make no difference to gas prices at the moment. It will take some years to develop it, and the time is past. Let us be decisive about this and make clear where the UK stands.
Amendment 232 is very similar; it concerns England, because this is a devolved area. We should end the licensing of new coal mines. I was quite shocked at the end of last year that the Whitehaven mine in Cumbria was approved, and that it was approved by the Levelling-Up Secretary, Michael Gove, who should know better, having invented the 25-year environment plan, knowing all about these issues and being one of the best Environment Secretaries we have had for many years and a member of a Government who have sufficient respect and leverage to say no to something that should not happen. We have become an international laughing stock in many ways. Our reputation has been straightforwardly destroyed by hypocrisy.
I looked at a BEIS press release from just over a year ago, on 3 November 2021, regarding COP 26. It says:
“The end of coal—the single biggest contributor to climate change—is in sight thanks to the UK securing a 190-strong coalition of countries and organisations at COP26, with countries such as Indonesia, South Korea, Poland, Vietnam, and Chile announcing clear commitments to phase out coal power … Business & Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: ‘Today marks a milestone moment in our global efforts to tackle climate change as nations from all corners of the world unite in Glasgow to declare that coal has no part to play in our future power generation. Spearheaded by the UK’s COP26 Presidency, today’s ambitious commitments made by our international partners demonstrate that the end of coal is in sight.’”
A year later, just after COP 27 has finished, we have the Government declaring that a coal mine should open in England.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Would the noble Lord remind the Committee that that coal mine will not produce power—all the pledges that he has just talked about concern the use of coal to produce power—but steel?
Lord Teverson (LD)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. One-fifth of that production is estimated to be going towards steel, an industry that needs to decarbonise and has said that it will do that itself. The other 80% is to be exported and will be used as energy. I cannot understand what else it would be used for.
Lord Teverson (LD)
But that industry should be decarbonised. Whatever the noble Lord says, it goes exactly against what we as a nation have said about the future of coal. That brings disrespect, I am sad to say, on not just this Government but this country. That is why I believe this amendment is an important one to go forward.
If the Government cannot agree to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, on the name of the Oil and Gas Authority then there is absolutely no hope for the Bill. I also very much support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I remind the Committee that the International Energy Agency’s executive director, Fatih Birol, said at the end of last year:
“If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now—from this year.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 224 and 230 standing in my name. Before I do so, I shall make a supportive remark about Amendment 226 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley.
I remind the Committee, since it is such a long time since Second Reading back in July, that the context in which it was introduced was one of a very serious energy crisis. Whether or not we have a climate crisis is highly debateable, and many of us do not accept that alarmist language. However, that we undoubtedly had an energy crisis in the course of last year is absolutely manifest in the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of ordinary people living in this country. Although we have been assisted by the weather in having a very moderate winter and therefore less demand for domestic energy, none the less that energy crisis has not abated; prices remain extremely high and energy is in short supply. We all know the reprehensible reasons lying behind that and we condemn Russia’s action in Ukraine, but none the less there is no likelihood of it ending very soon, as far as anyone can see, and we have a very serious crisis. That is the background to the amendments that I am speaking to. It is remarkable that in the same group there are a number of other amendments that seek to cut off—radically, permanently and, by statute, for ever—access to energy supplies that we have available to us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, was somewhat surprised that I should talk in Amendment 224—which I will speak to in more detail in moment—about increasing gas supply to reduce foreign dependency. The noble Baroness seems to think that we have a target of zero carbon emissions set in law in this country. We do not; we have a net-zero target and there is nothing that I am aware of in government policy that says that the use of some amounts of carbon, including gas, in our energy mix over the long term is not both foreseeable and acceptable, provided that it meets a net-zero target.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I am not objecting to importing. I have supported fracking in the past. The point is that the time has gone; it has all changed. The United States has been fracking for some time; I have no problem if we import that. My whole concern is about new sources and new exploration.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am grateful for that clarification. If the noble Lord is saying that the time has gone, that, it seems to me, is essentially a commercial and practical judgment. It may be right—I do not run a fracking company; I know very little in practice about fracking. It is possible that the time has gone in commercial terms, and that it might not be a sensible thing to do in current circumstances. None of that is grounds for ruling it out as a matter of statute and prohibiting it. It is complete nonsense to suggest doing that. We will leave fracking to one side for the moment.
I turn to Amendment 230, a much narrower and more technical probing amendment which relates to the composition of the domestic gas supply. It takes me back to my boyhood and the childhoods of a number of people in this Room, though not all, who might remember what life was like before we had North Sea gas pumped into our homes. We had town gas, which was produced from coal. Its content was a mixture of gases, including CH4, CO, CO2, H2, higher-order hydrocarbons and phenols. The composition was adjusted according to the calorific value.
When we switched over to North Sea gas, the composition of the gas that we used became over-whelmingly methane, with a small amount of higher-order hydrocarbons. The switchover to using methane allowed the calorific value to be higher. Those of us with very long memories will recall that it was marketed as “high-speed gas”, which meant “hot”—it had a high calorific value, so you could cook that much faster. Moreover, we then put that composition into legislation, which I am grateful to the Library for finding for me: the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996, which are referred to in my Amendment 230.
The result is that, today, a significant amount of gas that we could extract from the North Sea is not being extracted because it cannot be used in our domestic supply by law. In effect, a lot is going to waste. The proposal in this probing amendment is to ask the Government to reflect on this and consider whether, given the energy crisis we have been facing, it might not be sensible and possible to amend those regulations so that we could make use of many of these gases that are currently going to waste but could, none the less, be fed into our domestic system. It could mean that the calorific value would be a little lower in our cookers, so it might take a little longer to bake a cake—a number of television programmes might be affected by this in detail; the outcomes might change—but in terms of efficiency, at a time when we desperately need energy, it is certainly worth looking at.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I have listened to the noble Lord with some interest, but those of us with long memories remember the dangers inherent in the gas that was used before the date he was talking about and the number of suicides that took place. Does he think there is a health and safety issue to consider before going back to those days and that sort of gas?
Lord Moylan (Con)
The name of the regulations that I am suggesting we review is the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations, so I fully acknowledge that this is a question of safety, but it is not necessarily the case that these regulations, passed in 1996, that we are still adhering to could not be looked at to see whether, precisely as I say in my amendment, they could be
“safely amended to allow more efficient use of extracted … gas.”
It may be that they cannot but, nearly 30 years on, it would be helpful if the Government could look more closely at this.
My principal point in raising these amendments relates to Amendment 224. A bit like the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, earlier, I want to know whether the Government have a strategy for resilience. Do they contemplate the dependence on foreign supplies going on endlessly in very large measure, and what would they like to do about it? I think that an awful lot of people in this country were shocked to discover our level of dependency on imports and would like to hear that we are becoming more self-sufficient.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, may I address some of the noble Lord’s responses to my comments earlier? It is clear to me that we have a fundamental difference of opinion on the science behind climate change. I believe that climate change is real, as is shown by the change we are experiencing. What evidence can the noble Lord point to that climate change is not real? There is substantial evidence of it, including the unprecedented levels of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as verified by ice core samples from the Antarctic and tree rings over millennia. The changes in carbon dioxide correlate precisely to the changes in climate that we have seen in historic times. That is the basis on which my amendments have been tabled, and they are clearly designed to meet the Government’s legal duties under the Climate Change Act and their need to reduce oil and gas consumption to meet net zero by 2050. The noble Lord’s amendment talks about a strategy for increasing domestic gas production. That cannot be compatible with meeting climate change targets—the Government have a legal duty to do that. Will the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, please accept that?
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am grateful for those points, which I will try to answer briefly since they were put to me directly.
First, I hope that nothing in what I said suggested, implied or stated that I do not accept that climate change is happening. I am also perfectly happy to accept that there is a man-made contribution to that. What I reject is the language of climate alarmism and climate crisis. The questions around the consequence, in practice, of climate change and the best means for dealing with it remain absolutely open. Over the last 20 years, we have seen wild, extravagant and unjustified claims about how large parts of the world are going to sink under water and we are all going to scorch; in fact, we see very little of that, but we see a few weather events being played up as if they are great catastrophes. Even if that were happening, the question that arises is what you do about it.
Many of us would rather put the emphasis on mitigation and adaptation rather than what we are doing at the moment, which is absolutely damaging our economy, in order that we should try to avoid those emissions. The cost of that damage to our economy has been estimated by the Climate Change Committee as at least 1% of GDP per annum—most people recognise, I think fairly, that it is closer to 4% or 5%. There are those who would say that that that cost is both necessary and justified, but it is none the less a damage to our economy, and not all of us accept that it is necessary and justified—we think that there are other methods of dealing with it.
I have not rejected climate change. I accept that net zero is a statutory target—I said nothing contrary to that. If I may repeat myself—this is my fault entirely; it is the problem with having an amateur such as myself drafting amendments—I apologised when I spoke for using the word “increase”, which I can change if we come back to this on Report. That was not quite what I meant; I meant increase relative to imports, such that I explained that my amendment would be applicable even if our consumption of gas was falling.
There is not that much in the substance of the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, made about my remarks. None the less, we have a profound disagreement—less about the science and more about what to do about it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, rising to speak after the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his representation of an extremely minority view, I will restrain myself and simply say that there will be no jobs on a dead planet. I will leave it there.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I shall speak to Amendment 226 and say a few words about Amendment 223 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and, by implication, Amendment 227 to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said he is against just new supply and not fracking as such, in which case, why has he singled out fracking and not sought to ban new North Sea fields? If he were logical, he would be signing the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which seeks to ban all new fields.
Lord Teverson (LD)
That is a very good question. It is partly answered by the fact that I put my amendment down first before the other amendment went down. The other answer is that in all legislative processes—the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will know far more about this than me—you try to go for what might be possible, and I suspect that the Government are less keen on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, whereas all my amendment does is confirm present government policy.
Lord Lilley (Con)
So, had the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, got her amendment in first, the noble Lord would have signed it. It is interesting to know that the Liberal Democrats are against any new fields in the North Sea.
What I want to try to get home to those members of the Committee who have not yet taken it on board is that up to now we have pursued a path to net zero which involves reducing demand for fossil fuels by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. That is a logical path to pursue. We have not been seeking to achieve it by reducing supply of fossil fuels. As a result, if people choose to produce more fossil fuels than there is demand, as demand falls fossil fuel producers will be left with stranded assets and lose money. It could not happen to a nicer bunch of people, but why should we think that our judgments are better than theirs or worry about them erring and producing too much, investing too much and not getting their money back? That is up to them.
Lord Lilley (Con)
May I pursue the point? When I have made it and made my own case, I look forward to the noble Baroness demolishing it.
We will continue to use gas, albeit in reducing amounts, for decades, probably alongside carbon capture and storage. That is accepted by almost everybody I know. If the UK bans production, which would be an absurd thing to do, given that we do not ban imports of natural gas, we will simply leave others to supply our needs and needs elsewhere in the world. If lots of countries decide to ban new supply, if they succeed in reducing supply faster than we reduce demand, there will be shortages. Prices will shoot up. There will be the same sort of crisis—and huge profits for the oil industries—and we will have done to ourselves what Putin has done to us by reducing supply more rapidly than demand. I want to know why the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, want to introduce that sort of risk into the system. Why not just pursue the steady path of reducing demand until it is net zero?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
It is interesting that the noble Lord’s analysis bears a great deal of resemblance to that of the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty proponents, who point out that we have been seeking to reduce demand and say that they explicitly want to reduce supply. I think the noble Lord was making the case that the price will go up if there is not enough supply. Of course, the reverse is true: if there is too much supply, the price will go down. Indeed, we saw this during Covid, with petrol in the United States—gas, as they call it—where people were actually being paid to store and hold it, because you cannot switch these supplies on and off like a tap. Once you build a field, you are going to keep producing that stuff: you cannot suddenly switch it on and off. So, if you have overproduction, you have extremely low prices and those prices, of course, do not reflect the actual cost and the damage being done, either in terms of the climate or all the other damages that the WHO, signing up to this treaty, points out, in terms of the damage done to human health by burning fossil fuels.
Lord Lilley (Con)
If that the best argument against the thesis I put forward, I know I am on strong ground. The noble Baroness says that we might end up with cheap fuel and the oil companies losing money: well, I can cope with both those things.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Will the noble Lord at least agree that, when we are looking at supply and demand and prices going up and down, that will work only where we have a level playing field? Where you have a market that is skewed, with perverse incentives, such as tax reliefs in the example I gave on my first amendment, that really negates his argument: you cannot say supply is going to be one factor and then have it overridden by incentives to investment that reduce the risks for the people taking them.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I think that is a rather different set of arguments. My point is that we can approach net zero by reducing demand and let supply find its own level, with or without incentives. Incidentally, the idea that there are incentives to oil production, when the taxes at our pumps are a massive proportion of the price we pay and when oil in the North Sea pays double the corporation tax rate that other companies do in any other industry, is simple nonsense.
However, now I will turn, if I may, to my own Amendment 226, which would ensure that the conditions relating to vibrations from drilling for shale should not exceed those applied to other industries, for example under British Standard 5228. There is no reason that shale drilling should face different conditions as to the tremors it may cause from, say, quarrying, mining, construction or pile driving. In particular, there is no reason, other than environmentalist virtue signalling, why standards for shale as far as tremors are concerned should be stricter than drilling for geothermal or carbon capture and storage—other than that they get positive ticks from the green lobby whereas shale does not, even though we are going to continue using gas for many decades to come.
Indeed, recently, there was a 1.6 magnitude tremor in Cornwall as a result of drilling for geothermal. People could feel it. It did not do any damage, of course, and it is an order of magnitude higher than the maximum tremor that we allow without stopping production in shale. The level set by Sir Ed Davey when he was Secretary of State for Energy was a magnitude of 0.5 and the one in Cornwall was 1.6. Sir Ed Davey has since admitted that he was proud that, by setting this limit, he effectively stopped the fracking industry in this country. Of course, that was not what he said at the time.
At the time, he said that he was accepting the report that came out at the time. It was an excellent report, produced by the Royal Society for Science and the Royal Academy of Engineering, called Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: a Review of Hydraulic Fracturing. The opening paragraph states:
“The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation.”
So it gave a pretty clear vote of support. It said that the
“magnitude of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing would be no greater than”
magnitude 3, which would be
“felt by few people and result in negligible, if any, surface impacts.”
So we are left with this absurdly low criterion, which is an order of magnitude more severe than that applied to any other industry.
It is not only an order of magnitude; it is entirely unreasonable. Natural earthquakes in this country can be several orders of magnitude greater than is permitted as a result of fracturing for shale gas, and these natural earthquakes occur with little damage. I can remember being woken up at midnight on 23 September 2002 in London. My whole house shook and the windows rattled and I was woken. It was the only time—no, I will not say anything about that. The earthquake was actually centred in Dudley in the Midlands and was a force 4.7 and had that effect in London. There were no reports of damage anywhere in the United Kingdom as result of it—and that was 500 times greater than the highest seismicity induced so far by fracking in the UK, let alone the low 0.5 standard set. Over the last 50 years, according to the British Geological Survey, there have been 25 natural earthquakes of greater than or equal to magnitude 4 and in the last 60 days we have had 29 minor earthquakes in the United Kingdom about which no one has complained at all.
The University of Liverpool produced a study using seismicity measurements which showed the impact of a whole range of household events. I have a copy of it here. It showed that, for example, a door slamming uses more vibration at its surface than the maximum magnitude permitted from fracking in the United Kingdom. So does sitting down suddenly on an office chair, or a building site piledriver 15 metres away. They are all similar orders of magnitude—they are 0.6—but you can find things which are an order of magnitude higher, and we should remember that this is a logarithmic scale. Dropping a large bag of shopping has a magnitude of 1.5 and a toddler playing on a wooden floor, I am astonished to learn, can produce seismicity of 2.1. So we are talking about having such a degree of security against any seismic shock resulting from fracking as to be completely ridiculous.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. I have listened carefully to his arguments and would like to ask him whether he is excluding the other risks associated with fracking. Whether or not there are earthquake risks, surely we have the pollution of the groundwater, the toxic chemicals being released, the ground level ozone, air pollution and the use of large volumes of water in a country which had water shortages not that long ago and indeed where the geography seems to be rather different from that in other countries where fracking has been so successful.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I have good news for the noble Baroness, because those issues were covered in Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: A Review of Hydraulic Fracturing, produced by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. We are all constantly urged to follow the science, so let us follow the science in that review. She discussed water, and according to the review:
“Overall water use is important. Estimates indicate that the amount needed to operate a hydraulically fractured shale gas well for a decade may be equivalent to the amount needed to water a golf course for a month”.
That seems something with which we can probably cope. She then discussed the possible results leading to the pollution of aquifers. The review says:
“Concerns have been raised about the risk of fractures propagating from shale formations to reach overlying aquifers. The available evidence indicates that this risk is very low provided that shale gas extraction takes place at depths of many hundreds of metres or several kilometres.”
In the UK’s Bowland shale, it would be kilometres deep. The review continues:
“Geological mechanisms constrain the distances that fractures may propagate vertically. Even if communication with overlying aquifers were possible, suitable pressure conditions would still be necessary for contaminants to flow through fractures.”
When you have a kilometre or more of stone—impermeable rock—bearing down, you could not get a better seal.
Nevertheless, we do not have to worry about scientific analysis and theory, because we have practical experience. Over a million wells have been fracked in North America; not a single one has resulted in a building falling down from tremors or in a single person being poisoned by contaminated aquifers. So we are bound to conclude that lots of people have been spreading the sort of scaremongering that would make anti-vaxxers blush—even Andrew Bridgen would probably blush if he heard some of the stuff that has been put out by the friends of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, at their various camps around every conceivable attempt to get fracking going. We should rely on the science and the scientific reports and regulate the industry well, as we have done in the past.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Since the noble Lord addressed me directly on fracking, I ask him if he is aware of the article published in 2020 in Environmental Health Perspectives in the United States which showed that babies with low birth weight are significantly more common in families living close to fracking wells in the US. That demonstrates the practical reality of the outcome of fracking on health.
Lord Lilley (Con)
What is the mechanism by which those babies are born with low health when they are near a well?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The scientists behind that study say that they cannot explain it, that it needs further examination and that there are a number of possible mechanisms.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I have not read the report, but I will read it. I have read similar reports, and almost all rely on the statistical phenomenon that random events are as likely to be bunched together as they are to be evenly spread; I say that as someone who studied statistics. This results in bunches of things; for example, you will get bunches certain cancers somewhere near Windscale, as it used to be called, yet there are bunches elsewhere not near Windscale but people do not worry about them. I very much doubt that there is any scientific basis—and indeed the authors of the article could not think of any scientific basis—as to why we should relate one thing to another in that case. It is the sort of thing that the anti-vaxxers say when they find a little concern. Obviously we should always be concerned about issues such as vaccination or drilling under pressure, but we should not exploit people’s fears to stop something we do not like for other reasons. I hope that my amendment will be adopted and that it will mean that we actually regulate the shale gas industry on exactly the same basis as we do all other industries which can produce similar environmental impacts.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to speak on this fascinating group of amendments, because we have had a rather long debate already. However, as it is such an important aspect of energy policy, I hope that the Grand Committee will bear with me as I comment on the group of amendments. If I had more time and had not been overseas recently, I would have added my name to Amendment 222A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, as it is absolutely critical that we have transparency.
Over a series of years, finance measures have allowed us to walk into quite a huge liability on the public purse in relation to decommissioning the oil and gas facilities that are already there. That should not be ignored; it could be huge and very significant, especially as the nature of the investment in the North Sea shifts away from the majors into much smaller, less stable and less financially competent entities. I fully support the amendment and look forward to hearing from the Minister in detail in his response, because it is very well drafted and concerns an absolutely critical issue.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I will continue if I may, and perhaps the noble Lord will come back to me on all the reasons. Another reason is that there is a moral dimension to climate change. We should never forget that. It is not about number crunching and bean counting of carbon in one country or another. This is a common-action problem. The whole world needs to move. Arguably, we have had the greatest number of years of unfettered exploitation of fossil fuels of any country on the planet. Therefore, it is high time that we signalled an end to that, to allow those countries that have not had that possibility to potentially increase their revenues from their resources while we signal the direction for the whole planet. That moral leadership is what led to net zero and it is what will lead to us acting on the supply side, because we must do both. We cannot effectively do this by cutting with one side of a pair of scissors. We need to cut with both. It seems ludicrous that the only body in the world that discusses supply-side constraints is OPEC. We are a nation state and we should, as a group of countries, come together to negotiate a much more considered and appropriate mechanism for looking at the supply side.
Finally, there is an absolute imbalance of power in those incumbents currently involved in the extraction of fossil fuels. They do not sit by passively, waiting for demand to be destroyed. I can tell the Committee as a matter of fact that money is being put into disinformation and misinformation campaigns to slow down the demand reduction that we want sped up. I do not disagree that demand is a very good way of doing this, but it is not the only way. We must be clear-sighted and honest with ourselves when we look at this problem from the perspective of a single-member state. What influence can we have on the world? Standing up to these giant companies with huge budgets, massive legal teams and huge sophisticated communication exercises is not easy. If we in the UK took this on, we would have to do so in an international context.
Therefore, I am not putting my name to these amendments. They are not appropriate without that commitment to act on an international basis. Here I am echoing some of the comments made about the non-proliferation treaty. Something must happen on the supply side within the auspices of an international agreement. We can then have an orderly transition in which everyone understands what we are allowed to do and what we are not. The current situation, where coal mines can be approved in the UK in the 21st century—sending people underground to dig out coal that no one wants with high sulphur content—is ludicrous. We as a country should lead on this. We should introduce appropriate policy at this stage, not legislation, which leads us to an international agreement.
I am sorry that I have spoken at length, but I feel strongly that we should take this on as a nation, particularly for that moral reason.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I was touched by the concern expressed by the noble Baroness for giving people in the fossil fuel industry certainty about the future. I used to be an analyst in the City, analysing energy and trying to forecast. It was very uncertain. The oil, gas, coal and electricity companies all found it very difficult to forecast. It is now somewhat easier because we have spelled out a path to net zero. They know that there will be a decline. They may think that perhaps it will not as much as that, or a bit more, but they have a better trajectory than ever before. In any case, why is she so worried about people in the fossil fuel industry having certainty, which no one else has? Also, she said that it is a moral issue—that it is about signalling something. In other words, it is virtue signalling.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I dispute that point completely. It is not about virtue-signalling; it is about moral leadership. There is a difference. When the UK stood up and passed legislation on climate change, and took those measures to pass net zero, the rest of the world took notice. We can do the same on this issue, and we will need to. It does not have certainty because it depends on who you talk to in the City. At the moment, many people in the City are saying, “Woohoo!” Everybody is piling on to fossil fuels, with record high profits and huge amounts of money to be made in the short term. That short-termism is going to send us as a society collectively off a cliff. We do not want to see that. What happens in that uncertainty is speculation. A huge amount of trading that goes on with these commodities creates a bubble that all of us then pay for. I do not want to see any more of that; I want it to become a regulated industry that is declining according to an agreed strategy. Otherwise, I have no doubt that they will push us off a cliff; arguably, they already have.
I turn to other amendments in this group. I do not want to get into a debate about fracking but, for the record, I remember being on the Front Bench when we debated fracking regulations in our debates on the energy Bill that introduced them. Why did the industry not spot this at the time? Perhaps it was a clever move by the Lib Dems that it did not spot, although I would find that surprising. There is a host of regulations that have been passed on this issue. I am not averse to us looking at these seismic limits again because nobody wants to hold the Bill back on that basis. However, my contention is that the time has passed and it will be too slow to make a significant contribution to our domestic gas supply. We would be far better off electrifying everything and reducing primary energy demand by at least a third in that process.
That brings me on to Amendment 224, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Surprisingly, I quite like this amendment because it would force us to think about how we could reduce our domestic reliance on gas. Within that timeframe, no fracking is coming online, I am afraid, so the only option left is massively reducing our dependence on gas. That means electrification, not just because it is abundant, clean and cheap but because it is much more efficient. It is an energy-efficiency measure to electrify, taking down primary consumption. I feel confident that, if we were to produce a strategy, we would see a huge amount of electrification being brought on. That may well be what we should be doing; in fact, Amendment 242, which we debated previously, would have asked the Government to do just that. Perhaps there is something here to come back to on Report.
I turn to Amendment 227A; it was not debated but I am sure that we will come on to it. I just want to say that I lend my support to that renaming.
On Amendment 227AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, flaring is absolutely ludicrous in the sense that we should not be allowing this resource to be burned without it being captured and brought to market. However, there is something worse than flaring: venting. I want to hear some reassurance on the banning of flaring—it has been banned at times, specifically for wildlife protection reasons as I remember it—because it can lead to venting. That means allowing methane to be released into the atmosphere, which would be far more damaging and much harder to track. I would not want to see this amendment agreed to unless that issue was addressed.
We have had a debate about coal. If we are looking at this Bill holistically—I offer the Minister this thought for free—there is a way through the apparent contradiction around allowing us to exploit in environmentally sensitive ways the continued use of our own fossil resources where that will avoid us bringing in more polluting sources from America, which I think is the case at the moment. What about a climate recovery fund? We have just created a marine recovery fund for the almost non-existent damage that the offshore wind industry creates. What about a climate recovery fund for the very real damage that the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels causes? Why do we not innovate around that policy? It would be easy to implement it. It could become a condition of all future licensing of fossil fuels in this country. We could work out the price we think should be paid and give the industry an incentive to make CCS work. That is something the Government could look at; I would be happy to meet the Minister to discuss it but I have only just thought of it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to speak, but I think I am the only person in the Committee who has had first-hand experience of a planning application for fracking, which was in my then constituency. This is a classic example of what a broad church the Conservative Party is, because I support Amendment 223 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
I think my noble friend the Minister is going to reply that the government position is that we will only proceed to frack—if I am completely up to date—if local communities are agreeable to it. My concern is how you determine whether the local community is agreeable to it. I am minded to be guided by the science, which is very clear. The British Geological Survey says that
“it is well known that hydrocarbon exploration and production can result in man-made or ‘induced’ earthquakes”.
It goes on to say that fracking is one of the usual causes of these manmade earthquakes.
I am more pro-European than pro-American. What works in America—in the wide open spaces of North America, which are very sparsely populated and have a very isolated population in most cases—does not work in counties like North Yorkshire.
One of the reasons I took the title of “Pickering” is because there was an application in Kirby Misperton. It was well funded by Third Energy and underscored by Barclays. I am delighted to say that the reason it failed—and why I think no future application will be made—is that there was nowhere to put the polluted water. That area is prone to water stress, not only because of its proximity to Scarborough, but because that north-eastern corner of North Yorkshire is prone to water stress. Sometimes we have flooding, as there is in York at the moment. That particular corner is very water stressed. The problem was that there was nowhere to put the polluted water. There was also the usual problem, which all MPs are familiar with, of very narrow rural roads and heavy lorries coming in at the construction phase. The locals did not like the congestion. It was also very close to Flamingo Land, which is probably the second most frequently visited attraction after the North Yorkshire Moors Railway. That is also in Pickering.
With those few remarks, I am minded to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rather than my own Government’s position.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for the discussion. I want to start with Amendment 223 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but I do not intend to open another strand of debate on this. Obviously, the Minister will come back to it.
Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, from all my experience in planning, I really struggle with leaving these decisions to the planning system. There has obviously been the intervention of the Planning Inspectorate in the decision on the coal mine in Cumbria. We must have much clearer policies to guide us as we go forward, rather than effectively setting people against each other. One year ago, would we have anticipated that this debate could have such a devastating impact on the Government of the day, with the Prime Minister effectively falling afterwards? The heightened emotion of this debate in the Commons is something to behold. I want to clarify that Labour Party policy is to move to a permanent ban on fracking. I think it is very clear where we stand in that regard.
I will also comment on the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on coal mines and Amendment 232. I honestly do not think that we could sum it up any better than the president of COP 26, Alok Sharma. On hearing of the possibility, he said:
“A decision to open a new coal mine would send completely the wrong message and be an own goal. This proposed new mine will have no impact on reducing energy bills or ensuring our energy security.”
This was quoted in the Observer on 3 December. I do not know whether noble Lords looked at the press coverage around the world following the decision, but the reputational damage that was done to this country in this space through that one action is incalculable—it is, frankly, shocking.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I wanted to say something in my speech, but it went on too long. There is this question of carbon neutrality of fossil fuel extraction, and two things are really important here. First, you have to take into account the embedded carbon within the product, which, it has to be assumed, will be released into the atmosphere, with an almost guaranteed impact now because the concentrations are so high that every additional tonne, which will be there for 1,000 years, will have a certain impact. Attribution science is getting ever better; you can now attach a cost to allowing that to happen, so we should do that.
Secondly, any neutrality that is sought on the back of something that is storing carbon in the biosphere is in no way equivalent to that extraction of something from the lithosphere and allowing it into the atmosphere. I feel very strongly that any claims around carbon neutrality of fossil fuel extraction need to be regulated: we need government standards that state what is and is not allowable. That is not to say that it cannot be done—it can be—but it is the equivalence of impact and the certainty of it that must be matched in any off-set, and it will not be achieved by planting trees or, even worse, saying that you will protect some trees that may or may not be cut down. That is the key to this. You could come up with a climate checkpoint that allows a limited amount of continued licensing, but it has to be done in mindfulness of the full effect of that on the climate.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. This brings to mind the debate we had in the Chamber last week about greenwashing and all the wider implications.
On the amendments in this group, I will talk about the demand and supply side, because it is important that we do not look at this in isolation; we have to think about the impact on people and how we can motivate our populations and communities to get behind the drive towards net zero. That is a very important consideration in these amendments.
The International Energy Agency clearly set out that there must be no new oil and gas fields and no new coal-fired power stations built if the world is to stay within safe limits of global heating and meet the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. There is now, finally, acknowledgement and recognition that moving away from fossil fuels is the key to achieving greater energy security. This debate has been going on for decades; what a tragedy that it is the horrendous situation in Ukraine that has brought it to a head. Action much sooner would have helped prevent us being in the position we are in today.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, talked about a steady transition. The point we are trying to get across is that there is an urgency here. There needs to be a rapid transition if we are to have any chance of moving along in the way that has been outlined, as we need to.
The other issue is how we permanently help households move away from the volatility of fossil fuel prices and reduce the fiscal burden of financial support to households through this and any future energy crisis. We have talked a great deal on other occasions about energy efficiency. We hear about the amounts that the Government are putting into this space but, quite frankly, the demand in this area is much higher than the response that we have had so far. I will not go into all the cost of living implications, but we cannot forget the millions of households that are set to be in fuel poverty this winter. This has to be one of the main drivers in making sure that we get the amendments we need into the Bill so that we can move away from the volatility and expense of fossil fuels.
Amendment 227A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lennie seems to me an absolute no-brainer; it is already in train, and we need to move forward on it. I have one very simple question for the Minister: will he support our amendment today?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am very interested and pleased that the noble Baroness referred to the International Energy Agency study that I mentioned. The inference could be drawn from her comments that the Labour Party supports a ban on new oil and gas. I know that many people out there listening to us today would be very interested to know whether that is the case. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the Labour Party supports a ban on new oil and gas?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
It was a nice try, but I think that is without the scope of this debate.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Well done to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for avoiding the question.
I thank everyone who has contributed today; it has been a fascinating debate. In the context of the Energy Bill, I think it is the first we have had on the fundamentals of our energy policy, with both sides: those who, in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seem to want to ban everything, and those who take a more pragmatic view of the issues. I will attempt to set a centre course of a sensible, pragmatic energy policy, which is the one we will follow.
I will address the various amendments, starting with Amendments 224 and 227, tabled by that fascinating pairing: on the one hand my noble friend Lord Moylan and on the other the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I will also address the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington.
I begin by stating our fundamental policy of driving down demand for fossil fuels as we transition to our legally binding net-zero economy. Of course, the noble Baroness’s Amendment 227 would have significant ramifications. At a time of global energy crisis, an orderly transition underpinned by oil and gas is the best approach and it is crucial to maintaining our energy security of supply.
Outside the rarefied world that the noble Baroness lives in, Greens in other parts of the world are having to live up to these difficult choices in the real world, in real policy. At the moment, the German Greens are quite hilariously justifying the expansion of a massive new coal mine—producing lignite coal, one of the dirtiest forms of coal—in northern Germany, because of the energy crisis. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, might think it is funny for us all to sit in the cold and dark, relying on unstable sources of power, but the rest of us think that we need to supply this country with the energy it needs. We need to set the country on a net-zero transition, but we need to do it gradually and responsibly. We set this out in the British Energy Security Strategy, where we set out our long-term plan for greater energy security, including references to domestic gas supply. In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor built on that and set out that the Business and Energy Secretary will publish further details on our energy independence plans in due course, and we will do so.
The North Sea Transition Authority launched the 33rd licensing round on 7 October 2022. This is expected to deliver over 100 new licences, which will put more UK gas on the grid. I repeat: it will not put more gas on the grid—it will put more UK gas on the grid. I have had this debate many times in the Chamber with the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and I still fail to see how she does not think that this is a good idea. In our transition, as we are reducing our demand, it makes sense to have that gas from relatively low carbon-producing sources rather than importing highly polluting, high-carbon fracked gas from other parts of the world.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
So the gas produced from the licences that will be issued in the 33rd round will not be traded on the commodities market—is that what the Minister is saying?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course it will be traded on the commodities market, but the vast majority of it will be moved, produced and used in the UK. We have relatively limited ways of exporting gas. We have some interconnector pipelines, which, interestingly, over the summer were used extensively to build up continental supplies of stored gas ready for the winter. Most of our LNG terminals are used for importing; very few are used for exporting. The gas will be subject to the international price—I totally accept that; we cannot isolate ourselves from the international market—but the vast majority of the gas would be used and produced on the UK market. Unless the Lib Dems are telling us that we are going to tell everybody to switch off their gas boilers, turn off their heating and sit in the dark and cold—which I do not think is a practical policy, but I look forward to seeing that in focus leaflets, if that is what they really believe—this is a sensible way of proceeding, gradually reducing our demand over time. The Climate Change Committee accepts this as well.
I hope that the noble Baroness will find some reassurance in the landmark North Sea transition deal between the Government and industry. This deal will help to reduce emissions, ensuring a net-zero basin by 2050, and support our goal of decarbonising the wider economy. We have seen the sometimes wildly opposing views on this matter, but the Government believe that we can pursue a pragmatic, sensible, middle ground approach—our Lib Dem approach, if you like—to meet our climate ambitions while also ensuring British energy security.
I turn to Amendment 227A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. As drafted in the proposed amendment, the Oil and Gas Authority’s name change to the NSTA would occur only in the Energy Act 2016. However, the OGA is mentioned in a large amount of primary and secondary legislation which would also need to be changed. The Government recognise the importance of this change, and we are currently considering all the legislative options to amend the statutory name of the OGA to the NSTA in all places where it occurs. The amendment also seeks to remove the NSTA’s statutory principal objective to maximise the economic recovery of UK petroleum and add a new obligation regarding net zero. As I have just said on the previous amendments, in my view, maximising economic recovery of oil and gas need not be in conflict with the transition to net zero.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I will not detain the Minister for long, it was interesting that he referenced the Climate Change Committee in response to my noble friend’s amendment. That same letter said,
“the evidence against any new consents for coal exploration or production is overwhelming.”
I am sorry that the Minister accepts part of that letter, but maybe not the other part. The Minister has nobly and served well a number of Administrations, including the one during COP 26, and I would like to know how he reconciles the COP 26 statements by his own department with the opening of that new coal mine.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The decision was taken by a different department, by DLUHC, in a quasi-judicial manner. It is likely to be the subject of judicial proceedings, so I cannot comment in detail on that decision, as the noble Lord will understand. I am sure we will be having this debate lots of times in future.
I move on to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. The reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision are set out in full in his published letter on GOV.UK, which takes into account matters like the demand for coal, climate change and the impact on the local economy. To reiterate the point of my noble friend, coking coal is used in the production of steel—it is not used in power generation—which is, of course, crucial to building the infrastructure that we all wish to see more of, such as offshore wind turbines.
On fracking, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her contribution. The Government have been clear that in line with the commitment made in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, it is adopting a presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracturing consents for the extraction of shale gas. That position is, in effect, a moratorium. This will be maintained until compelling new evidence is provided that addresses the concerns around prediction and management of induced seismicity.
I move on to my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendment. I welcome his thoughtful contributions to today’s debate, as well of those of my noble friend Lady Altmann. British Standard 5228, which my noble friend quoted, recommends procedures for noise and vibration control in respect of construction and open-site operations. It is not a measure designed to reduce the risk of induced seismicity. The potential for induced seismicity from hydraulic fracturing is a result of the injection of fluid deep underground, at depths of one kilometre or more. Seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing is therefore different in nature from vibration directly induced by a construction site, and the application of BS 5228 would therefore not be appropriate.
My noble friend Lord Moylan tabled an amendment about the composition of our domestic gas supply. A review of the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996 is currently under way. The Health and Safety Executive has been reviewing these regulations, which govern gas quality, and is consulting on a set of proposed changes. The HSE’s consultation closed in March 2022, and it will be aiming to publish its response in due course. BEIS has worked closely with the HSE and has taken regular opportunities to input into the process in both an analytical and a policy capacity. A statement by the Secretary of State at this stage is therefore unnecessary as the publication of the Government’s formal response will be tantamount to just that. I hope my noble friend will understand that in advance of that document, I cannot comment as it would not be proper.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, tabled two amendments in this group. On Amendment 222A, I should say at the outset that tax matters are an area for the Treasury. Since the introduction of decommissioning relief deeds—DRDs—the Treasury issues a Written Ministerial Statement at the end of each financial year updating on DRDs, including the total number of DRDs in force during the past financial year, past payments under DRDs and the projected value of future payments under ongoing DRD claims. While a DRD claim may arise where a company has defaulted on its decommissioning obligations, the tax system also provides tax relief for decommissioning costs in recognition that decommissioning is a significantly expensive and statutory obligation. HMRC publishes information annually on the estimated sum of all forecast tax relief payments due to decommissioning as part of its annual report and accounts.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister for his comments on decommissioning. He is unwilling to move further on the amendment, but will he at least commit to writing with the current estimate of the Exchequer costs of decommissioning if prices were to fall to less than $5, in line with Clause 1(3)(c), and to explain how these risks are being managed? I think that would be within scope.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Decommissioning relief deeds are private contracts between the Treasury and the relevant company. That is a matter for the Treasury. I cannot give a commitment on behalf of the Treasury. I suspect that the best option would be for the noble Baroness to take it up with Treasury Ministers.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I hope the Minister will not mind me pressing on this issue. I am not asking for anything commercially secret but just for some assurance, which I think the PAC and the NAO have sought, that the Government have a handle on the liability and risks which they are potentially exposing taxpayers to in the future.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said, the noble Baroness should take this matter up with the Treasury. I cannot give commitments on its behalf. I do not know the details. I have set out the position on DRDs. As far as I am aware, this is not tax or revenue legislation. I suggest that the noble Baroness take this up with a Treasury Minister.
I move on to Amendment 227AA on the prohibition of flaring. The Government are already taking steps to drive down routine flaring and the similar practice of venting. The UK has committed to the World Bank’s Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 initiative, and we are working with regulators towards eliminating this practice as soon as possible. Through the North Sea transition deal, industry has committed to accelerating compliance with the World Bank initiative ahead of 2030. We are making good progress: in 2021, total flared gas and vented gas reduced by 20% and 22% respectively, relative to 2020. Furthermore, the North Sea Transition Authority, as the lead regulator on these matters, expects all new developments to be planned and developed on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting.
With the explanations on these various points, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister, but I have to say that I am not hugely satisfied with the responses on decommissioning tax reliefs. I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about stranded assets and who will pick up the risk. In a scenario where, say, Shell decides that a particular field has become uneconomic for it to exploit commercially and decides to sell on that asset, which is then picked up by another entity which, in turn, goes bust, who will pick up the cost of that decommissioning? I hope that the Minister will be able to quickly address that.
In terms of flaring, I am really disappointed. It is such a no-brainer. Since 1991, Norway has been able to ban flaring—and, within that, I would include venting—yet our Government cannot give that commitment, when we have made commitments at COP 26 and COP 27 under the Global Methane Pledge, and we continue to do this. It really is on a par with asking countries to ban coal and then giving permission for our own coal mine in Cumbria to go ahead. It is just incomprehensible, and I hope that the Minister can quickly address that before I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Sheehan
“Prohibition on flaring(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit the practice of flaring by oil and gas installations within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.(2) In this section “flaring” means the burning of gas, produced during oil extraction, in order to dispose of it.(3) Regulations under this section must be made so as to bring the prohibition into force by 31 December 2025.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prohibit ‘flaring’ which is the burning of gas, produced during oil extraction, to dispose of it. This is in line with recommendations made by the Commons Environmental Audit Committee and would help ensure the UK fulfils commitments it made at COP26 and COP27 under the Global Methane Pledge.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Despite the Minister’s lack of response to my comments, I will not move the amendment at this stage.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
As I say in the Member’s explanatory statement, this debate is to raise issues that many people have raised with me about the purpose of Clause 230, which covers licensing nuclear sites that are on or under the territorial sea of the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in talking about offshore wind farms, referred to the impact on marine mammals of seismic testing in particular. In the middle of last year we saw seismic surveys being carried out in the Irish Sea off Cumbria in order to assess the potential of undersea nuclear storage. At that time the Marine Management Organisation noted in a letter that those tests could cause disturbance to certain cetacean species. Those tests were carried out before this Bill became law. Those are interesting circumstances for them to be carried out in, which I will come back to.
In the Government’s own words, they need to keep the waste safe and secure for hundreds of thousands of years, give or take, for the radioactivity to decay. That is why they are seeking long-term storage for hundreds and thousands of years. The UK has the world’s largest stockpile of untreated nuclear waste, more than 100 tonnes of plutonium, and the total volume is 750,000 cubic metres. We are talking about a lot of nuclear waste. The chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities, David Blackburn, who for full disclosure I will note is also the leader of the Green Party group on Leeds City Council, has said:
“The waste would be left in situ for millennia and, no matter how effective the barriers, some of the radioactivity will eventually reach the surface. The rate at which radioactivity would leak … can be poorly predicted and is likely to remain so for an indefinite period.”
I was in Cumbria a decade ago when there was talk of onshore storage of nuclear waste there and a great deal of local resistance. We are aware that there is no certainty. Putting it under the sea would seem to add to that uncertainty, to the risks and to the difficulties of dealing with anything should it go wrong. I put down this clause stand part debate because there is a great deal of uncertainty. People are unsure what the Government’s intentions are, which is why I hope the Minister may be able to provide more certainty.
I also refer to the fact that seismic testing was going on. The Explanatory Notes for the Bill appear to suggest that Clause 230 is actually to close a possible loophole that nuclear sites under the sea might not currently require a licence or be subject to the nuclear regulator. Page 71 of the Explanatory Notes states that:
“This clause amends section 1 and section 26 of the NIA 1965 and section 68 of the Energy Act 2013 … to make it expressly clear that certain nuclear sites located wholly or partly in or under the … sea … require a licence and are regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation”.
That raises a question that I will put explicitly to the Minister: are the Government aware OF or concerned about any unlicensed or unregulated nuclear sites on or partly on or underneath the sea in UK territorial waters?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief. When I first read this clause I assumed it was effectively to give permission to go out to sea from land, like some coal mines. I am interested to know whether that was the Government’s intention.
I was also quite interested that the site has to be partly in territorial waters. Territorial waters go out to 12 nautical miles, so that seems to suggests that it does not. I wonder why there is the stipulation that the site has to be partly in territorial waters. It seems to me that if this is done it really needs to be within territorial waters. I have no other questions.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I will also be brief. I do not want to provoke another debate—two hours on this would be unnecessary. We are all doing our bit by keeping this Room at low temperature in terms of this debate. I do not know whether they can turn the heat up a bit, as I think that would be helpful to all of us.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Bennett, are in charge of heating.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
Perhaps it is something like that.
The Government state that the best means to manage hazardous nuclear waste in the long term is in GDF undersea burial sites. Can the Minister tell us how they have concluded that that is the best possible means? Clearly we have plenty of it and we will have plenty more. We support nuclear power and nuclear generation as part of the overall mix of energy fuels to supply the UK—there is no question about that. However, dealing with hazardous waste is an important matter that we would like some information about.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for the opportunity to debate and discuss Clause 230.
This clause relates to geological disposal facilities. We have spoken about this often in the Chamber during Questions. GDFs are highly engineered facilities capable of isolating and containing radioactive waste within multiple protective barriers deep underground, so that no harmful quantities of radioactivity ever reach the surface environment.
The Government consider a GDF to be essential to the successful decommissioning of the UK’s civil nuclear legacy and our new-build nuclear power programme which will support the UK Government’s net-zero ambitions and their energy security strategy. The process to find a site for a GDF is under way, and it is therefore vital that we have a clear legal framework to ensure that such a site will be licensed and subject to oversight by the Office for Nuclear Regulation—the ONR.
On the noble Baroness’s point about disturbance, there is no evidence that any disturbances were caused by the specific seismic studies undertaken on behalf of Nuclear Waste Services. We have not seen any, and none has been drawn to our attention, but if the noble Baroness has other information, obviously we would be very grateful if we could see it.
Clause 230 makes clear that certain nuclear sites, including a GDF once prescribed in regulations, located wholly or partly in or under the territorial sea adjacent to the UK require a licence and are regulated by the ONR. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I have no idea why it says “wholly or partly”; I take his point that it is a long way off to get to “partly in our territorial waters”. However, presumably that is a drafting necessity.
The GDF siting process is a consent-based approach which requires a willing community to be a partner in the project’s development. Four areas have entered the siting process: three areas in West Cumbria—in Copeland and Allerdale—and one in Theddlethorpe in Lincolnshire. This clause is intended to provide clarity to parties with an interest in the GDF process that a GDF in their community, whether located deep below the land surface or deep below the seabed, will be safe, secure and appropriately regulated by the ONR. I would like to be clear: no part of a GDF will be in the sea itself, nor will radioactive waste be dumped in the sea. That is banned by international conventions, including the London convention and protocol. Whether a GDF is built in the geological formations deep below the land surface or deep below the seabed, it will be accessed from facilities on land, and the waste will be isolated deep underground within multiple barriers to ensure no harmful quantities of radioactivity reach the surface environment.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, I hope this has assured the noble Baroness of the Government’s intentions for this clause, and I hope she will feel able not to oppose that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I raised the question of whether the Government are aware of or concerned about any unlicensed, unregulated nuclear sites, which the Explanatory Memorandum seems to suggest might be a reason for this.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My officials say that that is not a concern to us. If we establish that it is otherwise, then of course we will let the Committee know.
“Chapter 3Relevant nuclear pension schemesCivil nuclear industry: amendment of relevant nuclear pension schemes(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a designated person to amend the provisions of a relevant nuclear pension scheme in respect of which the person is designated—(a) for the purpose of making scheme-specific changes;(b) for the purpose of making changes that relate to any scheme-specific changes;(c) for the purpose of making contribution rate adjustments.(2) “Scheme-specific changes”, in relation to a relevant nuclear pension scheme, are changes that—(a) relate to defined benefits for members of the scheme, and(b) are in connection with one or more of the matters mentioned in subsection (3).(3) Those matters are—(a) securing that the structure under which the defined benefits in question accrue is a career average revalued earnings structure (in particular where it would otherwise be a final salary structure);(b) providing for other changes to the amounts of such of those defined benefits as are payable in respect of members of the scheme;(c) providing for revaluations of pensionable earnings, or of benefits in deferment or pensions in payment, to be by reference to the consumer prices index (and not the retail prices index) but not involving imposing a cap on any revaluation or revaluation rate;(d) setting percentage rates, for contributions to the scheme by members of the scheme, that are higher than they would otherwise be; (e) setting periods for which contributions to the scheme by members of the scheme are required to be made that are longer than they would otherwise be.(4) Amendments made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) may include amendments relating to benefits provided under the scheme other than defined benefits.(5) “Contribution rate adjustments” means such adjustments—(a) to the rates of contributions to the scheme by its members in respect of defined benefits, or(b) to the salary bands to which such contribution rates apply, as are considered appropriate by the designated person (acting on actuarial advice) to ensure that the average contribution rate for members of the scheme in respect of defined benefits is as close as reasonably practicable to 8.2%.(6) Where a person is required by regulations under this section to amend the provisions of a relevant nuclear pension scheme, the amendments may be made—(a) free from any consent requirements set out in the scheme, and(b) notwithstanding provision made by or under any other Act of Parliament, or any rule of law, that would otherwise prevent or limit, or impose conditions on, the making of the amendments.(7) Amendments made by virtue of subsection (1)(a)—(a) must not relate to service prior to the date on which the amendments are made;(b) may be made in the case of a particular scheme on one occasion only.(8) Nothing in this section limits any power that a designated person has to amend a relevant nuclear pension scheme.(9) A person may not be designated in relation to a relevant nuclear pension scheme unless it appears to the Secretary of State that the person has the power to amend the scheme.(10) In this section, “designated” means designated by regulations under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause is the first Clause in a new Chapter of Part 12 of the Bill (also containing the other new Clauses inserted after Clause 237 by amendments in Lord Callanan’s name). This new Clause enables regulations to be made requiring persons with responsibility for pension schemes for public sector employees in the nuclear sector to amend those schemes in line with wider changes to public sector pensions.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I turn now to the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister. The 2011 report by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, started the Government on the road to the reform of public sector pensions. While the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 made a large number of reforms, it did not cover all public sector bodies, including those within the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority group. A proposed bespoke career average revalued earnings scheme was, following statutory consultation with affected NDA employees and a ballot of union members, formally accepted by the trade unions. The bespoke scheme is in line with the rest of the public sector. The reformed scheme still offers excellent benefits to its members. Notably, indeed unusually for other reformed schemes, it still includes provision for members to retire at their current retirement age. For nearly all, this will be 60.
The complicated nature of the pension schemes in the context of the statutory framework which applies to pension benefits across the NDA estate means, however, that specific legislation is needed to implement the new scheme. Amendment 227B provides the Secretary of State with the power to make secondary legislation designating a person who will be required to amend the provisions of a nuclear pension scheme.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the amendment is Amendment 227B.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
For the assistance of the Committee, I point out that the numbering of the groups that we were given last night and was up to date was changed when we came to the paper that we received today, but no indication was given of that. Therefore, I believe that this is now the correct order.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We are on the fifth group, with government Amendment 227B on pensions. I turn to Amendment 227C. The amendment that I just spoke to uses the phrase “relevant nuclear pension scheme” to describe the types of schemes that a designated person could be required to amend by virtue of that amendment. This amendment explains what is meant by that phrase. New subsections (1) and (2) provide that a relevant pension scheme is one run by, or on behalf of, the NDA under Section 8 of the Energy Act 2004, or one which provides pensions or other benefits to persons who are, or were, performing similar public functions. The new clause also clarifies that the UK Atomic Energy Authority pension schemes and pension schemes that benefit persons specified in Public Service Pension Scheme Act 2013 are not relevant pension schemes.
I turn to Amendment 227D. In order to implement the proposed pension reforms, the NDA and, in the case of the MEG-ESPS, Magnox Limited, will need information from others. Amendment 227D gives a person who has been required to amend a relevant nuclear pension scheme the power to require persons holding any information they might reasonably require to provide such information. Examples of information that they may need but which they might not otherwise be able to obtain include the number of members in a pension scheme and the salaries and ages of those members. Data protection legislation may still prevent the information from being shared; however, this amendment specifies that in making that assessment the requirement to disclose imposed by this clause must be taken into account. This amendment also provides that disclosure does not constitute a breach of confidence or a breach of any other restriction on the disclosure of information.
Lord Teverson (LD)
One thing that the Minister did not mention, although I may have missed it, is the employees and staff of the NDA. What consultation has taken place as far as they are concerned?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I have a few questions and, if it is not possible to answer them all, I shall accept a written response. It would appear that the Government are bringing forward legislation that breaks promises of previous Governments, going way back, in relation to nuclear workers’ pensions. The statutory pensions protections that Parliament previously legislated for were vital to the success of privatisation. Is it right for the Government to promise those protections to ensure that success, and then to rip them up that many years after the event? We would like some clarification as to whether the Minister believes that that is the case—and, if not, why not?
Is it accurate to claim that these reforms would bring pension provision across the NDA group into line with wider public sector pensions? These pension schemes underwent much more radical reform long before my noble friend Lord Hutton’s review of public sector pensions. They have been closed to new entrants for many years. My noble friend recommended that public sector pension accrual should remain on a defined benefit basis, but pension provision across the NDA group is mostly on a defined contribution basis. I have it on good authority that there is an appetite from the trade unions to discuss these reforms with Ministers. Would the Minister be prepared to accept this course of action?
Several more questions are coming up, particularly on technical issues and questions about the proposed amendments. The amendments should allow for the implementation of the agreement between BEIS, the NDA and the recognised trade unions. There is a lot of detail about the proposed career average benefit structure in the heads of terms, but the proposed amendments are drafted in more general terms. Regulations are the proper place for the detail to be set out, but might the agreed accrual rate be an important enough term of the agreement to be in the Bill as well? The average member contribution rate of 8.2% is specified.
There are concerns about proposed new subsection 3(c) of the first proposed new clause that adds this chapter to Part 12, which provides for the increase of pensions in line with CPI, not RPI, for active and deferred pensioner members. However, it says that only increases for active and deferred members—that is, re-evaluation—cannot be capped. This opens the real possibility that the Government intend to bring forward regulations that provide for pension increases for at least some members, possibly members of the Magnox group, to be capped. This is contrary to the heads of terms, which explicitly states that pension increases will be in line with inflation as measured by CPI, with no reference to any cap. Would it be possible to propose an amendment so that we can look at ensuring that regulations cannot propose capped increases for any pensioners?
I will end by asking: how confident are the Government that they can identify people in and out of scope of future regulations, given that there is a fair degree of geographical mobility around the industry?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I suspect that I might end up having to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, with the answers to some of her questions.
I turn first to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on what consultation there had been with NDA employees. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, a public consultation was undertaken and published in December 2018. It ran for a number of months before that. All these changes were agreed then with the trade unions, recognising the vital work that the NDA and its workforce delivers. BEIS and the NDA worked with national trade unions in 2017 to develop an agreed pension benefit structure tailored to the characteristics of the affected NDA employees. This resulted in a proposed bespoke CARE benefit structure, which is in line with the key principles of reforms already implemented in respect of other public sector pension schemes. The bespoke CARE scheme design was formally accepted by the national trade unions following statutory consultation with affected NDA employees and a ballot of union members. There are two final salary public sector schemes within the NDA, with a total of approximately 8,000 scheme members, that are therefore within scope for reform.
As I said in my opening remarks, this is still a very good pension. It allows full pension awards at 60 for the majority of members, whereas most public sector pensions are linked to state retirement age. I am afraid there has been a delay in implementing these reforms, purely because the Energy Bill has provided the first opportunity to make the change since the agreement with the unions; previous legislative vehicles were considered but were not deemed appropriate for these clauses. I will respond to any further questions that were raised in writing. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
“Meaning of “relevant nuclear pension scheme”(1) In this Chapter, “relevant nuclear pension scheme” means—(a) a pension scheme maintained by or on behalf of the NDA under or by virtue of section 8(1)(a) or (b) of the Energy Act 2004, or(b) subject to subsections (2) and (3), a scheme that provides for the payment of pensions or other benefits to or in respect of persons who are, or have been, employed to perform duties relating to matters that correspond or are similar to matters in respect of which the NDA has functions.(2) A scheme of a kind mentioned in subsection (1)(b) is a relevant nuclear pension scheme only to the extent that the pensions or other benefits are provided in connection with employment by a person with public functions.(3) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply to—(a) a UKAEA pension scheme (within the meaning given by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 8 to the Energy Act 2004);(b) a scheme that provides for the payment of pensions or other benefits to or in respect of persons specified in section 1(2) of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (schemes for persons in public service).(4) In this section, “the NDA” means the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause defines “relevant nuclear pension scheme” for the purposes of the Chapter consisting of the new Clauses in Lord Callanan’s name inserted after Clause 237.
“Information(1) This section applies where a person (“P”) is required by regulations under section (Civil nuclear industry: amendment of relevant nuclear pension schemes) to amend a relevant nuclear pension scheme.(2) P may require a person who holds relevant information to provide it to P.(3) “Relevant information” means any information or data that P reasonably requires in connection with deciding whether, or how, to amend the scheme. (4) Except as provided by subsection (5), the disclosure of information under this section does not breach—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).(5) This section does not require a disclosure of information if the disclosure would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, a requirement imposed under subsection (2) is to be taken into account).” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause gives a person who is required, by regulations under the first of the new Clauses in Lord Callanan’s name inserted after Clause 237, to amend a relevant nuclear pension scheme the power to require persons with relevant information to provide that information.
“Further definitions(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Chapter.(2) References to the amendment of a relevant nuclear pension scheme include references to the amendment of any one or more of the following—(a) the trust deed of the scheme, if there is one;(b) rules of the scheme;(c) any other instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of the scheme.(3) References to a relevant nuclear pension scheme include references to any section into which the scheme is divided.(4) A “career average revalued earnings structure” is a structure where—(a) the pension payable to or in respect of a person, so far as it is based on the person’s pensionable service, is determined by reference to the person’s pensionable earnings in each year of pensionable service, and(b) those earnings, or a proportion of those earnings accrued as a pension, are under the structure revalued each year until the person leaves pensionable service.(5) “Consumer prices index” means—(a) the general index of consumer prices (for all items) published by the Statistics Board, or(b) where that index is not published for a month, any substituted index or figures published by the Board.(6) “Defined benefits” are benefits—(a) that are not money purchase benefits (within the meaning of the Pension Schemes Act 1993), and(b) that are not provided under an injury or compensation scheme (within the meaning of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013).(7) A “final salary structure” is a structure where entitlement to the pension payable to or in respect of a person which is based on the pensionable service of that person is or may be determined to any extent by reference to the person’s final salary; and “final salary” here means the person’s pensionable earnings, or highest, average or representative pensionable earnings, in a specified period ending at, or defined by reference to, the time when the person’s pensionable service in relation to the structure terminates.(8) “Retail prices index” means—(a) the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Statistics Board, or(b) where that index is not published for a month, any substituted index or figures published by the Board.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause sets out definitions relevant to the provisions about amendment of relevant nuclear pension schemes.
“Application of relevant pensions legislation(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make—(a) such provision about the application of relevant pensions legislation in relation to persons of a specified description, or (b) such amendments of relevant pensions legislation,as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of or in connection with the amendment of a relevant nuclear pension scheme in pursuance of regulations under section (Civil nuclear industry: amendment of relevant nuclear pension schemes).(2) In this section—“relevant pensions legislation” means—(a) Schedule 8 to the Energy Act 2004 (pensions), or(b) regulations made under Schedule 14 or 15 to the Electricity Act 1989 (the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme etc);“specified” means specified in regulations under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about the application of relevant pensions legislation, or amending relevant pensions legislation, in connection with the amendment of a relevant nuclear pension scheme in pursuance of regulations under the first of the new Clauses inserted by the amendments in Lord Callanan’s name inserting new Clauses after Clause 237.
“Procedure for regulations(1) Regulations under this Chapter are subject to the affirmative procedure.(2) If, apart from this subsection, a draft of an instrument containing regulations under this Chapter would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides that a statutory instrument containing regulations under any provision of the new Chapter of Part 12 (consisting of the new Clauses inserted after Clause 237 by the amendments in Lord Callanan’s name) is subject to the affirmative procedure. It also provides for the disapplication of the hybrid instrument procedure in the House of Lords.
Lord Teverson
“Net Zero duty(1) In section 4AA of the Gas Act 1986, after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) In exercising its functions in relation to the principal objective the Authority has a duty to assist the delivery of greenhouse gas emissions targets as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008.”(2) In section 3A of the Electricity Act 1989, after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) In exercising its functions in relation to the principal objective the Authority has a duty to assist the delivery of greenhouse gas emissions targets as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place on the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority a duty to assist in the delivery of Net Zero.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 229 and 233 in my name. Amendment 228 is around Ofgem. We have debated this many times, in many contexts, within the House. It is about Ofgem having a direct net-zero responsibility and objective. That is what this amendment does, and I know another amendment is trying to do exactly the same thing. I am indifferent as to which one is accepted, as long as we achieve this.
The thing about Ofgem is that it is, rightly, customer focused in many ways, but it is focused very much on the short term and not so much on the long term—and that is why we are here. I believe that, in many ways, we have high energy prices because we have not transitioned enough towards net zero in the past. This is partly around the lack of infrastructure and the way that Ofgem assesses investment by the national grid and DNOs, in particular to upgrade the transmission system in the United Kingdom.
Ofgem’s objectives have not been updated since its establishment in 2000. Although Ministers have always said that there is, in effect, a net-zero obligation on Ofgem, I do not believe it is specific enough. There are a number of blockages in the system at the moment: solar farms are not all able to connect and we have talked before about slow offshore wind, which will be more likely in the future. I hope that new onshore wind is coming on, but I am sure the connections for that will be equally difficult. We even have housing developments in the south-east that are not able to connect to the grid through lack of capacity. This is all around Ofgem not being balanced in the way that it looks at investment programmes.
Page 10 of Chris Skidmore’s report says that one of the needs is
“to finally update the mandate of Ofgem”,
which must be to
“accelerate the connection of our cheap renewable generation”.
So let us bite the bullet with my Amendment 228 and finally put a net-zero objective into Ofgem.
As I said, I was impressed that the Government’s future systems operator—which, we understand, is, in effect, a subsidiary of Ofgem, although I am sceptical about that structure—does indeed have a net-zero objective. I welcomed that at the time and welcome it now. Let us reflect that up the management chain to Ofgem as well.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 229, which is tabled in my name.
Although I am against fracking, I am very much for energy from waste, and I am very proud of the facility close to the A1 at Allerton which is creating energy from waste material that is difficult to dispose of and used to go landfill. The benefits of energy from waste are twofold: we are creating an energy strand and we are disposing of waste. I think there is still an incinerator in Sheffield. I understand it was created by the Liberal Democrat administration at the time of the severe floods in the 2000s. One of the reasons for it was that there was a large quantity of furniture and other items damaged by the floods that needed to be disposed of very quickly. I hope that my noble friend will be minded to do more on energy from waste. Where it works, it works very effectively. We could learn from the experiences of other European countries, notably Denmark and other Scandinavian countries, Austria and Germany. In Allerton at the moment, the energy created is going into the national grid. I argue it should go to the local community. Allerton is one of the coldest parts of the country, and it would be in its interest to have a cheaper source of fuel.
The criticism that is made of energy from waste is around potential emissions. Looking at the BEIS figures which were brought to my attention thanks to the House of Lords Library, I see that the emissions figure for waste incineration was static between 2016 and 2020, at just 0.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, whereas the waste management total stayed at around 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and landfill was off the stratosphere, with extremely high methane emissions. That is another argument in favour of energy from waste.
I hope my noble friend will look favourably on rolling out more projects on energy from waste, such as those he knows about from exchanges we have had on the Floor of the House.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I have Amendment 242A in this group, which is supported across all parties in the Committee—I am grateful to noble Lords who have signed it. It is similar to Amendment 228, which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. There is a choice of amendments for the Minister, because we have the Labour amendment later on.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I am in some ways indifferent to which of the three amendments the Minister supports or to whether he wants to put forward different drafting himself, but I hope that the number of ways the Committee has brought forward this issue will persuade the Government to move. It is worth saying that there is not just support from different parties and political support, and from the Skidmore report, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, but great support for replacing the existing language of Ofgem’s objectives and duties in the Electricity and Gas Acts with a new text which makes reference to enabling the Secretary of State to meet the targets set out under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act.
As has been said, the future systems operator—the new regulator created by the Bill—does have a specific statutory net-zero objective linked to our climate change targets. However, this is weakened by the fact that there is no equivalent provision in relation to Ofgem, which has only the much more limited duty given to it in the Energy Act 2010. In their consultation on the future systems operator, the Government noted that
“There were several strong calls for Ofgem’s remit to be reformed to focus on enabling net zero in the most economic and efficient way”.
This view is also shared by your Lordships’ Industry and Regulators Committee. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who signed my amendment, will go into the committee’s rationale for this recommendation.
The case for updated net-zero duties goes far wider than this House or political circles. It has been argued for by environmental organisations such as Green Alliance but also by industry bodies such as Energy UK, the main trade body for energy, representing over 100 energy suppliers and generators. It has said that strengthening Ofgem’s statutory duties to explicitly support the delivery of the legally binding net-zero target would help ensure it balances the needs of both current and future consumers.
As has been said, the Skidmore review has been published in the last few days. It recommends that this change takes place to ensure that Ofgem gives sufficient weight to net zero and to incentivise network companies to plan ahead, emphasising the importance of future-proofing our energy infrastructure. It is essential that Ofgem is given, by government and Parliament, a very clear remit and role as to the importance of net zero and that it recognises the cost to consumers of delayed action. Regulators, given explicit responsibilities by government and Parliament, have a key role to play in demonstrating cross-government commitment to reducing carbon emissions. There is widespread support for this change and I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to it.
I will turn briefly to two other issues. I record my support for the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and hope that she too will get a positive response.
Turning to Amendment 229 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to which I have added my name, the Minister and I have had many exchanges on the topic of onshore wind. I should start by saying that I welcome the movement the Government have made here and that they have opened a consultation on changing the National Planning Policy Framework guidance on onshore wind, to remove the effective moratorium to allow a new development where the proposal has community support and to encompass the repowering of existing sites.
I also welcome the commitment in the Written Ministerial Statement that the Government intend to make changes by the end of April this year. It is important that we move forward with some speed on this. It is now three years since I tabled a Private Member’s Bill to deal with this issue specifically. In that time, wind farms could have been built in the appropriate places, feasibly adding to the grid at this precise moment and reducing our reliance on expensive gas and foreign imports.
The amendment is not overly prescriptive, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has laid out; it simply requires the Secretary of State to set out a plan as to how more onshore wind farms will be deployed. It does not force the installation of turbines anywhere and would complement the existing consultation, which is focused on allowing communities which can show demonstrable support for onshore wind the ability to install it.
It would indicate the need, and the recognition of the need, for an overarching plan. RenewableUK has long called for the Government to set targets for new onshore wind and solar capacity:
“While onshore wind and solar are now eligible for CfDs, there is no clear medium- to long-term ambition.”
I hope the Minister will recognise that setting a target of 300 gigawatts by 2030 would create 27,000 high-quality jobs and add £45 billion to the UK economy. It is time to set a target now and to be ambitious. I hope the Minister will respond positively.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 241, 242B and 242H in my name. In so doing, I declare my interests, first as an engineer and project director working for Atkins within the nuclear industry and as a director of Peers for the Planet.
Amendments 241 and 242H both relate to the renewable transport fuel obligation, the RTFO. I shall concentrate my remarks on Amendment 242H, as I believe it is the right amendment of the two to take forward. It aims to widen the scope of the RTFO from renewables to cover all low-carbon sources. I know the Minister will agree that we should, as far as possible, be technology-independent in how we set up subsidy schemes; as long as the source from which the fuel is derived is low-carbon, we should not care about its wider classification. The amendment seeks only to reflect existing government policy.
I note the July 2022 consultation on the related topic of recycled carbon fuels, which was titled Supporting Recycled Carbon Fuels through the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Recycled carbon fuels are not classified as renewable fuels, as they are made from fossil-derived waste: for example, non-recyclable plastic waste or industrial waste gases that would otherwise be landfilled or incinerated. However, RCFs can provide significant carbon savings compared to traditional fossil fuels such as petrol, diesel and kerosene. The consultation says:
“To introduce support for RCFs into the RTFO we will need to amend the Energy Act 2004 and lay secondary legislation to amend the RTFO Order 2007. The measure is expected to be part of the forthcoming Transport Bill.”
The Government have already agreed with the principle of taking this important measure forward and there is a great opportunity for them to get it done now, within the Energy Bill, so that primary legislation is in place to begin allowing the significant carbon savings that can be generated from recycled carbon fuels, the constituents of which would otherwise end up in landfill. Otherwise, if we wait for the transport Bill, we are looking at a significant delay, as I understand that it will not be progressed in this Session—perhaps the Minister will correct me. I am sure he will see the sense in this argument, given the benefits of progressing with these measures now. It would not commit the Government to anything. Obviously, secondary legislation would be needed to enact any of this, but it would remove the blocker that currently exists in primary legislation and allow the Government to progress with these measures when they so choose.
The amendment would also have wider benefits beyond recycled carbon fuels. It would also allow, for example, hydrogen produced from nuclear power to be eligible for RTFO support. There are plans being developed to use nuclear-derived hydrogen to power construction vehicles for Sizewell C build. It could be a key use case for hydrogen in transport and in construction vehicles which need to operate for long periods—24 hours a day—on sites with limited electrical or charging infrastructure.
As with the RCF, much further work would be required to implement this in secondary legislation if the Government chose to, not least on additionality rules. However, it would remove the blocker that exists in primary legislation and open an opportunity for the nuclear industry to begin generating hydrogen. It would also demonstrate the Government’s commitment to technological independence.
The question may arise of how exactly we define low carbon. In the RTFO context, the Government have published detailed sustainability criteria which any eligible fuel must meet. These include requirements to deliver at least a 60% greenhouse gas emissions saving versus fossil fuels. Compliance with the sustainability and carbon reduction criteria would be a straightforward way to define this term in secondary legislation.
To summarise, this is a straightforward amendment that reflects existing government policy. It does not commit the Government to do anything but does remove a blocker that currently exists in the Energy Act 2004 in extending RTFO support to other low carbon sources. It would also allow the Government to progress with their plans for recycled carbon fuels, given the delays with the Transport Bill. Therefore, I hope the Minister will agree that it would be sensible to proceed with Amendment 242H and allow the carbon reductions that will be possible through the use of recycled carbon fuels.
Amendment 242B was originally put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and was transferred to me following her move to the Front Bench, so I thank her for originally tabling it. It is also related to an amendment I put forward regarding the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act. It is a probing amendment designed to highlight a key issue with the financing of nuclear projects going forward, both through the RAB and other investment mechanisms. There are two aspects relating to financing of new nuclear that need to be highlighted here.
First, investors are constrained by ESG criteria that apply to their funds. My concern is that nuclear will not be considered sustainable, or taxonomy aligned, under the green taxonomy, which the Minister assured us last week is progressing at the Treasury. This concern comes from previous positions on nuclear in similar EU schemes, and from the Treasury’s not including nuclear in its green financing framework.
As with the previous group of amendments, this all comes back to technology independence. Nuclear is a low carbon technology, along with many others, and the Government should not be picking winners in the race to net zero but enabling a level playing field. If nuclear is not considered as taxonomy-aligned under the UK green taxonomy, there is a real risk that nuclear projects will not be able to attract capital in sufficient quantity to realise the Government’s ambitions for the sector. ESG alignment is now a key factor in capital raises for pension funds and institutional investors. I would be most grateful if the Minister could again provide some assurance that nuclear will be considered as taxonomy-aligned under the forthcoming green taxonomy.
Secondly, I referred earlier to the UK Government Green Financing Framework, which describes how the UK Government plan to finance expenditures through the issuance of green gilts and the retail green savings bond. Currently, this excludes investment in nuclear, but again I urge the Government to reconsider. The Government need to take the lead here in defining what counts as sustainable within their frameworks. This is so important in leading the markets in the right direction and in allowing these schemes to finance future government investment in nuclear.
Lord Hollick (Lab)
I rise to speak to Amendment 242A, which my noble friend has just introduced. In the course of our inquiry into the net zero transformation, the Industry and Regulators Committee, which I chair, took extensive evidence about Ofgem’s remit and whether it should be amended to include a specific requirement to have regard to meeting the UK’s net zero emissions target.
Ofgem’s primary statutory duty is to protect the interests of existing and future consumers in relation to gas and electricity. This objective is to protect those interests taken as a whole, including their interest in the reduction of greenhouse gases and in the security of the supply of gas and electricity. This duty guides Ofgem when it is making decisions and trade-offs in the regulatory framework between the three objectives of decarbonisation, affordability and security of supply.
Many of our witnesses told us that the net zero target should be included explicitly within Ofgem’s strategic duties, not least because Ofgem’s responsibility for setting the price and affordability of energy must take into account the substantial level of costs of the transition to net zero which will have to be borne by consumers.
If there is no explicit reference to net zero, there is a danger that the decisions will be very short-term in nature, focusing on short-term costs for consumers and not the long-term costs of failing to achieve net zero and invest in the infrastructure necessary to achieve that. The Climate Change Committee agreed. It argued:
“Giving Ofgem a net zero responsibility”
will help it to
“think … strategically about the changes that lie ahead so that we can minimise the cost to the consumer in the long run.”
Jonathan Brearley, the CEO of Ofgem,
“said that Ofgem is open-minded about whether it should be given a primary duty to achieve net zero, arguing that ‘I and the board have been very clear that we see net zero as fundamental to our existing duty’ … noting that there may be a benefit to clarifying that.”
The impact of net-zero costs on consumer bills is, ultimately, a decision for the Government, not for regulators. The Government promised a strategy and policy statement setting out priorities for delivering a net-zero energy system to ensure that the supplies are available at the lowest possible cost—that was promised in 2022. They also promised to publish a fairness and affordability proposal by the end of 2022. Neither of those documents has yet been cited, and it is indeed unclear whether the consultations are actually taking place. There will be an opportunity in our debate on Friday on the report from the Industry and Regulators Committee for the Minister to enlighten us on the progress of those two very important pieces of work on strategy and affordability.
Without those two statements from the Government, Ofgem will struggle to reflect net-zero costs in its energy pricing; but there is no doubt that those costs will have to be reflected, and Ofgem should have a clear and explicit duty to do that. That is why the Government should accept the amendment, to make it plain to all parties that Ofgem has a strategic duty to take into account the very considerable short and long-term costs of the transformation of our energy system and challenge the Government should their guidance impose unaffordable or unfair costs on consumers. Perhaps the Government might find such an independent intervention from the statutory regulator a little inconvenient. It would be ironic if the regulator most responsible for regulating the journey to net zero is one of the only regulators which does have a specific responsibility in its remit.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, my noble friend Lord Hollick and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said and what the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked.
I will comment on how reforming the remit of Ofgem using the Energy Bill would achieve what we are trying to achieve in the amendments in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Ofgem’s remit has not changed substantially since 2000. It does not prioritise electricity decarbonisation in line with the Government’s recent legislation or stated ambitions; it has only a consideration of greenhouse gas reduction. As a result, Ofgem has been unable to reform substantially its working practices and regulatory frameworks in response to the Climate Change Act 2008 and the UK’s subsequent net zero ambition.
The Government have an opportunity to address that with the Energy Bill, and, while they have recognised the need to reform substantially the working practices of Ofgem in the past, they have done so through the creation of a strategy and policy statement—an SPS—for Ofgem. That urgent statement will be welcome; we note that, largely due to its complexity, it has not been published since 2020, when it was first proposed. It was consulted about in 2021, but we are still waiting for the statement to see the light of day. It seems to us that, to help with the Government’s net zero ambition, giving Ofgem the mandate to advance policies in support of net zero would be extremely welcome.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will start my remarks by talking about the amendments on a new net-zero duty on Ofgem. While the Government agree with their intent, we do not believe that they are necessary, because Ofgem already has a decarbonisation objective in law. The Energy Act 2010 amended the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989 to modify Ofgem’s principal objective—that is, protecting the interests of existing and future consumers, including their interests in the reduction of targeted greenhouse emissions. Ofgem agrees that its principal objective includes an obligation to support delivery of our net-zero targets, and it would be keen to avoid any confusion over the need to balance decarbonisation, affordability and security of supply. This will be supported by the upcoming strategy and policy statement setting out the Government’s priorities, including those that will help to deliver net zero as a guide for the regulator. As the noble Lord noted, the Government published the results of Chris Skidmore’s net zero review on 13 January, and we will carefully consider the recommendations proposed and respond to the review in the spring.
On the amendment to designate a strategy and policy statement for the purposes of the Bill, this replicates the provisions set out in the Energy Act 2013 so, again, we think that this is unnecessary.
Amendment 229, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is on onshore wind. As the noble Baroness said, on 22 December the Government launched a consultation on making changes to the National Policy Planning Framework so that local authorities can have more flexibility to respond to their communities when they wish to host onshore wind infrastructure. On improving infrastructure to ensure access-to-grid connections for onshore wind, the Government are already making strides, publishing a comprehensive strategic framework for the electricity networks. As has been said, the Government included onshore wind in the latest contracts for difference round, where it played a key part in securing almost 1.5 gigawatts of power, including 900 megawatts of mainland projects.
On the annual reporting of onshore wind deployment, BEIS in fact already publishes quarterly and annual statistics for all renewable sources of electricity, including generation and capacity of onshore wind.
On Amendment 233, on decarbonising the capacity market, the most recent capacity market four-year-ahead auction was held in February 2022. There was a record investment in low-carbon flexible capacity; for example, it included more than 1 gigawatt of new-build battery storage. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that the Government recognise the need to ensure that the design of the capacity market is aligned with the wider decarbonisation of the power sector. As he noted, the Government published a consultation on this on 9 January, aiming to consult on design changes to the capacity market. I assure him that the consultation proposes measures that support greater investment in low-carbon capacity, including demand-side management.
I turn to Amendment 239 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on energy from waste. The Government are committed to minimising waste; making better use of existing energy sources will play an important role in our journey to net zero. It is estimated that the total power exported by energy-from-waste plants in the UK in 2021 was approximately 2.9% of total net UK electricity generation. The Government have already made good progress in diverting waste away from landfill and maximising the energy that can be recovered from non-recyclable waste. Waste holders already have a legal duty to act in accordance with the waste hierarchy, which prioritises the prevention of waste arising in the first place, followed by preparing items for reuse and then recycling them. Only then should waste be sent for energy recovery, with only that which cannot otherwise be managed sent for disposal, including to landfill.
All energy-from-waste plants are largescale and, therefore, electricity. While some have private wire connections, most of the power is exported to the grid rather than locally. Therefore, it is not practical to ensure that all electricity produced from waste is used locally. However, of course, it is possible to ensure that heat produced from those waste plants is used locally, and there are some excellent examples of that, including a large plant in east London. The Government believe that our existing provisions in this Bill are sufficient to promote that heat and power source. We discussed that a couple of weeks ago, when we discussed heat network zoning, which will accelerate the deployment of heat networks provisions and ensure that waste heat sources connect to local heat networks and ensure greater use of waste heat sources, such as residual household waste.
Finally, on Amendments 241, 242B and 242H in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, we recently published our intent to allow the use of nuclear-derived fuels to receive support from government fuel support programmes—particularly a form of sustainable aviation fuel—but we do not support the wording of these amendments. We look forward to working together through the passage of this Bill to permit the support of nuclear-derived fuels while not categorising nuclear-derived fuels as “renewable”.
On Amendment 242B, the Government agree that nuclear should play a critical role in decarbonising the UK’s energy sector. However, accepting this amendment would pre-empt the outcome of the further work that is required in this area, which was announced in the WMS by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, on 14 December. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister sits down, will he acknowledge that this debate has been extraordinarily truncated and that this wide range of issues will need to be fully examined on Report?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sure that we will have lots to discuss about lots of issues on Report.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, there have been some excellent responses. We are getting somewhere on the capacity market and onshore wind. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her support on onshore wind and my amendment. I had not realised there would be the contract for difference, and I take that as very positive. As the Minister knows, I like to be positive about these things.
However, I find it very difficult that the Government and the Minister will still not bite the simple bullet around Ofgem and the decarbonisation of the grid. It is having a practical effect as regards moving the whole transmission system forward—it really is. Those dilemmas about objectives that he talks about are the same for the future system operator, yet it has that objective.
I am sure that we will come back to this on Report. It is certainly my intention to work with others of a similar mind to find the right amendment and back whoever wishes to bring it forward. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Energy Efficiency Commission(1) Within six months of the date on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must establish an Energy Efficiency Commission.(2) The role of the Energy Efficiency Commission is to advise on targets and timetables for effective ways of using energy more efficiently and conserving energy across—(a) generators,(b) industry,(c) commercial developers and real estate managers,(d) households,(e) transport agencies, and(f) any other relevant sectors,to ensure minimal wastage of energy, improved conservation and best practice towards achieving net zero.(3) The Energy Efficiency Commission must also advise the Secretary of State on targets set in relation to energy storage.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would seek to establish an Energy Efficiency Commission to advise on targets and timetables for effective ways of using energy more efficiently.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 234 in my name. We are at the end of this Committee stage, but this could in a way have been taken at the beginning. We have had an interesting debate over the last few hours with contradictory views about different forms of generation. However, we should all agree that the best possible outcome is to use whatever energy we generate much more efficiently than we do.
My amendment basically suggests that we need a dedicated commission to test all the possible ways of using energy more efficiently, to ensure that—although we have achieved quite a lot—we achieve a great deal more. That will help us to get to net zero an awful lot quicker. That is the essence of this amendment.
There is quite a lot of evidence that investing in energy efficiency delivers returns three or four times greater than investing in energy generation. Of course, in the present climate, when energy costs are very high, people will themselves be taking steps to use energy more efficiently because they have to—although, for some people, the only way they can use it more efficiently is by not using it at all, which leads to considerable hardship.
It is possible to accelerate energy efficiency in a whole variety of ways, and I accept that the Government have promoted quite a lot of them. I also accept that the Secretary of State is perfectly capable of interesting new policies, but unless we have a dedicated commission, I do not think that all the possible permutations will be explored quickly or thoroughly enough to deliver the results.
It has been estimated that simply raising the quality of home insulation in the UK could deliver £10 billion to £20 billion of benefit a year. Energy conservation has been called the fifth fuel—after coal, hydrocarbons, nuclear and renewables. It is interesting that the Energy Saving Trust has identified that:
“Retrofitting homes to an Energy Performance Certificate standard of ‘C’ would save as much energy as six times the forecast output for the Hinkley Point C power station.”
That raises the whole question of why we are building the power station rather than investing in energy conservation. I really believe we can do a lot more, and remarkably quickly. It also creates a whole economic activity: it creates employment.
We have discussed these issues in the past, and policies have been introduced. I seem to remember that, when he was Environment Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, as he now is—then John Prescott—suggested that every new house should have solar generation capacity installed on its roof. That did not seem to happen. We have seen examples of passive planning to ensure that houses are built and designed to get the maximum benefit from the environment. Again, it happens here and there but it is not a policy overall. We have discussed district heating systems and domestic combined heat and power, which has always been around the corner but never actually delivered.
As an aside, there is clearly potential for heat pumps, but they do not suit every situation. In Scotland, the Green Party has persuaded the Scottish Government to basically ban the installation of any new oil-fired boilers after 2025. I think they will find that very difficult to enforce. For many people in my part of Scotland, Aberdeenshire—the highlands—who are off the gas grid, the alternatives just do not exist yet, and they are not likely to exist in 2025. Most of those houses are reliant on oil and many are old and hard to heat. I had a conversation with my local plumber who said that he had installed a number of heat pumps in and around the village, but in the last 12 months he had been asked to take quite a few of them out because they did not deliver the ambient heat that was required, and people found that they were having to pay for additional heating to supplement the heat pumps.
Clearly, we have to identify the properties that can benefit from insulation and heat pumps and assist them to get there as fast as they possibly can. At the moment—I guess in the short run the Government have no option—billions of pounds are being spent simply enabling people to get a contribution from the Government towards paying their bills, but over any length of time that money would surely be much better invested in increasing the efficiency of those homes so that they are more affordable.
I suggest that a commission makes sure it looks at the best practice nationally and internationally and tests all the options; is able to make very clear recommendations about priorities and what could be achieved, how quickly and at what cost; and suggests what mechanisms might be better—whether grants or loans. In some cases, just having access to advice and information would enable people to make their own decisions.
I must be honest: I have a concern about those who think that we can just turn off oil and gas now when we clearly have not developed the alternatives. People say that in transport, for example, we need to move to hydrogen, but the technology is not yet there. Even with electric cars, there are still enough problems with charging units, batteries and so forth that there is a question of whether we can get there as fast as we want. We have to find ways of doing it—I am not suggesting that we should not—but we cannot switch off what we have until we have developed the alternatives.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I have a question for the Minister that follows on from that. I very much support the idea of an energy commission, although Chris Skidmore says very strongly in his report, on decarbonisation, that:
“None of this will happen without a step change in the government’s approach to delivering net zero.”
He says that an office for net-zero delivery within government is needed but, if we cannot get that, energy efficiency must be part of it.
When we were in the European Union and single market, part of energy efficiency was around appliances and all sorts of things that we use or do, and we have had an increase in energy efficiency—not fast enough, but a sectoral trend—largely because of the sorts of implements we use; cars, vacuum cleaners or whatever. I therefore ask the Minister: in terms of energy efficiency and standards for equipment and pieces of machinery, what is happening now? Is BEIS doing this itself? Does it have a programme? How does that relate to our export markets and manufacturing sector? I would be interested to understand.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, has presented very interesting proposals. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I think this offers us one way forward on the crucial issue of energy efficiency, but I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Would he agree that a useful role for the energy efficiency commission would be ensuring systems to educate people to install this new technology properly, so that people such as the plumber whom he cited had the information available to ensure that they knew that what they were installing would work for their customers?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his amendments. I will take up the question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, first. The answer is absolutely; we have an extensive programme called the Energy Efficiency (Energy Using Products) Regulations. They are largely similar to those we had in the European Union, but we have extended them and taken them further. We have recent regulations on more efficient lighting and there are others coming, as well as some on the more popular white goods that people use. I would be happy to send him more details of that.
I move on to Amendment 234 from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. The Government agree of course with the principle of having an independent body to advise on targets and timetables for energy efficiency policy and net-zero policy more broadly. But we already have that body: the Climate Change Committee fulfils that role. He will also be aware that the Government will announce further details about the energy efficiency task force that was announced by the Chancellor and the Business Secretary late last year. There is a lot of detailed work happening on that at the moment. We hope to have more to say very shortly.
On Amendment 235, the Government fully recognise the importance of energy storage and its ability to help us to use energy more flexibly and decarbonise our electricity system more cost-effectively. Our measure to define electricity storage provides long-term clarity and certainty over its treatment in regulatory frameworks. That will facilitate storage deployment going forward. At this stage, however, it is premature to set a target for the sector. We do not yet know the full extent of the system requirements for storage. Especially in the context of high energy bills and having to pay for increased storage, it would not be responsible to set storage target at this time, as we could set a target that is too high or too low and favour a more expensive technology over a relatively cheaper one. Instead, our approach is to remove barriers and spur innovation for all low-carbon flexibility technologies. We published the 2021 Smart Systems and Flexibility Plan with actions to facilitate the deployment of these technologies, including storage at all scales.
The Government are not in disagreement with the noble Lord, except on the narrow issue of targets. I hope he recognises our commitment to enabling the deployment of flexibility, including energy storage, across our energy system to even out fluctuations in generation and demand and therefore deliver the best outcomes, which we all want, for our consumers. Therefore, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. As I said, I accept that the Government have been doing quite a lot, but I still believe they can do an awful lot more. I hope that those initiatives yield results.
On the noble Baroness’s intervention, I do not think it is a question of people not knowing how to install heat pumps; it is about people having expectations of heat pumps that do not suit every property. I speak from my own personal concerns. I have a house built in 1910; it is not the most efficient house. I inquired about a heat pump, and was told that if I was lucky I would get an ambient temperature of about 14 degrees, which would cost me about £10,000. I could get the ambient temperature up to 18 or 19 degrees as long as I spent £120,000 on increasing the insulation in the house. But other houses could be upgraded much more cheaply, so I suggest that they should be prioritised.
I am sorry, but I do not think the Scottish Greens are realistic about what they think can be achieved between now and 2025. In places such as Aberdeenshire and the Highlands, they will find a kickback when people are told that they cannot have an oil-fired boiler, there is no gas and we do not have a viable alternative for their property—yet.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I am sorry; I was saying to myself that I would not do this, but I point out that when it comes to energy efficiency, electrification, which is a tried-and-tested way of providing heating to homes, is a fundamentally more efficient way of getting energy. The total primary energy demand of the UK could go down by one-third if we were to electrify our heating and transport, because of the lack of efficiency of anything that is combusted. The combustion inefficiency of engines and boilers cannot be fixed. Electricity is the best vector.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
The noble Baroness took the next sentence out of my mouth because the advice I was given for my house was to electrify it, but I cannot be guaranteed green, renewable electricity at the moment. For hard-to-heat houses, that is the way forward, but we have to ensure that we generate efficiently and economically, and deliver. I completely agree that that is exactly the result. We have got to get there as fast as possible, so I am on the same page. I just think that some people are being unrealistic in thinking we can choke off options before we have developed the alternatives. It is a question of how quickly we can get there. That was the purpose of my amendment.
I heard what the Minister said, and I urge him to keep moving and to do this as fast as he can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
“(6) Subsection (3) does not apply to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section (Assessment of environmental effects etc).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the provision about affirmative procedure in the UK Parliament does not apply to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under the new Clause relating to assessment of environmental effects of offshore wind projects (which will instead be subject to affirmative procedure in the Scottish Parliament).
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan, to be inserted as a new Part after Clause 201, extend to England, and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
“(ha) Chapter 3 of Part 12;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the new Clauses in Lord Callanan’s name to be inserted after Clause 237 to extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Lord Callanan
“(ba) Part 9A, except sections (Directions to scheme administrators) and (Financial assistance to scheme administrators and participants);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan which contain provision about ESOS regulations (but not those making provision about directions or financial assistance) come into force on the day on which this Bill is passed.
“(ca) Chapter 3 of Part 12;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the new Clauses in Lord Callanan’s name to be inserted after Clause 237 to come into force on the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
In consequence of the notice given by Lord Callanan of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 161 stand part of the Bill, this amendment removes the reference to that Clause from the list of provisions that are to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
“(ga) sections (Directions to scheme administrators) and (Financial assistance to scheme administrators and participants);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan which make provision about giving directions and financial assistance in relation to Energy Savings Opportunity Schemes come into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Bill is passed.
“(ga) Chapter 1 of Part 11;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the new Chapter for Part 11, comprising the new Clauses inserted before Clause 225 by the amendments in Lord Callanan’s name, to come into force 2 months after Royal Assent.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends the long title to insert reference to the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan to be inserted as a new Part 9A after Clause 201.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends the long title.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Banks: Forged Customer Signatures
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 30 June 2022 (HL Deb cols 755–6) relating to allegations of banks forging customer signatures, what steps they have taken (1) to investigate and to prosecute banks for forging customer signatures, and (2) to compensate the victims.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the National Economic Crime Centre has concluded its assessment into the materials submitted to it in relation to allegations of signatory fraud by banks and will communicate its findings to relevant parties imminently.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I note that the Minister has not given any definite date for that. As usual, the Government are soft on corporate crime in the City, and thousands of innocent people have lost their homes, jobs, pensions and savings. Is it not time that we had a public inquiry into the Government’s support for the City in these crimes?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a number of fairly grave and unfounded allegations. The relevant experts in the NECC have been assessing the extensive material provided; he knows how extensive it was. The NECC has extended its review as new material has been supplied, but, recognising the complexity of fraud cases, I hope that all noble Lords will understand the length of time that this has taken. As I say, the NECC is in the process of notifying the complainants at the moment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that both the regulators and the enforcement agencies are seriously underresourced in tackling wrongdoing in the financial services sector? Will he support our proposals to distribute the fines from financial services-related prosecutions to the regulators and agencies in order to beef up their capacity?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, no, I do not accept that the enforcement organisations and the regulator are underresourced with regard to these matters. The Government are increasing law enforcement investigative capacity to tackle fraud. The 2021 spending review allocated a further £400 million to tackle economic crime, including another £100 million for fraud, which includes greater fraud investigative capacity in the NCA. There are a number of other sources of funding and government efforts and initiatives on this subject that I could go into, but the answer would be a long one.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, rather than an independent investigation of fraud at HBOS, the Government have passed the buck to HBOS’s parent company, Lloyds Banking Group, to investigate. In April 2017, Lloyds appointed Dame Linda Dobbs to conduct a review, and a report was promised within a year. Nearly six years later, there is no report and no compensation for victims. Is the Minister satisfied, or is he rather ashamed? What prevents that inquiry being launched?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is neither satisfied nor ashamed. I do not know the circumstances of that particular case. I am unable to comment on individual cases, but I will make further inquiries.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I struggle to read these facts out; they are quite unbelievable. As the Minister is well aware, the Lloyds Banking Group is accused of forging customers’ signatures. Since 2010, it has paid fines of £468 million, on 42 separate occasions. Yet it is allowed to fund the City of London Police—the very people who investigate banking and financial fraud. Can the Minister explain why the Government permit crooked banks to fund the police and how the resulting conflicts of interest are managed?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, those are yet more grave allegations that are partially unfounded. I have said already that this Government are doing a great deal with regard to funding the police and making changes to the way in which fraud is dealt with and investigated. We all recognise that this is a very serious crime; it needs to be dealt with.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, will those parts of the review that are partially well founded be made public? They are serious and of major public interest.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I have just said, I am afraid that I am unable to comment on individual cases. I do not know the circumstances of this particular case, but I will find out more.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, these victims of fraud by banks have been waiting nearly four years, following the initial statement from the Minister and others that they would look into this issue. One can only say that, if the banks were the victims of fraud, they would act a lot more quickly than they do when it comes to acting on behalf of their customers who are alleged to be the victims of fraud. I think what they want to hear from the Minister is what “imminently” means? Does it mean next week? Does it mean next month? Does it mean next year? These victims have been waiting too long for justice. It is about time the Government told the banks to get a move on.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is not the banks which need to get a move on. As I said earlier, the decision has been communicated to some of the complainants, but the Treasury Select Committee, certain remaining complainants and other relevant parties are not yet aware of the outcome. We should expect all necessary persons to be notified in the appropriate manner; beyond that, it would be unwise of me to comment on operational matters.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, stronger regulation means taking stronger powers to the Executive, which means a stronger and bigger stream of statutory instruments and secondary legislation coming through this House. Will my noble friend encourage his colleagues in the Government to support moves by Parliament to get stronger resources and have the capacity to scrutinise and control this stream of legislation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very sensible point. However, fraud falls within the Financial Conduct Authority’s objective of reducing the risk of financial crime, which impacts its consumer protection objectives. Obviously, the FCA will not hesitate to take the appropriate action against firms which do not meet its standards.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, since the Minister has just raised the Financial Conduct Authority, should it not have a clear objective to prevent fraud, rather than it just being under consumers? Much of this fraud has been perpetrated against small and medium-sized businesses, which are not covered by the consumer protections.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an interesting point, which I will happily take back to those who are responsible for overlooking and overseeing the FCA.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that all our regulators are toothless tigers? What is needed is more resources and a change in legislation to give the powers to protect the public.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe that they are toothless tigers. As I have said a number of times regarding capacity and resources, a great deal is being done. There will be significant improvement to the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit over the course of this year, and I would be happy to answer more questions on that.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recognise that it is not the banks that we should be aiming at but the fraudsters themselves. The City of London Police, the Metropolitan Police and the National Crime Agency do a fantastic job. However, in some ways, Action Fraud should be renamed “No Further Action Fraud”, because we need more resources. This crime is getting greater. Let us not turn our fire on the banks but go after the fraudsters.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend that we should look at the fraudsters. Regarding Action Fraud, we are providing £10 million to the City of London Police this year to support the upgrade in the Action Fraud service. A project is under way to transform the Action Fraud website, where the public can report fraud and cybercrime. That is part of the continuous improvements to the national service, which will be fully upgraded by 2024.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, why are the Government taking so long to produce the promised national fraud strategy? Also, why is less than 1% of police activity concentrated on dealing with financial fraud?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Regarding the national strategy, the noble Lord makes a very good point. I committed at the Dispatch Box that it would be out before the end of last year. However, I can confirm that it is being discussed cross-departmentally and is imminent. If noble Lords are interested, I am happy to set up a briefing so that we can discuss it in greater detail as soon as it is published.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that the reason for the delay is that fraud is complex. It is, but why is banks forging the signatures of their customers complicated?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have not seen the 10,000 pages of evidence in the 26 lever arch files, but expert investigators have, and it is their opinions that we are waiting for.
United Kingdom: Future Pandemics
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s readiness for any future pandemics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, we cannot perfectly predict the characteristics of a new pandemic pathogen, and therefore pandemic preparedness is an area kept under review. The UK has flexible and well-tested pandemic response capabilities. We are continuously enhancing our preparedness using the latest scientific information, lessons learned from exercises and our response to emergencies, including Covid-19. The UK Health Security Agency maintains constant vigilance on emerging infectious disease threats. This includes co-operating globally to detect and counter future pandemics.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, Dame Kate Bingham, former chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce, told the health and science committees in the other place that many of the initiatives set up by the taskforce have been dismantled, that key recommendations have not been acted on, and that the clinical research environment has deteriorated. Does the Minister acknowledge the pressing need to go further than the Government’s targeted spend on research and development, and can he say why the Government have been so reluctant to act on the taskforce’s conclusions from the last pandemic?
Lord Markham (Con)
Our approach to this has been led by the science. As the House is aware, we set up the UK Health Security Agency precisely to make sure that we have a team of experts in place ready to answer what is needed, in any eventuality. We also set up the 100 Days Mission to make sure that we have the ability to deploy effective diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines within 100 days, which is pretty good.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister report to the House what progress is being made in giving the World Health Organization better access to new virus discoveries, and setting up schemes that will enable the better distribution of vaccines at an earlier stage in any further pandemic?
Lord Markham (Con)
We have deployed our sequencing capability to the benefit of the whole world. Some 50% of the variants were discovered on these shores using our capability, and we were the first to announce them to make sure that the whole world could benefit. We have also been leading on vaccine distribution, so we have a good story to tell.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Will the Minister reassure the British people that, when the report of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, and her excellent commission is finally published, they will have looked carefully at the efficiency and effectiveness of lockdowns and other restrictions that came into place after March 2020? At the moment, they do not appear to be looking at this, but the British people deserve an answer on whether they worked.
Lord Markham (Con)
They will absolutely look at the use of lockdowns. The House will see that, even during Covid itself, we evolved our approach significantly, as we learned more about some of the wider consequences. We were far more hesitant in the case of omicron not to lock down, quite rightly, whereas other countries went ahead. That proved that our judgment was correct and we will learn those lessons going forward.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, for many people, the most effective tools for contact tracing during the pandemic were messaging services such as WhatsApp, as family and friends kept each other informed about test results and infections. But you were often left in the absurd position of someone calling from the official track and trace system about a contact who had let you know about their infection several days earlier—including, sometimes, people who lived in your own home. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government’s plans for future pandemics will look at how best to work with these local, informal, peer-to-peer networks, rather than think that the solution always lies in centralised, expensive systems?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree. There are many examples of where centrally run initiatives did not work so well, test and trace being one. That is what the inquiry is all about. There are many examples of things that worked very well, such as our vaccine preparation and our creating the first test for Covid, through the PCR process. There are many lessons to learn, including from many of these centrally run initiatives.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether His Majesty’s Government have yet put in place a revised system to purchase PPE during a pandemic?
Lord Markham (Con)
PPE is an example of where we all agree that we could have done better, to say the least. At this stage, I should declare an interest in that I set up a Covid testing company—not PPE—which never supplied the Government. I want to be clear about that, so that the House is fully aware of it in terms of my replies, now we are talking about PPE and related areas. Yes, we can learn a lot about PPE. At the same time, we did buy 35 billion items, 97% of which worked very well. It is important that we keep all this in context; we got 97% of things right.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I was just about to confirm that it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Browne.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that it took repeated FoI requests from an NHS doctor to get the Government in 2021 to reveal that they had carried out Exercise Alice in 2016, which was designed to recognise the challenges should a coronavirus hit our shores. The report, redacted when published, revealed shortages of PPE, no plans for pandemic-related travel restrictions, and a failure to have a working contact-tracing system—all of which we had to improvise when it actually happened. Is the department carrying out similar exercises? Is it producing solutions, not just identifying problems? Will the Government publish these reports, so that the public can see what needs to be done to prepare this country?
Lord Markham (Con)
As previously mentioned, there were many things that we did not get right. The whole reason that we set up the UK Health Security Agency was because we were not happy with the response in some areas. That agency was set up with a team of experts to make sure that, learning from those lessons, we are properly prepared for all eventualities next time around. There are lessons to learn but, as the Covid inquiry will show, there were also many things that we did right. It is important that we have that balance.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right that we led the world in sequencing the genomes of Covid-19, particularly identifying the variants worldwide. But since we have now closed down many of our sequencing facilities, how can we surveil internationally, particularly for emerging variants? For example, XBB1.5 is now emerging as the variant causing most of the infection, probably including in England. What is our surveillance mechanism for sequencing?
Lord Markham (Con)
Given the detailed nature of the question on sequencing, it probably deserves a detailed response. I will happily write on that. The 100 Days Mission—to deploy effective diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines within 100 days—is all about having UKHSA ensure that we have a preserved capability to act when we need to.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, in any future global health emergency, legitimate concerns—such as effects on mental health, education, aspects of healthcare, and the psychological side-effects of terrifying people into self-isolation—about measures must not be silenced. They will be extensively aired anyway, in online echo chambers, and amplified, typically with much ignorance of the facts and inadequate nuance. Will the Government ensure that concerns are debated in public and by senior leaders in society and government?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that some of the lessons learned from all this are around consequences of lockdown that we had not quite imagined. Clearly, the impacts on mental health are impacting us to this day. We need to make sure that we are learning all those lessons, so that we do not walk into situations in the future where we put in lockdowns without fully considering the impact on the whole of society, including the mental health consequences. That is what the inquiry is about.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said in his earlier response that the Government were flexible and well tested, had learned the lessons of the pandemic and were using the experience of response to emergencies. Can he explain why there are over 9,000 patients currently in hospital with Covid, over half of whom have acquired it in hospital? Could he ask the Secretary of State to reinstate the mask mandate in hospital for these very vulnerable patients?
Lord Markham (Con)
I know that the use of masks in hospital is being debated as we speak, to make sure that we are prepared for any new eventuality. As we are aware, 9,000 beds being taken up by Covid is a response to our seeing more waves: this is something that we see each time. Thankfully, due to the vaccines and our treatments, the death rate from those waves is very much reduced, but there is still a big impact. The House is aware of the impact that it is having on us all right now: 9,000 is a big number.
Housebuilding: Government Targets
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether it remains their policy to build 300,000 homes a year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
The Government remain committed to continuing to work towards our ambition of delivering 300,000 homes a year, as set out in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. We are making good progress. Annual housing supply is up 10% compared with the previous year, with more than 232,000 net additional homes delivered in 2021-22. This is the third-highest yearly rate for the last 30 years.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that renewed commitment, but does she recall the 2019 White Paper Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, which listed a number of reasons why we might not hit that target? The first one said that
“some local authorities can duck potentially difficult decisions, because they are free to come up with their own methodology for calculating ‘objectively assessed need’.”
Does my noble friend understand that asking local authorities to make the housing target discretionary rather than mandatory makes it less likely that we will hit the 300,000 target, because you cannot rely on the good will of local authorities to meet a national mandate?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we remain committed to a plan-led system. National planning policy expects local planning authorities, through their plans, to make sufficient provision for housing and to identify the sites to deliver much-needed homes to meet local needs. To get enough homes built in places where people and communities need them, a crucial first step is to plan for the right number of homes. That is why we remain committed to the 300,000 homes target and to retaining a clear starting point for calculating local housing needs. We are currently consulting on changes to the planning policy that will support how we plan to deliver the homes our communities need.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director at MHS Homes Ltd. The Centre for Policy Studies estimated that, without the target, housebuilding could fall by as much as 20%, while the Home Builders Federation estimated that it could cause a £17 billion hit to the economy. Can the Minister confirm whether assessments made by the department support those estimates?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot confirm that those estimates are supported by the department. What I can continue to say, as confirmed by the Secretary of State in a Written Statement in December, is that standard methods of assessing local housing need will be retained and so will the 300,000 homes target.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, why will the Government not support prefabricated housing? Surely it would help social housing and would last for at least 25 years, when things might be better—they could not be worse.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think this question was asked last week as well. We are tackling the barriers to increasing use of modern methods of construction in the industry, which are cheaper and quicker to deliver, but it means we have to be joined up so that we have a sustained pipeline for these companies to be able to deliver these important new houses. Through our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme we are challenging the sector to increase the number of homes delivered through this modern method. Around 40% of current allocations made through the programme use modern methods of construction.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Despite the Minister’s very genuine assurances, we are told that housing targets are now advisory, not mandatory, and we know that an increasing number of councils are actually stopping work on their local plans. Indeed, some are withdrawing them. The Secretary of State has said that councils do not need to pass as rigorous a test to get their plans through. Are the Government not now in danger of punishing the majority of councils that have complied with the manifesto and the rules and had their plans adopted, and letting off the hook or even rewarding those that have dragged their heels?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, we are not. The Bill that is starting Second Reading tomorrow in this House will make it very clear that local plans are what are required from local authorities. It is important that they have local plans. Only 40% of local authorities have up-to-date ones at the moment. It is important that all local authorities have up-to-date plans, because the evidence shows that local authorities that do not have a local plan often deliver up to 14% less housing than those that do.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, in the 1950s Maurice Macmillan announced the target of 300,000 houses a year. He was very reluctant to do it, but it was forced upon him by an ambitious Tory party conference. He then decided to appoint one of his Defence Ministers, Ernest Marples, to do it. Ernest Marples had made his fortune owning Marples Ridgway, building roads, so he knew a trick or two. Within two years he had built 300,000 houses, so it is quite possible for our country to build 300,000 houses a year if we are determined to do it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. That is exactly what we are determined to do through the measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is coming into this House tomorrow, in accordance with our manifesto.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that it is not just the absolute number that is important but the type of tenure? What is crystal clear for anyone who looks at the figures is, in effect, the collapse of availability of social housing in this country. Until the Minister can show us a plan by the Government to try to restore that as a proportion of the total number of households in the country, we will not meet the acute need as required.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, but we are investing £11.5 billion through our affordable homes programme to deliver up to 180,000 more affordable homes. A large number of these will be available for social rent. Also, the Government have provided a range of tools to help councils deliver more homes, particularly in this sector. They include the councils’ freedom on how to spend the money received from the right-to-buy sales. The Government also abolished the housing revenue account borrowing cap in 2018, allowing councils to borrow more money to build more homes.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, do the Government appreciate the value of community land trusts? To follow on from the last question, they actually build homes that are affordable, but affordable in perpetuity because they are not sold on at vast increases in cost. Have the Government evaluated that?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes. Many local authorities in the country certainly work closely with community land trusts. I do not have an update on what is happening nationally, but I will certainly get an answer to the noble Baroness.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will have seen the press reports from Barratt and some of the other big-volume housebuilders, saying that they are going to produce fewer homes in the current economic circumstances of the year ahead. This is not a great tragedy in everybody’s view, since some of these schemes will be horrible, soulless estates outside town with very few amenities and poor public transport. However, we need the extra homes in this country to meet the nation’s needs. Is this not the moment to boost social housing investment? Is this not just the right time, when we know that the housebuilders are not going to do it, to really get going with some of the social housing that we so desperately need?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, the noble Lord is absolutely right. That is why we put £500 billion this year into local authorities, so that they can buy houses for social housing rent, particularly in areas of most need.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework from Greg Clark, when he was Secretary of State, gave government the power to impose targets locally if the local authority could not come up with a local plan. My understanding is that the latest amendments to the levelling-up Bill mean that that will not be the case and that these local plans and targets will be advisory. I cannot understand how this will lead to anything other than a reduction in housing stock. I would like my noble friend the Minister to comment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government need to work closely with local authorities to ensure that they are building the houses that are required in their area. If every local authority builds the number of houses required in its area, we will hit that target.
Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Accommodation
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sahota
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the statement by the Prime Minister on Illegal Immigration on 13 December 2022 (HC Deb cols 885–8), what steps they plan to take, if any, against those local authorities that do not take their fair share of asylum seekers in the private rental sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, all local authority areas in England, Scotland and Wales became asylum dispersal areas in April 2022, ensuring that pressures are equitably shared across the United Kingdom. All local authorities and strategic migration partnerships have submitted plans indicating intent to participate. Where local authorities are not delivering on plans, accommodation providers will be instructed to procure outside the plans and recommendations. We remain hopeful, however, that, through co-operation, co-production and co-design, alignment can be reached.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, some local authorities take more than their fair share of asylum seekers. My question is simply: can they expect some kind of financial reward for that? Some take more than others.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Certainly, when a refugee is assigned to a local authority area, there is a payment to the local authority in relation to that person to defray the costs of the accommodation for that individual.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the Question was about local authorities that do not take their fair share. Will my noble friend the Minister enlighten the House on whether he or his department are aware of any local authorities that have refused to take their fair share of asylum seekers?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Since April 2022, when the policy was changed, the department has not noticed that any particular authorities have been backward in coming forward in relation to assisting the department in this regard.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
In view of the recent report on PoliticsHome of an asylum-seeking family left in mould-ridden accommodation, and the claim of a local charity that the standard of Home Office asylum-seeker accommodation is often “squalid and unsanitary”, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that all such accommodation meets basic standards of decency?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Obviously, asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute can obtain support, including accommodation, under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. There is a requirement under Section 96 of that Act that such accommodation should be adequate to the needs of the supported person and their dependants. The courts held in the case of AMA v the Secretary of State last year that a hotel room met the threshold of adequacy, despite the nature of the accommodation being far from ideal. Clearly, it is important that all accommodation provided is adequate and meets the needs of those within it. The department is responsive to complaints of inadequate accommodation; it is a priority for the department to ensure that accommodation is appropriately delivered to those who need it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might raise a point that I have raised before with my noble friend. Have serious discussions been entered into with our French friends and neighbours to try to ensure that adequate, sanitary—not luxurious—accommodation is built to a considerable extent on the other side of the channel, and that British officials can process applications there?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the arrangements made for asylum seekers within the French Republic are a matter for the French Government. I understand that arrangements are made in accordance with their obligations under the refugee convention. There is no express intention by the French Government to ask us to assist with their discharge of those duties.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said in response to an earlier question that accommodation should be adequate and of a reasonable quality for asylum seekers. Yet we know, from report after report, that that is not the case. Asylum seekers are being housed in very low-quality housing. Three was a report in Inside Housing only last week that described a mother from Nigeria in one-room accommodation with no lock on the door. These are vulnerable people. Asylum accommodation was privatised in 2012. Will the Government change that, so that public sector providers can provide adequate and good accommodation?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the coalition policy to allow private providers of accommodation to perform that service is working well, and the Government have no intention of revising that policy.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, at the end of last year, the Prime Minister pledged more staff to clear the asylum backlog, when it emerged that the Home Office had failed to process 98% of channel crossing cases in the last 12 months. Can the Minister confirm whether recruitment has begun?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, there was such a commitment. I do not wish to reveal any great secrets, but it is a very high priority for the department and I anticipate that good news will be making its way to this House shortly.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining that distribution is now across all local authority areas. However, for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, it is not just a question of accommodation; there are other support services that they need. So could he confirm whether unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are covered in this national distribution plan?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, different provisions apply in relation to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and particular care is taken. Obviously, once a child is allocated to a local authority, the obligations of looking after the child become those of the authority. Clearly, these children are provided with everything that an unaccompanied child would need.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister may come to regret his statement that all is working well with accommodation for asylum seekers and refugees. Too many of the stories, even around Afghan and Ukrainian refugees, give us shame: there are people on the streets, and people in totally inadequate accommodation, with their children not able to access school and now requiring mental health treatment. Much of this is because of the poor quality of the accommodation that is available to them. I do not know what the word is—perhaps “compassion”. A little more compassion, and being more in touch with reality, would mean that, at the end of the day, we at least gave human conditions to the humans who want to come and live here.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I disagree with the noble Baroness that there is any want of compassion. Clearly, the asylum system in this country is struggling with very large numbers of people who have come here. We presently have 107,700 people in asylum support, and 50,800 of them are currently awaiting dispersal and are housed in initial and contingency accommodation. That includes some 373 hotels, and some of them are of a very high standard. I simply do not accept the characterisation that the noble Baroness suggested.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that he is not aware of any local authority that has failed in its duty to provide accommodation. Will he produce a league table with all the local authorities, so that this House and everyone outside it can understand what the real position is, rather than what the Minister claims?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will consider that proposition, take it back to the department and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, do the Government recognise the connection between this issue and the points raised by the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham? There is a shortage of private rental accommodation, and that goes back to the shortage of housing. The two need to be thought about together, and steps taken that many noble Lords are suggesting.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Baroness is of course correct.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s question did not actually mention mould. He mentioned adequacy and quoted the law. However, does he accept—and will he say from the Dispatch Box—that it would never be acceptable for any asylum seeker to be housed in any accommodation in which there was black mould growing, particularly in the light of what we learned recently about the death of a young child in such accommodation?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the adequacy of accommodation is clearly a matter of fact and assessment for each accommodation—so that is the answer I give to that question.
Business of the House
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday 18 January to allow the Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages that day.
National Security Bill
Monday 16th January 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 68-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Jan 2023)
Baroness Ludford
“(2A) The requirement under paragraph 1(2)(c) must not exceed a 14-hour period.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is based on a recommendation of the JCHR. It is designed to ensure that rights under Article 5 of the ECHR are not infringed, and therefore it sets a 14-hour limit on the time that the subject of Prevention and Investigation Measures could be required to remain in their residence.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 76, I will also cover the other three amendments in my name—I am afraid I dominate this group 1, which is all concerning proposals made by the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Part 2 of the Bill introduces state threats “prevention and investigation measures”. I am not sure whether we are calling them STPIMs or just PIMs. Anyway, these are a set of restrictive measures that the Secretary of State could place on individuals who they reasonably believe are involved in foreign-power threat activity. Failure to comply with the measures imposed would be a criminal offence. Of course, these measures largely mirror the legislative scheme of the TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—that can be imposed on those suspected of involvement in terrorist-related activity. There is an awful lot of experience, particularly on the Benches opposite, on that subject.
The intention behind the measures is that they should be applied to people believed to pose a significant threat but who could not be prosecuted. In fact, according to the Explanatory Notes, PIMs would similarly represent
“a measure of last resort”
applicable to those cases that, despite the wide range of new offences introduced by the Bill,
“cannot be prosecuted or otherwise disrupted.”
Clause 37 grants the Secretary of State the power to impose PIMs, while Schedule 7 sets out a wide range of requirements and restrictions that can be included, such as
“a requirement to reside at a specified residence”,
overnight curfews, exclusion from certain places or buildings, restrictions on travel, work and study, contact with others, use of phones and computers, et cetera. There is also daily reporting to a police station and GPS monitoring. So far so familiar, really, and there is a clear parallelism with TPIMs.
Amendment 76 specifically concerns the worries about the right to liberty guaranteed by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is the same, familiar range of concerns regarding ECHR and HRA rights—especially Articles 5, 6 and 8. Amendment 76 focuses particularly on Article 5, where concerns arise from the imposition of curfew measures. It has been established over many years of litigation arising from TPIMs—and, before that, control orders—that requiring a person to remain in their home for more than 16 hours per day is, rather unsurprisingly, likely to amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5. Curfews that last 16 hours or less could still engage Article 5 when coupled with other restrictive measures, particularly those causing social isolation such as separation from family.
The ECHR memorandum accompanying the Bill recognises the potential for Article 5 to be violated by a PIM, but it states that
“there are protections in place”
to prevent this, specifically the obligation on the
“Secretary of State … to act compatibly with the Convention rights”
and the same obligation applying to the courts. It is asserted that the judicial review process built into the Bill should serve as a protection against unjustified deprivations of liberty. Such protections, however, depend on the Human Rights Act which, under the Bill of Rights Bill as introduced, will be repealed and replaced. Many of us fear that the Bill of Rights Bill threatens to weaken the courts’ ability to hold public authorities to that Article 5 obligation.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the simplest way of introducing
“A more effective protection against interference with Article 5 rights would be to include within the National Security Bill a strict limit on the number of hours for which a subject of Prevention and Investigation Measures could be required to remain in their residence”.
This amendment reflects the JCHR report’s suggestion of a maximum of 14 hours per day. The Government may have other ideas, which will be interesting to hear.
I will now speak to Amendment 77. The conditions in Clause 38, which focus on “foreign power threat activity” are defined broadly and include some behaviour which may not currently even justify arrest. In these circumstances, none the less, this Bill proposes the imposition of potentially long-lasting highly restrictive measures on an individual. While the measures are called “prevention and investigation measures”, the investigation element appears extremely limited. Clause 44 would require the Secretary of State to
“consult the chief officer of the appropriate police force”
regarding whether a prosecution is possible before imposing a PIM and for the police to “keep under review” the investigation of the individual’s conduct with a view to their prosecution for the duration of the PIM—which can be renewed for up to five years. But the Bill would place no obligation on the Secretary of State to take, or refrain from, any particular action after consulting with the police, so it appears to have no real consequences. It also does not specify any duty on the police to take action beyond keeping investigation under review; it does not actually require investigation.
Amendment 77 proposes that, given the intention for these measures to be used in cases that cannot be prosecuted or otherwise disrupted, it seems reasonable to put in a requirement that, having consulted with the police, the Secretary of State gets confirmation from them that prosecution is not realistic or feasible before a PIM is imposed. That appears to be consistent with the policy justification of this clause.
The conclusion is that the JCHR recommends that the Bill is amended to include such a provision. My other two amendments in this group are consequential, so I will close here. I am very interested to hear other views. I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 76, 77, 78 and 79, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, enable us to discuss the state threats prevention and investigation measures. As she outlined, Amendment 76 seeks to set a 14-hour limit on the time that someone subject to such a measure has to remain in their residence. Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to receive confirmation from the police that prosecution is not realistic, rather than requiring only consultation before a measure is imposed, as outlined in Clause 44(1). These are simple but important amendments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, outlined, and the Government need to respond to them logically, particularly as they are recommended by the JCHR. In Committee last time, we all referred to the importance of the JCHR recommendations that come before us. It is particularly important that questions such as these are asked because, although we accept that STPIMs are a useful tool to have available, they impose intrusive restrictions on an individual, outside the criminal justice process, as civil measures.
In view of Amendment 76, if there is no time limit, what is acceptable? Are 20 or 21 hours acceptable? As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, these are essentially curfews on an individual. Although they may be justified—no one is questioning the fact that sometimes they may be necessary—some thought from the Government about what we actually mean by the imposition of time limits or curfews on an individual, and how that might be arrived at, is important. Secondly, should we not always seek to prosecute, as Amendment 77 seeks to do? The police confirming that it is not possible is a real protection, while not compromising national security; again, that is the aim of all of us.
On the more general question of STPIMS, legal aid will be available to individuals but, if they are to challenge effectively, will individuals subject to such an order be fully aware of the reasons why it has been imposed and able to challenge the imposition of such measures? Who will oversee the use of these powers? Can the Minister reassure us that, in making such a decision on application by the Secretary of State, the courts will be given all the information that they need to properly inform their decision, and that they will not be used arbitrarily, out of frustration that a criminal prosecution cannot be pursued? That was a really important point from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford: this is not a substitute for prosecution but something to be used where, for whatever reason, it is simply not available. But we need some reassurance that criminal prosecution will always be pursued as the first option.
We accept that there is a potential need for such measures, but, given their civil nature and the very real impacts on the liberties of individuals, even if necessary for national security reasons, they demand of us the need to be ever more vigilant when it comes to freedoms and human rights within a democracy. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I will first address Amendments 77, 78 and 79. These amendments would create a requirement on the Secretary of State to receive confirmation from the police that there is no realistic chance of prosecuting an individual before imposing a state threats prevention and investigation measure—an STPIM—on an individual under Part 2. It is our view that the current drafting would already achieve that aim. STPIMs are a tool of last resort in cases where prosecution is not possible. It is always the Government’s preference and priority to seek a prosecution against those engaged in foreign power threat activity, and where we can prosecute, we will.
Clause 44 reflects our commitment to prosecution and requires prior consultation with the police, before the imposition of a STPIM notice, in relation to
“whether there is evidence available that could realistically be used for the purposes of prosecuting the individual for an offence”
relating to state threats. The police must consult the relevant prosecuting authority before responding to the Secretary of State. The requirement to consult mirrors that in terrorism prevention and investigation measures—TPIMs—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred. Our experience of the TPIM regime is that, wherever it is apparent in the consultation that there is evidence available that means that a prosecution is feasible, such a prosecution is pursued over the imposition of a TPIM. We expect the same principle to apply in the STPIM context. I hope that that addresses some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
Furthermore, as set out in Clause 44(5), while an STPIM is in force, the police must ensure that the investigation of the relevant individual’s conduct is kept under review, consulting the prosecuting authority with a view to pursuing a prosecution if possible. Consultation is all about exploring whether there is available evidence that could realistically be used to prosecute an individual. However, the proposed amendments require the police to confirm that there is no available evidence. Changing the threshold in that way would mean that, in the event that there is limited evidence, but not enough feasibly to prosecute, we would limit our ability to use the STPIM as an alternative measure to protect the UK against individuals involved in state threats activity.
Although I understand the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the consultation is meaningful. In each case where an STPIM is in force, the prospect of prosecuting that individual will be kept under review by the police, consulting the prosecuting authorities as necessary. The outcome of that review will be reported by the police to the Home Secretary, in accordance with their statutory duty. In some sense, that answers the point about oversight raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Where a prosecution is possible, that will be the action undertaken, rather than the imposition of an STPIM. As I have said already, if we can prosecute, we will.
I turn now to Amendment 76, which seeks to place a maximum limit of 14 hours on the number of hours an individual can be required by the Secretary of State to remain in their residence under the residence measure. It is important to note that, in each STPIM case, the facts will be different, and the specific measures will be decided on a case-by-case basis. Flexibility is therefore key to ensure that the most appropriate suite of measures can be imposed. Protection against interference with the rights of individuals under Article 5 of the European convention, as was referred to by the noble Baroness, is already provided for under the residence measure. Condition D, which must be met to impose an STPIM, outlines that the Secretary of State must reasonably consider that the individual measures applied are necessary to prevent or restrict the individual’s involvement in foreign power threat activity. That covers not just the imposition of the measure but the exact terms of the measure. In the case of the residence measure, that would include the number of hours an individual must reside in their residence. I hope I have therefore addressed the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in relation to the time requirement.
In addition, the court must agree at both the permission hearing and the review hearing to the number of hours, set by the Secretary of State, that the individual must remain in their residence—thus providing a good measure of accountability for the number of hours provided for in the order. The number of hours a person must stay at home will therefore be determined by the facts of the individual case. It is also worth noting that the individual subject to a notice has the right to apply for a variation of measures imposed both in the short term—for example, if there is a reason why they need to be out at different times on a particular day—and generally in the long term.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked who would oversee the imposition of the measures in this regime. Under Clause 54, there will be an independent reviewer of STPIMs, in the same way that there is a reviewer for TPIMs under the other terrorism legislation.
On whether the individual will know what they are accused of doing, they will have access to special advocates who will be able to access the sensitive information in a manner similar to that for TPIMs. The special advocates will have access to the sensitive information that builds the case against the individual and justifies the measure. There will also be a duty on the Government to share the information, as far as reasonably possible, with the individual themselves. With all these points in mind, the Government cannot accept these amendments and I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 76.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Can the Minister help the Committee by giving us an estimate of the scale of the problem? Do the Government expect a number of STPIMs which is roughly the same as the number of TPIMs in existence at present or do they expect more than or fewer than a handful? An assessment must have been made of these numbers.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid I do not have that information to hand. My conjecture would be that it is fewer, but I will confirm the position and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for calling these amendments simple but important. I am grateful for his support.
On Amendment 77, I note the Minister’s assurance that he believes that the current drafting would achieve the aim of pursuing the possibility of prosecution, but obviously that incorporates not only a static but a dynamic possibility. I think the fear of the JCHR is that the wording, certainly in Clause 44(5), does not really imply any ongoing investigative mission, as it were. Saying “If we can prosecute, we will” has to mean that a certain re-evaluation takes place. But that is not all that Clause 44(5) says. It says that the chief officer of police must
“secure that the investigation of the individual’s conduct … is kept under review”.
It does not actually require any investigation, or any periodic investigation, so I am not really persuaded, despite the Minister’s reassurances, that that sense of a dynamic possibility of keeping the potential for prosecution under if not a permanent but certainly a periodic review is incorporated into the drafting of the Bill. We may come back to this at a later stage, but I am not entirely persuaded by the Minister.
Baroness Ludford
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is recommended by the JCHR and would extend the review function of the Independent Reviewer to cover Part 1 of the Bill in addition to Part 2.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I assure the Committee that this will not be a one-woman show all afternoon. I can be very brief on Amendment 80 because we will be hearing about Amendment 81.
The Bill establishes an independent reviewer in relation to PIMs under Part 2 and the JCHR felt that this, while a welcome additional safeguard, was too narrow and it was unclear why the independent reviewer’s role should be restricted to Part 2, because there are also significant concerns about how powers under Part 1 will be exercised. So we made a simple proposal, reflected in Amendment 80, recommending that the independent reviewer’s role should be extended to cover Parts 1 and 2 and that the Government should consider whether it could cover other core national security legislation.
As I say, I can be very brief because I tabled Amendment 80 before seeing Amendment 81, and we are about to hear from the heavyweights on this subject that they propose to make it even broader under further parts of the Bill. So I beg to move Amendment 80 but do not expect to say much more about it.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 81 is a bit wider than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who is certainly a heavyweight in my book. I agree with what she has had to say about that.
Post-legislative scrutiny can take many forms, but where powers are exercised on the basis of secret intelligence, the options are more limited. Select Committees can do little, because they lack access to classified information. The Intelligence and Security Committee has that access, but its remit is focused on the intelligence agencies themselves. It is not equipped to review the operation by police and prosecutors of the new criminal offences in Part 1 of the Bill—or the new procedures in that part—or, indeed, to concern itself with the questions of damages and legal aid in Part 4.
The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—its origins dating back to the 1970s—is the solution arrived at in one part of the national security landscape. The independent reviewer is an independent person with full security clearance—but without bureaucratic apparatus—reporting to government. Reviewers serve Parliament and the public by reviewing operational matters which, for national security reasons, neither they nor the usual inspectorates can scrutinise themselves. Their findings are often referred to by the courts and their recommendations taken on board by police, agencies and government.
The independent reviewer has spawned two imitators, in Australia and, more recently, in Ireland. I mention that because the independent monitor in Australia and the planned independent examiner in Ireland—the Bill has recently been published—are each entrusted with scrutinising the operation of national security law in its entirety, not just counterterrorism law. The same principle should apply here. The use of laws governing hostile state activity can be both as secretive and as sensitive as the use of laws against terrorism. That, no doubt—as the Minister said in the last grouping—is why the Government have already agreed to extend the jurisdiction of the independent reviewer to Part 2 of the current Bill, which is all about foreign power threat activity rather than terrorism.
Equally compelling, I suggest, are the arguments for independent review of Part 1. Part 1 is a complete recasting of the law against espionage, sabotage and acting for foreign powers. The offences and police powers are novel and untested; the risk of unintended consequences must be high. The offences will presumably be the subject of prosecutions. However, there is no mechanism for systemic oversight, either of the offences or of the far-reaching powers of entry, search, seizure and, in particular, detention, which are the subject of Clause 6, Clauses 21 to 26 and Schedules 2 and 6 to the Bill. Powers such as these can be controversial in their application: they are the meat and drink of the independent reviewer’s work.
Part 4 is all about terrorism and so falls even more naturally within the existing powers of the independent reviewer. History has shown the value of the scrutiny of the independent reviewer, not least in the years after 9/11, during which my noble friend Lord Carlile performed the role with such distinction. It is all the more necessary in this ever-questioning age. Indeed, something of this nature is a prerequisite for what has been called the “democratic licence to operate” that our secret state requires. The current independent reviewer, Jonathan Hall KC— who performs the role with imagination and acuity—has been consulted on this amendment. He is the obvious person to review Part 4 because of the terrorist connection. I suspect he could take on Parts 1 and 2 as well: our counterterrorism law is neither novel nor, for the most part, as controversial as it once was. But in case his apparently infinite energy should ever flag, my amendment—inspired by Clause 54, which it replaces—gives government the flexibility to appoint a different person to review Parts 1 and 2.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have anything more to add other than to say that we support Amendments 80 and 81. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, summed it up in his closing comments: the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, has been consulted on this amendment and agrees that it would be a suitable way forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 80 and 81 propose having an independent reviewer to cover more than Part 2 of the Bill. The Government have committed to consider this idea in the other place, and the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was compelling on this point.
The Government have been considering whether extending the oversight of the independent reviewer could be done in a way that does not duplicate or unhelpfully interfere with the responsibilities and functions of the existing oversight mechanisms governing both the UK intelligence agencies and the police. For example, we must consider how extending oversight of the Bill would interact with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s role in overseeing the powers referred to in Clause 27. Should we decide to extend oversight of the Bill beyond Part 2, it is important that we do not create any confusion or uncertainty as to the appropriate reviewer.
It is proposed that Part 4 of the Bill should be reviewed by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Of course, Part 4 contains measures to freeze civil damages awarded to claimants seen as representing a real risk of using their award to fund acts of terror, and measures to restrict access to civil legal aid for convicted terrorists. As a result, these matters are already in the IRTL’s remit to review. An explicit commitment to oversight of Part 4 of the Bill is therefore unnecessary and would duplicate the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s existing discretion to review and report on terrorism-related legislation.
As a point of clarification on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, the Government are not extending the purview of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to cover Part 2 of the Bill—rather, they are creating a new independent reviewer role entirely.
With these points in mind, while the Government cannot accept these amendments, we are committed to making a decision on extending oversight of the Bill at the next stage of its passage.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
With a glance at the impact assessment on this part of the Bill, the Government’s estimate is that there will be between four and 12 cases a year for the independent reviewer. Just for the sake of efficiency alone, it would make sense to extend a structure which is already in existence and operating well, rather than creating a new system which would have potentially a miniscule role—especially since the impact assessment says that it would be down to the discretion of the reviewer
“how much time they spend reviewing the STPIMs”.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Obviously, the noble Lord makes a valid point, and I am sure it will feed into the department’s consideration about extending the oversight.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister, but it may assist the Committee to know what will happen next. It is welcome that the department will be thinking about this, but it would be good to have a bit of a steer as to what the Government intend to do before Report.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
We invite the proposers of the amendments not to press them; further information will follow.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Well—my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed asked the obvious question of what happens next, and we got a rather obscure answer. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will be able to tease out a little more about what the next steps might be.
I thought the Minister started on a rather encouraging note. I thought he was going to say, “Yes, Amendment 81 is jolly good, and we accept it”. I would imagine that it has been the subject of discussions and exchanges and so on, but the promise that came from the beginning of the Minister’s remarks was not really realised, or not realised at all.
In breathless anticipation of what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is going to say—I hope that I am not taking his name in vain, as it were—I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 80. I hope, however, that this is not the end of the discussion on Amendment 81.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that agreements can be “foreign activity arrangements”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, this group responds to the amendments tabled in relation to the political influence tier of the foreign influence registration scheme and separate amendments tabled regarding guidance on the scheme, impacts of the enhanced tier on the higher education sector and the exemption for legal activities. In addition, it introduces a number of minor government amendments to the scheme, which I will cover shortly.
Before I address the amendments and clauses specifically, let me say that we are not yet able to publish a policy statement relating to the power taken in Clause 77(1), which we committed to do in the Bill’s delegated powers memorandum. The Government are in the process of carefully considering feedback from industry and the important scrutiny in this House. As such, we believe that publishing a policy statement now would only muddy the waters when the Government’s focus is rightly on listening to Peers’ concerns.
It is the first duty of government to protect its people, the country they live in and the integrity of their democratic institutions. The political influence tier of the foreign influence registration scheme will play an important role in delivering on this agenda. Dialogue between policymakers and the rest of society is an essential feature of our democratic system. It provides parliamentarians and Ministers with important information and expert analysis, helping us to become more informed. It allows decision-makers and the public to be exposed to diverse opinions and voices, including from the international business sector. It can be a positive contribution to healthy and robust public debate, and will continue to be welcome in the UK.
However, when communications or disbursements are not transparent, it can lead to corruption or give certain groups an unfair advantage. It can be seen as a way for powerful interests to exert excessive influence on political and governmental processes, potentially at the expense of the British public. It is particularly important to be able to identify foreign influence. The UK Government and the British people are entitled to know when foreign interests seek to influence public policy and public opinion. We should be able to identify foreign influence and evaluate those contributions properly, including the aggregate impact over time. Some foreign lobbying presents risks to national security. Members of the Committee will have heard Ken McCallum, in his annual threat speech in November, discussing the challenge from state threats. He said:
“The West is in a contest in which our security, values and democratic institutions are at stake.”
The Intelligence and Security Committee discussed political influence and state threats in its 2020 Russia report, calling for a scheme like the one delivered through the political influence tier of FIRS, which we are debating here today. The political influence tier of FIRS will play a role in strengthening openness and transparency in those processes, with the additional aim of deterring foreign powers that wish to pursue their aims covertly through agents and proxies. Noble Lords will be aware that some foreign states increasingly seek to influence how we think, vote and feel. Such states view themselves as being in a long-term contest with the West and take a much broader view of what they are interested in than simply national security matters. Covert political influence from state actors can damage our democratic processes, institutions and wider societal cohesion.
The foreign influence registration scheme will require those acting covertly with malign intent to make a conscious choice between registering their activity and publicly declaring their provenance, or not registering and risking prosecution. This raises the cost of conducting such activity and will be a significant deterrent to those who seek to harm our democracy.
Before we move on to the main debate, I will very briefly explain the government amendments in this group. Amendments 82, 89, 99, 100, 101 and 102 make minor technical changes to ensure consistency in the use of “arrangement” and “agreement” across the foreign influence registration scheme provisions. These amendments will assist with the clarity and understanding of the scheme.
Government Amendment 92 amends the existing provisions regarding public communications in the political influence tier of FIRS. This amendment provides that where a public communication is reasonably clear that it is being made by a foreign principal on its own behalf, it will not need to be registered. The Bill already provides an existing exclusion from registration requirements where it is reasonably clear that the public communication is made at the direction of a foreign principal. This is in keeping with our commitment to ensure that the scheme is proportionate and does not impose any unnecessary burdens.
During the last day in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, raised a number of questions regarding the foreign power condition, which we dealt with at some length last week, and the foreign influence registration scheme. I thank her for her letter and will deal with the core of her questions now, to ensure that this is on the record. On the question of whether a member of this House will need to register when entering arrangements, the responsibility to register under the political influence tier of FIRS will lie with the foreign principal carrying out the activity in the United Kingdom, or with the person in an arrangement with the foreign principal to carry out activities in the United Kingdom. There will be no requirement on the person whom the foreign principal is seeking to influence to register activities. As such, Members of this House would be required to register only if they entered into arrangements with foreign principals to carry out political influence activities in the United Kingdom. This applies equally for arrangements with any foreign entity, including political parties in government or in opposition.
There was also a question in relation to the foreign power condition of why “a governing political party” has been included in the meaning of “a foreign power”. It addresses situations where there is a dominant political party or parties within a country to such an extent that it may be difficult to disentangle whether harmful activities have been carried out on the direction of the ruling party or the Government. The noble Baroness posed the question of what constitutes a governing political party. It is right that this will vary in different countries. Clearly we cannot legislate for every different administrative structure. Rather, in criminal proceedings where this was an issue, the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a political party was the governing political party based on the facts of the case. Therefore, any political party with no members holding posts in the Government would not be in scope. The definition in Clause 30(2) means that a political party is a governing party only if individuals within that party hold posts in the Government or part of the Government. For example, the Democratic Party runs the US Administration and sets the direction of government policy. It is therefore the governing political party in the US.
To omit Clause 30(1)(e) as the noble Baroness suggested and to rely entirely on the other aspects of the definition of “a foreign power” risks creating a loophole whereby sophisticated state actors could claim to act on behalf of the ruling party but not the Government. To be clear, foreign powers, including governing political parties of a foreign Government or their members acting in their capacity as a member, do not have to register their own activities. However, those in arrangements with foreign entities—including governing political parties—to carry out political influence activities in the UK will need to register those arrangements.
I will be listening very carefully to the remarks made on this group and will respond to the amendments directly in my closing comments. I look forward to this important debate.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in his opening statement, the noble Lord said that the Government plan to publish a policy statement and that the reason they were not doing so now, in anticipation of Committee, was that they did not want to muddy the waters. Can I ask the noble Lord whether he plans to publish that policy statement and make it available before Report?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for making that clear. It will have an impact on the way we address this whole group, because it is a very extensive group and many different groups from different sections of society have contacted us all, I suspect, and raised their concerns. I have been contacted by groups from business, the legal profession, universities and political parties. Some 400 NGOs have written to me, as I am sure they have to other noble Lords.
My Amendment 88, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, would ensure that guidance is provided on the foreign influence registration scheme. Other noble Lords have gone into more specific concerns and explorations of what particular definitions might mean.
I thought it might be most helpful in opening this group, in a sense, to raise two particularly powerful concerns that have been raised with me. I want to cite two groups that have contacted me. The first is the company AstraZeneca, which sent around an email that I thought it worth citing to show this company’s concerns, which illustrate other, wider concerns. It said:
“Clause 70, as drafted would, we believe, impose a requirement for persons in our overseas operations to register each and every dealing with not just Members of the UK Government … but also in Government Agencies such as the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, The National Institute for Clinical Excellence, The Environment Agency and others where we have regular contact”
on medical issues. AstraZeneca is asking a very profound question about how far these requirements will go and how much impact they will have on its day-to-day business. The email goes much further, but that is the gist of the concern raised.
The other group that emailed me is the Law Society. Of course, all these groups, including the Opposition, support the broad aims of the registration scheme but are concerned about the practical impact and whether it will have a cooling effect on their ability to conduct their existing business. The Law Society email says:
“The Law Society supports the Government’s ambition to protect national security and ensure public safety. However, we are concerned that the proposals in this Bill could have serious implications for access to justice … Law Society members have shared significant concerns with us about the potential impacts of FIRS more generally. These include concerns … that the scheme risks damaging the UK’s largest exporting industry (financial and professional services) and its reputation as one of the world’s most attractive jurisdictions for cross-border business and trade and destinations for foreign investment.”
I have given just two examples, but there are many others. This whole scheme has raised a lot of questions in other sectors; we have heard about political parties and universities. I look forward to this being a wide-ranging debate and the noble Lord giving as full an answer as he can in summing up, but I am grateful for his confirmation that the policy will be available before Report so that, if we choose to, we will have ample time to take matters further.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, while I very much welcome the fact that this policy is under review, I hope your Lordships will agree, in view of the great interest that has been expressed in this subject outside this place, that we take the opportunity to express, at least in summary, the very grave concerns that some of us have about this part of the Bill.
In that spirit, I shall speak briefly to the five stand part notices in my name, signed also by my noble friend Lord Carlile, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. They would leave intact the enhanced tier, which I believe to be of real value for our national security, but if carried they would remove Clauses 66 to 70, the so-called primary tier of FIRS.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests, as I did before, as a board member of the ABI and a member of the Labour Party.
I thank the Minister for his preliminary responses to my letters. Given that I sent them to him on a Sunday, I am immensely impressed that he has already given us some answers today, even though I found the answers staggering and more worrying. There is an expression about using a sprat to catch a mackerel; I rather think that the Government are using a whale to catch a minnow. They have this completely the wrong way around.
However, in the spirit of that very rapid response to my letter, I hope that on the specific issue of political parties the Minister will agree to meet, not just with the Labour Party but with representatives of the other parties, to discuss how this could work in practice, because some of the things he said about parties influencing other parties could have absolutely nothing to do with national security. The example I gave before was that, as a member of an international party organisation, we might indeed be thought to influence who would be chosen as, for example, president of the Party of European Socialists. That has absolutely no national security implications but, clearly, from what the Minister has said, it would be caught by this. So if, when he comes to respond, he could agree to meet with the political parties, that would be helpful.
Turning to what is in front of us, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, I have added my name to the proposition that Clauses 66 to 70 should not stand part of the Bill. I am very conscious of the fact—as I am sitting quite close to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—that some of this sounds very much like familiar territory. Before the Minister was in the House, when I was on the Front Bench, I tried to amend the lobbying Bill to ensure that it included in-house lobbyists, not simply consultant lobbyists, which might have tackled some of issues that now concern the Government—that is, knowing who is lobbying Ministers. That surely is the important aspect of it, although the present Bill goes much further than that. The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, absolutely and I think very unwisely declined to take my amendments to give that Bill some real teeth. I think we got them past this House, but they were kicked back and he would not agree to them. I am therefore delighted that he is about to speak after me and I hope he will do a “mea culpa” at that point and admit that “we was right” and he was wrong.
However, today we are talking about far more than just lobbying—although it is interesting that that was how the Minister introduced this group. We are now seeing an attempt to set up an enormously enlarged register, compared with what was set up under the domestic Act. It would not only encompass dealings with a wide range of opinion formers or decision-makers, and in fact a large number of non-decision-makers, but require registration or reporting—the Minister’s answer to me earlier was about registration; I also asked about reporting—from a swathe of bodies and individuals from across the globe.
We have heard, as my noble friend has already mentioned, of concerns from business and academia, but there are also concerns from visiting party officials, international NGOs and many others. If I have read government Amendment 98 correctly, however—which we will come to in a later group—the list of UK persons with whom communication could be classed as a “political influence activity” covers our own employees, if you are lucky enough to have any. It also includes an officer, trustee or agent, and even some members of a political party, which could even include a constituency vice-chair, whom those of us in political parties know is quite a minnow within the political hierarchy. It could include an election candidate, even in a hopeless seat—not that Labour has any hopeless seats these days. Does that mean all election candidates? It is the most extraordinary catch-all that the Government are setting their sights on. We are going to come back to that list later, but it is relevant because it explains why we are concerned about the clauses that some of us would like taken out of the Bill.
As the noble Lord said, I referred last week to Clause 30 and political parties, even those coming from our close allies in NATO. They were defined as being “foreign powers”—although, as he said, there were some exemptions if you were in government. That means that Opposition parties seem to be in a worse position, even though they may have no power in that country, because they would have to register if they tried to influence any of us or our employees, local government and all sorts of other people. So we have more questions and, if the Minister agrees to a meeting, we could discuss what exactly they are trying to get at. Is it that all political parties are bad, or are we interested in the issues on which they are trying to lobby? It would be useful to know what exactly this is aimed to catch.
In relation to business, very serious concerns have been raised by member firms of the ABI, by banks, by the pharmaceutical industry, as we have heard, and by other major importers, exporters, service providers and investors. Needless to say, many of their overseas colleagues and partners will meet with influencers, opinion formers and decision-makers while they are here in the UK. That is not just visiting politicians but many of those who turn up, for example, at our party conferences or at seminars held by a wide range of organisations. While they are there, they tend to bump into people like you and me, because that is where we are also going. So, as soon as they come here and go to a meeting and find that one of us is there, they are liable to have to report that, even though that was not the purpose of their visit.
So the question really is: do the Government really, in the name of national security, want us to either ourselves record, or ask those people coming in to record, all those exchanges, on pain of criminal sanction if we fail to do so? I know this is an aside, but this is coming from a party that has perhaps not been too fussy about the amount of money it has taken from people with very close Russian contacts. It is a little bit odd.
The Minister did refer to Russia but why, if we are aiming at Russian influence, are we going for that enormous wide range? It was this Government who refused my attempts to stop expats being able to fund our political parties. Again, if we want to cut influence on our political parties, why not go at that and overseas money rather than try to catch all the exchanges that take place in everyday life?
Whether this is a whale rather than a minnow—or whichever way round—this feels to me not even like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but like a great big sledgehammer aimed at a tiny seed. If the Government are worried about Russian, Chinese, ISIS or North Korean activities, why not go for them? Why are we looking at Swedish investors, Belgian NGOs, Dutch political parties, EU visitors, Spanish bankers or German academics, all of whom could be caught up in this?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, would she perhaps give permission for us all to receive the Minister’s response to her letter? He is saying from a sedentary position that he will circulate it; if that is acceptable to her, it would be very helpful. He said at the outset that if we, as Members of this House, carry out activities for a foreign organisation of which we might be a member which receives direct support from a foreign principal—we could be a trustee of an organisation funded by the Gates foundation, for example, and there are many other examples—for us to engage with each other, we will now have to register. That is why I think the response to her letter could be so significant, as that is what I took from his comments.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The Minister will understand that I cannot possibly answer this question because then we would have to record the conversation. To be serious, in fact, my letter to the Minister, which included a lot of questions, did ask that he circulate it to the Committee and not just to myself.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is on several of these amendments. I should perhaps say that I welcome and support those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Two amendments of mine are also concerned with ensuring that the interests of charitable bodies, commercial bodies, universities and policy researchers should be specifically catered for and excluded from some of the purposes of the Bill.
However, I want to talk more generally about Part 3 as a whole. I thank the noble Baroness for her back-handed compliment. There are, of course, parallels between the transparency of lobbying Bill in 2013 and this Bill. There were those who pushed me as the then Minister to exclude a substantial number of bodies and persons from that Bill; others were pushing for the inclusion of a lot more than we had. It was not easy to strike the appropriate balance between ensuring full transparency on what was going on and not pulling too many people into the net. The question of identifying who the lobbyists were was one of the more difficult elements with which we had to be concerned. On that occasion we agreed to pause the Bill.
I should also say that it was not simply the Labour Opposition; indeed, concern about that Bill was very much on the Cross Benches, led by Lord Ramsbotham, sadly no longer with us, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. We paused the Bill for three months, consulted more widely and came back with amendments. The Bill was then carried in an improved form. It was not perfect; it is impossible for a Bill of that sort, or this sort, to satisfy all accounts because we are trying to strike a balance between a range of different objectives. It would be wise for the Minister to manage the policy statement and the pause for greater consultation; they should take up rather more time than is currently considered.
The Minister will have seen the Politico report last Thursday that suggested widespread concern in commercial and business circles about this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has already said how many comments and criticisms we have had from a range of different circles. I came to the Bill entirely from the point of view of think tanks, universities and the policy research sector. I had not expected to get such immediate responses from the City, law firms and others. We are now all aware of the widespread concern that the Bill will catch more than it was originally intended to. But there is more than that. I shall quote from one of the letters I have had: the Bill
“is essentially the proposed bureaucratisation of lawful and useful non-hidden international engagements. Influence is not covert just because it is not public: all policy makers and organisations rely on private interactions.”
I was thinking, as I looked at my newspaper this morning, what those Brits who will be attending the Davos Forum will do about what they report back, as one has private conversations with a range of people. Perhaps we should make sure that Keir Starmer and whoever else is going do indeed fill in all the forms as they come back.
Before I go further, I should comment on the Minister’s insistence, in our last sitting, that the Daniel Houghton case justifies the inclusion of the Netherlands alongside North Korea, China, Iran, Russia and others in the primary tier of foreign powers. I see that the case was in 2010. I have said at previous sittings that the issue of dual nationals and diasporas, both in Britain and elsewhere, is one of the complications of the Bill that I hope the Minister will address in our consultations. I mark, in passing, that Daniel Houghton was a Dutch-British dual national. He was a computer engineer employed by the SIS. He downloaded some SIS files and tried to sell them to the Dutch intelligence authorities. They immediately informed the British and he was arrested, convicted, given a 12-month sentence and served six months in prison. I am not sure that this one case justifies the imposition of the full regime on the Netherlands, in the same way that it is imposed on other countries.
I pick the Netherlands because traffic between it and the United Kingdom is probably closer than any other county apart from Ireland, even more than the United States, because it is so near. I recall being told by some senior Dutch politicians that a great many members of the Dutch elite have second homes in the south-east of England and send their children to British universities. I remember being told by a chief constable from North Wales Police that he needed to have more than one police officer who spoke Dutch because, when camper-vans break down in the summer, they need to have someone who can interpret. The extent to which British companies depend on the Netherlands has been increased by our leaving the European Union. I was told at a meeting of donors to my party the other week that several of them have opened offices or warehouses in the Netherlands to be inside the EU. It is not a country with which we have limited interaction.
To say that we need to have all the interactions which may involve political influence recorded is almost to suggest that, to find the needle in the haystack, you need to examine each strand of hay separately and then in time you will find the needle. You would of course destroy the haystack and damage the hay, and detract immensely from the normal business of the farm. To that extent, it is grossly disproportionate, and our concern with the Bill is that aspects of it are grossly disproportionate.
I read again through the supplementary Explanatory Memorandum over the weekend and I remain confused about many aspects of the Bill. I am worried about the imprecision of some of the language—the “informal” arrangements, the indirect control and those other phrases which, not being a lawyer, I do not entirely understand. I seek some reassurance from our legal colleagues that it is possible to make sense of some of these provisions. There is a reference at one point to the “scheme management unit”. I wonder if the Minister could tell us how large the Home Office thinks the scheme management unit will need to be when all these reports flow in. I suggest that it will need to be extremely large.
I am not entirely clear on how the specified persons come into the expanded bit. Can the Minister give us any rough idea of how many of the 190-plus UN member states it is envisaged would be specified by the Secretary of State in this? Would it be 10? Would it be 100, 150 or 190? That would clearly make a great deal of difference to the sort of regime which we are likely to have imposed. These are real concerns for those who are looking at the Bill from the outside.
The examples did not reassure me in understanding the Bill. Funding for UK think tanks is mentioned, as are NGOs from abroad attending all-party parliamentary groups and some of the activities of foreign academic institutions. All apparently come into the net. This requires much further consultation. We all recognise that there are serious foreign threats to this country, that some of these threats are new because technology and communications have enabled new methods of subversion, and that we need to deal with them. But we also recognise that the United Kingdom is an open society and an open economy, and we need to preserve the best aspects of our openness to the rest of the world. That is the balance that we have to strike.
One category left out appears to be multinational companies not controlled by foreign states, along with foreign foundations and the super-wealthy. I argue again that these are also, potentially, sources of severe foreign interference in UK politics which may well be hostile to UK interests. If one is talking about British interests in the broadest sense, as the Bill does, I recall that major tobacco companies have funded institutes in Britain to lobby against tighter control of tobacco selling and health regulation. Oil companies have funded think tanks and others to lobby against measures on, or even to deny, climate change. Foundations with political agendas have supported the establishment of new right-wing societies in British universities. Those are also threats which we should not necessarily ignore.
I suggest strongly to the Minister that, in view of the concerns which have been so widely expressed across the commercial and non-commercial worlds, we should take the time now to ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance, that we get it right and that we do not get it through necessarily as fast as the Government would have liked.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have not previously taken part in this Bill because I claim absolutely no expertise in national security. However, like many noble Lords, I have received a number of representations and briefings on the foreign influence clauses from those who have major concerns about their impact on business life, which is an area where I have some experience. I have tabled Amendments 89A, 89B, 89C and 92A in this group to raise those issues.
I have considerable sympathy with those opposing the Question that the clauses dealt with in this group stand part of the Bill. I would have added my name had there been space. A number of those making representations were very clearly of the view that the best thing to happen would be for the clauses to be put to one side and for there to be a proper consultation on them to expose all the practical issues across the many kinds of organisations that other noble Lords have referred to in this group.
My amendments are more modest and targeted, because I recognise that legislative opportunities do not come very often for the Government to put a scheme such as this in place. If there is any opportunity to improve the Bill before it leaves this place, we ought to encourage the Government to do so. To that extent, I was much heartened by the words of my noble friend the Minister at the beginning of this group. I completely accept that, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said, this is not the whole answer; if we are trying to completely remedy these clauses, they will need more than my amendments. However, my amendments are directed particularly at the commercial aspect. I will speak relatively briefly to them.
Amendment 89A seeks to restrict the scope of the political influence clauses to organisations which are under the control of a foreign power. In that sense, it is like Australia. Clause 66 currently applies to any foreign organisation whether it has any connection to a foreign power; hence it applies to absolutely all foreign-operated corporations, as has been said, such as commercial companies and many other non-profit organisations, NGOs and the like.
Take the example of a company formed in one of our international friends—for example, a member country of the EU. Let us suppose that that company is thinking of investing in the UK in something we really want them to invest in, such as a nuclear power station or renewables. This provision is going to put a lot of hurdles in that company’s way. That company will inevitably have to have conversations about regulatory issues, licensing issues, planning and visas for specialist staff, which will involve meetings with officials and government Ministers. At some stage, government decisions may be needed in order to encourage that company to complete its investment. These are ordinary commercial activities but, under the Bill as drafted, that company will have to register as soon as it starts to make arrangements—for example, when it engages UK-based advisers. Of course, UK-based advisers will also have to register if there could be any chance whatever that that EU company wants to do anything that could be deemed to be a political influence activity.
As other noble Lords pointed out, that sends a pretty terrible message to potential overseas commercial partners. The UK’s position as a desirable location for inward investment cannot be taken for granted, and it could be dealt a very severe blow if all foreign companies are treated like potentially malevolent actors. It is hard to see the public policy justification for drawing the boundary of the new requirements to include such companies.
My Amendment 89A would extend the ambit of Clause 66 to UK-incorporated organisations. At the moment, if the EU company in my hypothetical example had a wholly owned UK subsidiary, that company would not be caught if it carried out the activities on its own behalf, rather than on behalf of its parent. That does not seem logical because the substance is unaltered by the corporate structure. However, if a UK-incorporated company is controlled by a foreign power, I would have thought that the Government would want to be able to track its influence activities for the countries about which they have concerns. But, at the moment, Clause 66 does not seem to require it, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain its subtleties when he winds up.
Both Australia and New Zealand have significant commercial carve-outs, designed to allow ordinary commercial activities to carry on. That is why I put down Amendments 89B and 92A, which are aimed more directly at excluding commercial activities. Amendment 89B quite simply exempts commercial activities from the definition of “political influence activity” in Clause 68, trying to bring it closer to the Australian or American systems.
My Amendment 92A also includes a power for the Secretary of State to exempt other activities that do not involve a risk to national security—other noble Lords gave examples of those other kinds of activities outside the commercial sphere. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, tabled Amendment 92B to my Amendment 92A, and I agree with his amendment because it would lessen the need for a backstop power for the Secretary of State, although I still think that such a power would be desirable because we cannot decide in advance all those circumstances where it is clear that no national security interest arises.
My last amendment in this group, Amendment 89C, also concerns the definition of “political influence activity” in Clause 68(2). Under Clause 68(2)(b), general communications are not caught if they make it “reasonably clear” that the communication
“is made at the direction of the foreign principal”.
But this does not apply to communications to Ministers, MPs and the like—the specified people who are now in the new schedule. My amendment basically asks: why not? What is the harm in communications that are clearly signposted at the behest of a foreign principal? In my example, if a company from the EU were trying to approach individuals or officials, as opposed to putting out a general communication, but it was quite clear for whom it was acting, what evil are we trying to deal with by making that a political influence activity in the Bill?
My remarks have focused just on commercial activities, and I have really focused on only one aspect of them: inward investment. If we drag the whole of commercial life into this regime, it will, at best, end up with a lot of non-value adding bureaucracy. At worst, it will swamp the Home Office with a tsunami of precautionary registrations and could do real harm to our economic prospects. I feel that, at the moment, the effect of the Bill is a bit like putting up a big sign saying, “No foreign businesses here” at the gates to the UK. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response, and, as I said, I was heartened by his initial remarks.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, not least because I want to make some remarks about the effect on other areas of life. I agree with her that her phrase “non-value adding bureaucracy” is an understatement, and I sometimes wonder whether the Government understand quite how much they have unleashed with the clauses we are considering in this group. I will, briefly, direct my remarks to Amendment 88, which sets out areas where it would be useful for the Government to provide guidance.
A number of Members have had a wide range of briefs of various kinds, and I draw the House’s attention to one from the Russell group of universities. In effect, I am referring to section (a) of the new clause that would be inserted by Amendment 88. In that briefing, the universities say that they fully
“understand that working with international partners is not without risk and take their responsibilities to protect national security seriously.”
They point out that they already work with the Government. However, they go on to say that the requirements of the foreign influence registration scheme
“could include a range of international activities from student exchange programmes to research partnerships, many of which are already covered in existing legislation. The potentially duplicative and complex nature of this arrangement could limit opportunities for genuine international collaboration and risk deterring global partners, which would in turn hinder national and local R&D led growth.”
Just as the noble Baroness was talking about the adverse effect on business and inward investment, similarly universities are telling the Government and the House that there would be adverse effects on international research collaboration. The briefing goes on to say:
“If university activity is to be included, the system must be clear and simple to use with accessible guidance that will ensure universities will not be penalised”—
or criminalised—
“for misinterpretation or misunderstanding the system.”
As we are talking about provisions which have a criminal aspect to them, that matters a great deal.
The other point I bring to the House’s attention is about charities, which is reflected in section (b) of Amendment 88. The amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who incidentally referred to the fact that even all-party parliamentary groups may be caught by this provision. In about half an hour, I am due to chair an all-party parliamentary group at the other end of this building, and I sometimes wonder whether, in future, we will have to register an enormous range of activity. The noble Baroness used the word “tsunami”, and that is something we would like to avoid.
I will look at charities from the point of view of the scientific community in Britain. Many key scientific societies in this country are charities, including the Royal Society and the leading sectoral scientific societies, such as the Royal Society of Biology, the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society of Chemistry. They also have extensive international networks. All are international in their nature, organising international conferences all over the world and with international links the like of which is hard to describe. Science is a very international business, and so it should be. We benefit from that, and I hope that, in future, we will not lose some of the benefits that we have hitherto had with Europe.
In drawing that to the Committee’s attention, I would like to know what the Government’s intention is in respect of the activities of scientific societies. I do not suppose for a moment that they were consulted on the Bill; I think that many do not even know that there is a possibility that they might be affected. The Russell group is an example of at least one organisation which has been on the ball. The activity of normal scientific life in this country stands to be affected by the Bill. I am very interested to hear the Minister’s reply on that point, because I wonder whether that was ever intended to be in the Government’s purview when bringing forward this legislation. I do not think that the activities of our scientific societies really run the risk to national security that might otherwise be implied, so for that reason that I bring the point to the Minister’s attention.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I absolutely support the remarks that have been made by numerous noble Lords on the primary intention of this part of the Bill, which surely is to deal with those covert and hostile activities which may be committed by, or on the behalf of, foreign Governments—or foreign entities connected closely to foreign Governments—which might damage the national security of this country.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for popping up at this point, not having taken part in the debates so far, but I was requested to do so by the British Academy, the UK’s national academy of humanities and social sciences, of which I am proud to be a fellow. I am also an academic who has in the past collaborated with colleagues from outside the UK in the area of social policy, which of course is trying to influence government.
I am sure I do not need to spell out the importance of international research collaboration, which was touched on by my noble friend Lord Stansgate, especially in the wake of the Science Minister’s speech last week which emphasised the importance of the Government’s global science strategy. Any such strategy requires international collaboration. The British Academy accepts that mechanisms to prevent foreign interference are necessary, but such mechanisms must safeguard the benefits of international research and protect academic freedom. It is worth just noting here what the Joint Committee on Human Rights had to say. It was concerned that this was introduced at such a late stage of the Bill’s passage that it could not comment properly on it, but it said:
“Any foreign influence registration scheme must contain adequate protections to ensure that it does not interfere unduly with democratic rights, including freedom of association and free speech.”
I think everything we have heard so today, other than from the Minister, suggests that it could interfere in that way.
Indeed, the British Academy argues that such mechanisms exist already and that FIRS would duplicate them in a way that creates totally unnecessary bureaucracy, which surely this Government, of all Governments, want to avoid. It is not helped by the lack of clarity in the wording, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, with details left for secondary legislation. The effect, the British Academy argues, would be a significant negative impact on the ability of UK researchers to engage internationally, creating irreversible harm to the UK’s research and innovation standing. The academy is not prone to hyperbole.
As currently drafted, as we have heard, FIRS would entangle wide swathes of international activities and is likely to have a chilling effect on international collaboration, not just deterring those with malign intent—as referred to by the Minister—but probably having a much greater impact on those with utterly benign intent. I cannot believe for a moment that this is what the Government want, especially given that it would undermine their own aspirations to forge a global science strategy.
It is in the Government’s own interest to accept the British Academy’s recommendation that they withdraw Part 3—I think I am echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said—and consult with it and other relevant organisations to cocreate a framework that is proportionate and reasonable, taking into account existing reporting and oversight mechanisms. The academy argues that research and innovation should be largely excluded from FIRS. Is this something that the Government are willing to consider? If not, why not? Will the Minister agree to take this away, have discussions with the British Academy and others and, ideally, withdraw Part 3 altogether as has been suggested or, at the very least, come up with something less harmful before Report? I am echoing other noble Lords in calling for a longer pause than currently envisaged. The more I have listened to today’s debate, the more horrified I have become at what this part of the Bill might mean.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 103, and I declare my interests as set out in the register.
Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Lister, I am new to the Bill and have been provoked by briefings. Like others who have spoken today, I emphasise that I am absolutely no fan of this foreign influence registration scheme, which is far too broad in its application, as we have heard. I think it will be highly damaging to UK research and development, inward investment and British interests around the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, listed those who might get caught up in the scheme, and clearly very few of those have any connection at all with national security. I am delighted to support many amendments in this group and, in particular, the clause stand part notices that the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Wallace have spoken to so cogently.
This has given us the opportunity to debate the flawed nature of the whole scheme. I will make some remarks about the impact on business and investment, which my noble friend Lord Fox would have made were he able to be here. We have heard powerful testimony from the British Academy, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and from the Russell group, referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, about the hugely detrimental potential impact of the Bill on the international research and development front. The British Academy rightly says that international collaboration is critical to the excellence of UK research and the Government’s aim to become a scientific and global science superpower. As it says, as currently drafted the FIRS will have a severely negative impact on the UK’s ability to engage with researchers internationally and on the ability of researchers in the humanities and social sciences to engage on critical public policy topics, and it will irrevocably harm the UK’s research and innovation standing. Strong words.
Under the scheme as currently proposed, at minimum, research universities will be smothered in red tape and, at worst, heavy criminal penalties in undertaking international research partnerships will be imposed. Bluntly, I must tell the Minister that his amendments add very little to the clarity of this scheme. The Minister’s letter about the intersection with the National Security and Investment Act, which we debated in 2021, was far from convincing. There is already a raft of other legislation relating to the academic technology approval scheme and export control, which impact on a university’s international activities. If this scheme, by mischance, does go through, it makes Amendment 104, in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace, the absolute bare minimum needed. Both the Russell group and the British Academy make the case for clarity, non-duplication, proportionality and a high threshold for registration, none of which is currently present in the scheme.
A further cause for withdrawal of this scheme is the strong reaction from the business and investment community. That is why this stand part debate is so important. The ABI states very clearly that the current proposal for the FIRS
“risks placing significant reporting burden on insurers and long-term savings providers investing in the UK, with the potential to negatively impact the UK’s international competitiveness and attractiveness as a place to invest”.
TheCityUK says these proposals
“if passed unamended would have a chilling effect on inward investment into the UK”.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I could just add a footnote to what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said—not along the lines that this paragraph of the schedule should be withdrawn but to draw attention to what I think is a defect in it, which illustrates the point that some of the details of this scheme have not been thoroughly thought through.
The point I want to make arises under paragraph (5)(4)(d), which exempts, as part of an example of “legal activity”,
“acting as an arbitrator or mediator.”
The exemption applies only if the person acting as an arbitrator or a mediator is a lawyer within the definition provided in paragraph (5)(3). Many people who act as arbitrators in technical cases are engineers or architects—people who are not qualified as lawyers but provide a valuable service in the whole scheme of arbitration on technical issues. It is quite common to find a panel of three arbitrators where one is them, perhaps, is a lawyer and the others are people with particular skills. I do not understand why, if there is going to be an exemption in relation to acting as an arbitrator or mediator, it should not cover anybody acting as an arbitrator or mediator, whatever his or her qualification might be.
Perhaps the Minister could explain at some point why it is only in the case of lawyers that arbitrators or mediators are to be exempted from the requirement to register. It would be interesting to know the reason because, otherwise, we will inhibit commercial activities and that would seem to be undesirable. I throw this out just as an example of what was referred to by some commentators as a rather slapdash approach to drafting. This issue needs to be looked at so that we can understand exactly what the purpose of this exemption is.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as we are in Committee, I think one can intervene a second time. I just want to ask the Minister about one of the questions I put about political parties; I think it also arises now, from what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. It concerns the confidentiality of all these masses of reports. What privacy protections will be there if this measure goes ahead?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the best estimate of cost is £47.8 million. The high estimate is £62.4 million. In addition:
“FIRS could discourage business activities if the costs of compliance are considered too high. There is a risk of negative reputational impacts from inclusion on a public register. Other countries may introduce reciprocal measures to regulate the overseas activities of government and businesses. Persons could be prosecuted if engaged in unregistered activity, even if the activity itself is legitimate.”
“Benefits were not monetised … While there are many entities which would fall within the definition of a ‘foreign principal’ or ‘foreign power’, it is difficult to determine how many people are being directed to undertake registerable activities on their behalf, or how many people would qualify for an exemption under the scheme … There is also a lack of understanding around how likely the positive and negative impacts are … it is not known how likely it is that the benefits or impacts will occur, or how significant they are likely to be. It is also important to note that much of this feedback was provided before the scope and exemptions within the scheme were finalised.”
“It is acknowledged that the number of people who would be affected by the scheme in terms of registration and familiarisation is unknown … Due to the offences and penalties associated with non-compliance with the scheme, organisations that are ultimately out of scope will still need to be aware of the FIRS regulations to ensure they are out of scope, both currently and for future activities … members of the public will need support in fulfilling their registration requirements.”
“There is a risk that the scheme may have a disproportionate impact on small or micro-businesses (SMBs). There is a risk that SMBs, without established regulatory compliance procedures, won’t register with the scheme and could then be prosecuted. It is not known how many SMBs will be in scope of FIRS … With more time, a more extensive commission could have been sent to departments.”
The high estimate is that more than 371,000 individuals will need to be familiarised with the scheme, but:
“Home Office anticipate that there will be a relatively small number of cases per year for FIRS (less than five).”
Those are all direct quotes from the Government’s impact assessment on this scheme from October 2022. That impact assessment is the least ringing endorsement of any piece of legislation that I have seen in this House for 10 years. More than 371,000 people will need to be familiarised with a scheme that will have five potential cases per year and, of course, the scheme was not consulted on. To be fair to the Home Office, I read the consultation document from 2021. The principle of a FIRS was in it, but this scheme was not. It is in many parts a direct lift from FARA in the United States, or the FIT scheme.
However, the Government have been very coy about the areas where they have not chosen to follow. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated the commercial enterprises. The Government have not said why they chose not to follow the United States’ example of the exemption of bona fide commercial activity and other activity not serving predominantly a foreign interest. Therefore, the whole gamut of the points that she and others have made in this House will be covered by this scheme and not that scheme, but why is not indicated. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment goes beyond that, saying that they do not know how many small businesses will be affected by it, yet the impact assessment of the overall Bill and of this scheme says that there will be 25 people in London operating the scheme at a cost of nearly £50 million. This spider’s web is a very expensive one, and not many hornets will be covered, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said.
The other exemption that the Government have not indicated having referenced before concerns the US exemption on religious, scholastic, academic, fine arts or scientific pursuits. There has been no indication as to why the Government have chosen not to follow that route. There is not a bishop on the Bench, but any Anglican community in or established church from another country interacting with one of our bishops will have to register on this scheme, because there is no religious exemption for it. Any community in this country carrying out what they believe the Pope has asked them to do for campaigning, on what they believe are humanitarian grounds, will have to register under the scheme. Any of us, or any MP, who is encouraging others to support a Ukrainian NGO charity, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicated, asking us to support Ukrainians for the resettlement scheme will have to register on the scheme.
This is likely to be a scheme that helps oppressors around the world far more than it helps our Government to secure national security. It is no surprise to me that both Hungary and El Salvador cited with great enthusiasm the US scheme as a mechanism to find out what those in other countries are doing to encourage human rights and civil liberties at home.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
There are a few, but 25 members of the Home Office are going to be monitoring this database, and a fair amount of their time might be taken up with David Cameron’s and Tony Blair’s international activities. What was the reason for differentiating from the Australian scheme?
We have heard concerns about the British Academy, universities, INGOs and NGOs, trade, and those seeking contact with FDI and the ABPI. It will render the work of our Prime Minister’s trade envoys that much harder when any interaction with an entity from a country with which we are seeking a better trading relationship now has to register in advance their contact with a trade envoy, not only for perfectly legitimate activities but for activities encouraged by the Government. We have also heard the concern from the ABPI that it will have to register the preparation and planning of meetings beforehand.
At the start of Committee, I indicated that our Benches did not see this part of the Bill as having been properly prepared. The details have not been consulted on and we believe that the Government should pause it. We said at the start of Committee that it may find a better home in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, if it is being reworked. It may be that we move for this to go to a Select Committee for further consideration or to be taken out of the Bill. We do not want to disrupt the Government’s moves to improve national security or to weaken the ability of our country to have national security. We also do not want to weaken our interaction with trade, investment and human rights, or—I say this as someone with no faith—our proper interaction with many faith groups, which will now have to register all of this activity within the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will say today that the Government are going to think again, pause and come back, not just by saying that more information will follow but with a commitment to consult on the specific schemes and work with us to bring back workable solutions.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not having participated in this debate earlier but, like other speakers, I have been provoked by listening to the contributions. The speeches tonight appear to be about either excluding certain categories or, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, trying to include a category in the scope of the Bill. The fact is that, if you start to specify organisations or types of organisations, you will include every organisation in the country, whether a business or arts organisation, a charity, a political party or any other group of people, because any organisation can host people who seek to bring influence of one form or another. It is the behaviour, not the organisation, that is the problem here. To suppose that registering organisations will defeat covert practitioners from seeking to exert influence is naive to the point of being dangerous. As many have suggested, the solution is to go away, redraft and come back with a shorter Bill that does not try to include every organisation, not only in this country but in every other country—any one of them could host a malign influence.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their important amendments in this group and for the extensive and interesting debate. I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and others from other political parties, as she wishes. As soon as the reply to her letter is written, I will circulate it.
I assure the Committee that I have heard the strength of feeling on this issue and the calls to remove the political influence tier completely. I will be taking this back to the department to agree the next steps required to address these concerns ahead of Report, while balancing the need for a mechanism that protects us all from malign foreign influence in the UK. At the risk of upsetting the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, further information will follow.
I should say this: there should be no doubt that those who comply with the registration requirements under FIRS, by being clear and open about whom they represent, are supporting the resilience of the UK and its institutions in the face of state threats. There is no suspicion around those who register with the scheme; they are doing the right thing. However, as I said earlier, this has been an extremely valuable debate and I am grateful for all the thought and expertise that went into these contributions. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we are not singling out the Dutch; we are merely citing an example. This is about foreign influence.
I start by addressing the amendments tabled on the political influence tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. I have listened carefully, and several interesting points have been made. I have heard the concerns raised about the unintended consequences of the political tier, and the Government will consider these points carefully ahead of Report.
Today, we have heard calls to remove this part of the Bill and focus instead on amending existing lobbying laws. These laws have been designed to be suitable for the supervision of domestic lobbying where British citizens and residents have a right to participate in the political process, but they are inadequate for foreign influence, where the impact of undue influence presents a greater risk to our democracy, and therefore greater regulation is required.
This is reflected internationally, and it is not unusual for countries to have distinct lobbying and foreign influence provisions. For example, the US has a Lobbying Disclosure Act as well as foreign agent registration requirements. Similarly, the Australians have a lobbying register that is separate from their foreign influence transparency scheme. I hope that that goes some way to answering the queries on this from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
The United Kingdom is well behind these countries in understanding the impact of foreign influence, and both tiers of the scheme are required to rectify this. FIRS will allow the Government and the public to understand better the scale, nature and extent of foreign influence on our democratic institutions.
I refer noble Lords to the multiple calls in the other place at the point of the Bill’s introduction for a scheme to require transparency around political influence activities. Members of the other place have signalled their agreement that political transparency is essential. We also heard from the director of regulation at the Electoral Commission, who said in oral evidence:
“Any registration scheme that brings more transparency around who is seeking to influence those involved in our democracy can only be to the benefit of the confidence of voters.”—[Official Report, Commons, National Security Bill Committee, 7/7/22; col. 44.]
I know that noble Lords will agree that the British people need to be able to trust the institutions that serve them. It can only be right that the UK public and our democratic institutions are protected from covert foreign influence and better informed as to the scale and extent of foreign influence in our political affairs. I emphasise to noble Lords that the public, and Parliament, should know when these foreign political influence activities are taking place. Transparency is a source of strength. That is why we have included provisions in the scheme to make certain information public.
Those who register under the scheme will be playing an important role in supporting our efforts to strengthen the resilience of our democratic system and political institutions. While we are keen to work with business and other sectors to ensure a workable and easy-to-use scheme, the regulation of foreign communications or disbursements should not of itself be controversial for the reputable end of industry.
I reassure the Committee that the registration requirements will not be burdensome. Registering will require filling in a short online form. The scheme will not prohibit any activities carried out by foreign entities or on their behalf where these have been registered in line with the scheme’s requirements. We intend to consult widely and convene expert panels to produce targeted and practical guidance. That will be published ahead of the scheme going live to ensure that the public and business are clear on the requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked about NGO workers abroad. The scheme will require the registration of political influence activities where they are to be carried out within the UK at the direction of any foreign power or foreign entity, or where they are to be carried out by a foreign entity itself. Where the activities do not take place within the UK, they will not be caught by the scheme. I think this also answers the question from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the Ukrainian situation.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He may be missing a point but will correct me if I am wrong. The collection of funds for that scheme, along with a lot of the organising activity, is done within the United Kingdom. As the Bill stands, that surely means there has to be registration.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Well, as I have just said, I do not believe that it does. If I may, I will confirm that and come back to the noble Lord.
I will now turn to the amendments from my noble friend Lady Noakes. I commend her for the spirit in which they were made. The first of these, Amendment 89A, looks to constrain our definition of “foreign principal” in the political influence tier of the scheme. She is quite right to point out that the current definition includes all foreign powers and foreign entities, but I will explain why the scheme has this breadth and the ways we have constrained the scheme to compensate for it.
The amendment seeks to include only those foreign entities that are controlled by a foreign power, rather than all foreign entities, in our definition of “foreign principal”. In the development of the scheme, we considered this as an option. However, we have worked closely with our Australian partners and reviewed their submission to the parliamentary review of the foreign influence transparency scheme.
The Australians originally took a very broad definition of “foreign principal” to their Parliament. This was, through its passage, constrained to something akin to my noble friend’s amendment. However, this has caused the Australians significant challenges regarding compliance and enforcement. For FIRS to function as it should, it shall need to be crystal clear to people whether or not they are working for a foreign principal. With certain foreign entities, it can be very difficult to determine ownership and governance structures, and nearly impossible for a small business or individuals to know whether they are working for an entity owned or controlled by a foreign power. In their submission to their parliamentary review, the Australians have recommended that the “foreign principal” definition is broadened, in keeping with our proposals. To provide balance with the broad definition of “foreign principal”, we have drafted a narrower definition of “political influence activity” compared with the US and Australian precedents.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister. He has just mentioned for the second time the compliance burden. Earlier on, he said very reassuringly that all that would be required to register was the completion of a form. But does the Minister understand that one reason why so many people are so anxious about these provisions is that it is not simply a question of filling in a form? In addition, once you have done that, there is the ongoing and, apparently, permanent obligation to comply with any information notices, which can be given at any time, requiring information of any sort to be provided to the Government. This is against the background of an absence of statutory guarantees regarding confidential information, except for lawyers and journalists, and not even—I think I am right in saying—any indication in the Bill as to whether this register will be public. The Minister has spoken a great deal about transparency.
How is that consistent with a United Kingdom that welcomes foreign engagement? Can the Minister understand how reluctant responsible directors and trustees will be to advise engagement with United Kingdom Government authorities against the background of those potentially very onerous provisions, which are liable to cause administrative problems and render it impossible for them to keep private what is always intended to be private?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that the Minister absolutely understands exactly where he is coming from. I will come on to the confidentiality aspects of the question he just asked in a second.
The process will require information about those party to an arrangement, as well as a description of the arrangements and activities to be undertaken. We would not expect a detailed account of every activity to be undertaken either as part of an arrangement or by a foreign principal, but the full process will be set out in regulations, which will be laid before Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Are those regulations to be laid before Parliament before the completion of the Bill, or will we have to wait until after it becomes an Act?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will come back to the noble Lord on that shortly.
I will go on to the commercial sensitivity aspects—in effect commercial confidentiality, mentioned just now by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. We believe that ensuring that information can be publicised where it relates to the carrying out of political influence activities will help to strengthen the resilience of the political system, but Clause 77(2) allows the Secretary of State to specify or describe information or material that is not to be published. We intend this to include where publishing the information would, for example, threaten the interests of national security, put an individual’s safety at risk, or result in the disclosure of commercially sensitive information. The registration system will allow a person to flag where they think they meet such an exemption, which will not be considered by the scheme management unit.
In accordance with our data protection obligations, we intend for the information to be published to be limited to what is necessary to achieve the transparency aims of the scheme, particularly where that information is personal. I have heard all the concerns and, as I said, the Government will give further consideration to these points ahead of Report.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
That commitment is welcome. The Minister referred to the lack of a regulatory burden; I am following the point that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, raised. However, the Government’s impact assessment says, in effect, that everybody needs to be familiarised with it because they will not know whether they are in scope. It says at paragraph 37, which I quoted earlier:
“Due to the offences and penalties associated with non-compliance with the scheme, organisations that are ultimately out of scope will still need to be aware of the FIRS”.
When it comes to domestic charities and NGOs, the impact assessment’s higher estimate of how many people will have to familiarise themselves with FIRS is 105,000 people. It will be an enormous regulatory burden on the domestic charity sector as to whether it knows to comply with it. Simply stating that it is a small online form is insufficient. On that point, I wonder why the Government have no estimate at all of how many small and medium-sized businesses will be captured by this.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord has pre-empted the remainder of my speech to some extent, which I am afraid goes on for rather a long time; I apologise in advance for that. I will come on to the charities aspect in a moment. On the regulatory burden, I think I have been reasonably clear as to the simplicity we intend when it comes to complying.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would extend my noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendment to charitable activities, as was just described again by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I once more thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his scrutiny of the scheme. In essence, the question is: why is there not a charity exemption in the scheme and will this not make it harder for charities to carry out legitimate activity here in the United Kingdom? We believe that the ability of charities to campaign on issues relevant to their charitable mission is very important and crucial to our democracy. The scheme will not prevent this. It will ensure that the public are informed about the role played by overseas entities in this work, however.
We have also taken steps to minimise the potential burden on charities conducting legitimate activity as a result of FIRS. For example, making a public communication, campaign information or requests for support by a charity will be registerable only if it is not reasonably clear from the communication that it is made at the direction of a foreign power or entity. If such a communication is published for or on behalf of a foreign charity in its own name, it would not need to be registered. If it is published by a UK charity or PR firm at the direction of a foreign charity, it would not need to be registered if it is reasonably clear from the communication that it has been made at the direction of the foreign charity. I hope that is reasonably clear and has given some reassurance to the charitable sector.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
For the avoidance of doubt, have scientific societies in this country that are charities been consulted by the Government in respect of the legislation in any shape or form?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I assure the noble Viscount that I shall come to the substance of his comments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, shortly.
I turn to the probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that provides for a public health emergencies exemption to the political influence tier. I agree that where an event such as a coronavirus pandemic arises, it is imperative that the sharing of key information does not face unnecessary regulatory red tape.
The scheme does not intend to impede the sharing of information relating to public health emergencies. Governments speaking to other Governments, and experts speaking with other experts, will not be caught by the scheme. Only where communication is carried out to influence a political matter will it be registerable. Where it is done to influence a political matter but the information is shared as part of an arrangement with the UK Government, the UK arrangements exemption will apply and no registration will be required. We would be happy to consider further the point that the noble Lord raised. As an aside to one of his other points, I say that the enhanced tier will be used only for those countries or entities responsible for the greatest state threats. I do not know how many that will be.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Does the Minister accept that issues of public health can often be highly political? One of my colleagues at the London School of Economics who was looking after a number of exchange students in what was then the Soviet Union was expelled from the Soviet Union for having collected some dust in a part of Ukraine where it was rumoured that there had been a nuclear accident. We all know that the provision of public information about Covid-19 in China has become highly political and highly sensitive. We cannot quite put things into neat categories in the way he suggests.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I do not think that I am putting it into a particularly neat category; I think I am leaving a large amount of room for this to be taken on a case-by-case basis. I repeat: only where communication is carried out to influence a political matter will it be registerable. Where it is done to influence a political matter but the information is shared as part of an arrangement with the UK Government, the UK arrangements exemption will apply. I think that covers it completely.
I turn to Amendment 88 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Wallace, and Amendment 97 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, as they both raise the important issue of guidance for higher education and other sectors. We recognise that clear, targeted guidance will be essential in support of the public’s understanding of the scheme’s requirements. I hope that the Committee will be reassured by what I said of our plans to convene expert panels to help develop the guidance. That will ensure that the requirements are clear for universities and higher education institutes. Throughout the development of this scheme, we have listened to the views of organisations from the university sector. We will continue to do so as we design bespoke guidance.
Therefore, I do not think that the proposed amendments are necessary. Although it is essential that the guidance is published ahead of the scheme going live, putting time limits on publication following the Bill’s passage may hamper the engagement we wish to carry out in producing the most helpful and targeted guidance.
Amendment 104, which is another amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, seeks to ensure that the higher education sector is not unnecessarily burdened by the enhanced tier of FIRS. I assure him that this has been considered in relation to FIRS. There is a clear difference between it and the National Security and Investment Act, the academic technology approval scheme, and the export control regime. The Government are clear that FIRS fills an gap in our current toolkit.
The focus of the enhanced tier is to provide scrutiny to the UK activities directed by foreign powers, and foreign power-controlled entities, where the Secretary of State considers it reasonably necessary to do so to protect the safety or interests of the UK. In the limited circumstances where there is a risk of duplication, we will work closely across government departments and potential registrants to keep the burden of registration to a minimum and inform our approach to using this tier of the scheme.
In essence the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, were asking whether this scheme would interfere in the work of academia and broadened it out to further bodies, such as the British Academy, as referenced by the noble Baroness, and the scientific bodies referenced by the noble Viscount. There is no intention for this scheme to interfere with the work of academia, or with relevant international collaborations. We have considered the feedback of the academic and higher education community on this point. Under the specified persons tier, a UK university would need to be acting at the direction of a specified foreign power or a specified foreign power-controlled entity before registration requirements could apply. It would not be enough for a foreign power or entity to simply provide funding in support of an activity at a university, for example through subsidy or donation. Nor could responding to a generic request from a foreign power or entity be considered as “acting at the direction of”.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I will reflect on what the Minister says when I read Hansard. I am glad that bodies such as the British Academy will be consulted, and I hope that the named organisations I mentioned earlier will be consulted. If we take the case of an international conference, held in one of many states around the world, is it the Government’s view that that international conference, which may or may not be sponsored officially by a Government but nevertheless takes place in what may be considered an unfriendly country, brings about the type of involvement in this scheme on the part of individual people attending, or does it not?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thought I was very clear on the precise specified persons tier here. A UK university would need to be acting at the direction of a specified foreign power or a specified foreign power-controlled entity before registration requirements could apply. I think that covers the set of circumstances just outlined by the noble Viscount.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister spoke about universities. Did he mean the academics—any academic within the universities?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Yes.
Amendment 103 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to remove the exemption from the registration requirement in FIRS for lawyers providing legal activities. While I welcome the challenge, removing this exemption would risk undermining long-standing protections the UK has afforded to the provision of confidential legal advice and the equitable administration of justice. The exemption is available only to lawyers carrying out legal activity and so would not apply to other individuals carrying out legal activity.
I also reiterate what was said in Committee in the other place: that this exemption does not completely exempt legal professionals from engaging with the scheme. It does not cover all the activities that could be undertaken by a legal professional as part of an arrangement with a foreign principal. Activities that are not strictly legal activities, such as lobbying, for example, may still need to be registered. So, for example, if a lawyer were to enter into an arrangement with a foreign power to lobby a UK government Minister or parliamentarian on the UK’s foreign policy towards that foreign power, that would be registrable. The fact that the individual is a lawyer is not sufficient in and of itself to exempt them from registration.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I heard what the Minister said about lobbying and the additional aspect of lobbying by law firms, but why is any exemption needed beyond what is contained in Clause 74, which covers legal professional privilege effectively—legal proceedings and so on—so that no confidential information needs to be divulged? Why is it not necessary that a law firm is acting for a foreign power or an entity controlled by a foreign power? Why should that be exempt?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think I explained this in reasonable detail. It goes back to the sort of work the lawyers carry out. As I say, it is the long-standing protections that the UK has afforded—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
All the Minister is saying, in a highly circular way, is that it is in here because it has always been in here in some other forms of legislation. I do not think that is much of an answer.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
In that case, I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Lord. I apologise for having spoken at such length.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am not sure whether the Minister has picked up my point about arbitration. I am very sorry that I did not put down an amendment to direct attention to this, but it is quite an important point because London is a preferred seat for arbitration and many cases involving foreign powers and foreign-controlled activities. I have done a handful of arbitrations, but each one of them is within that category.
One of the features of an arbitration is the confidentiality of the process and the fact that the process exists at all. There are some cases where parties do not want it to be publicised that they are engaging in this process, because it would raise all sorts of questions, particularly at the home state of the foreign activity, the foreign-controlled entity or the foreign power itself. It is rather important to be sure that the ground is properly covered.
As an arbitrator myself, and a lawyer-arbitrator, I favour the exemption provided by paragraph 5, but I do not think it goes wide enough. That is my point: it would seem very strange if I, as a lawyer for a team of three arbitrators, did not have to register, but if the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was with me as an expert in his field, he would have to do so, and an engineer or an architect would have to do so as well. That really destroys the exemption. It is a serious point to look at, though I quite agree that it is a point of detail. I apologise for not having drawn attention to it specifically before.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I was about to attempt to address the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but unfortunately he is not going to like the answer, which is that I do not know. I will have to look into this and come back to him.
I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by all noble Lords, and I thank all those who participated in what was clearly a very healthy and important debate. We will reflect carefully on the comments raised prior to Report. For the moment, and to that end, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Since the Minister said he would go away and reflect on this debate, which may bring about substantial changes to what the Government are doing, what would be the point of his moving his amendments for the remainder of this part? It would save the Committee quite a bit of time if he did not move these amendments to the rest of the part that he said he is now going to consider.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure it would save a huge amount of time, would it?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It depends how long the Minister takes to move his own amendments. When he sums up his own amendments that he will be moving, he will be saying, “I am now going away to reflect on these and come back before Report”, so there is very little point in doing that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Definition of “specified persons”Within 60 days of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 63 to define “specified persons”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that the Government must define “specified persons”.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 83 provides that the Government must lay secondary legislation to define “specified persons” within 60 days of Royal Assent. A specified person under this Bill is a person who engages another for foreign activity arrangements. The purpose of the amendment is to probe who that could involve and whether they must be representative of a national Government or state. This amendment is further intended to probe the unintended consequences of the FIRS scheme and to illustrate that the legislation as drafted creates uncertainty as to who it applies to.
The Government have also tabled amendments as part of this group to clarify that activities being carried out must be registered at the time that they are carried out. A separate government amendment in this group limits the circumstances when affirmative procedures must be used in relation to defining “specified persons”, removing a layer of scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, government Amendments 85, 86, 87, 94, 95 and 96 are minor and technical amendments that will make it clear that a current—rather than a previous—registration, is required to meet the registration requirements of either tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. This will mean that, where previously registered activities are resumed, a current registration will be required rather than a person within scope of the scheme being able to rely on the fact that the activities had previously been registered. This will support the need for the register to remain accurate and up to date, providing the best possible insight into the scale of foreign political influence activities, and activities of specified entities.
Government Amendment 121 ensures that that the clauses are as clear as possible and accurately reflect our intent. To specify an entity on the enhanced tier, the Secretary of State will have a regulatory making power as per Clause 63. Under subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 92, this power to specify will be subject to an affirmative procedure. The amendment adds wording to clarify that the affirmative procedure applies where a new entity is being specified. Where an entity is being de-specified, or an already specified entity is being re-specified—for example, because it has changed its name—a negative procedure will apply, under Clause 92(4). This will ensure that both the specifying and removal of entities from the enhanced tier will be subject to the necessary level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 83 seeks to require the Secretary of State to define “specified persons” within 60 days of this Act being passed. “Specified persons” are defined within Clause 63 of the Bill; I therefore interpret this amendment as being intended to set a requirement on the Government to specify any entities to which the enhanced tier will apply within 60 days of the Act being passed. The specification of a person will mean that individuals or entities will have to register any arrangements with the specified person to carry out activities in the UK. It will also set a requirement for specified entities themselves to register their own activities. I am sure the House will recognise that these are far-reaching requirements, and it is therefore vital that the designation of a specified entity is done following appropriate consideration and on the basis of circumstances that exist at the time, and the most up-to-date and comprehensive evidence. A blanket requirement to designate all specified entities within 60 days would impede the careful case-by-case basis consideration that is required and would be a disproportionate approach to the specification of persons under this tier. I therefore do not believe that this amendment is necessary, and I encourage the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“(3A) Condition 2A is that the foreign power contributes, directly or indirectly, more than 25% of the annual revenue of the person.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds an additional condition to determining if a person is controlled by a foreign power. It is intended to further increase transparency.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, some of my colleagues will probably feel that further discussion on Part 3 is, in a sense, almost redundant. The clear sentiment of the House is that Part 3, as it exists, is unfit for purpose, and that we need to pause the Bill to consult more widely and, in the light of those consultations, revise very considerably. That being the case, I merely wish to flag in my probing amendment some of the sheer difficulties of defining “foreign control”, and what is controlled by a foreign entity, using indicators of how far or otherwise it is indeed influenced by a foreign power or owner.
Noble Lords who read the football pages, as I occasionally do, will have noted the current controversy as to who actually owns Everton Football Club. The question is whether the real owner, carefully disguised, is a sanctioned Russian oligarch. If you cannot tell who actually owns Everton Football Club—the idea that you can carefully discover the foreign company based in Panama, itself owned by a controlling company that is partly in the Bahamas and partly in the Cayman Islands—it is not entirely clear how we might define who owns what.
The UK contributes a great deal to the confusion over who owns what. Our overseas territories and, to a certain extent, our Crown dependencies, and the way in which Companies House operates, often make it very difficult to discover even that companies registered in this country may be owned by a chain of other owners; the ultimate owner therefore becomes extremely unclear.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has raised an interesting but complicated question to answer. He has given various examples of the complications involved in trying to identify the owners of companies. From my own experience as a part company owner and director, I did not know who the shareholders in my own company were, once the ownership was traced back. This is a very difficult and involved question, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions; it is indeed a complex issue. Amendment 83 seeks to provide that, where an entity receives 25% or more of its revenue from a foreign power, it can be considered as subject to control from a foreign power and eligible to be specified under the enhanced tier of the scheme. I commend the spirit with which this amendment has been made. The noble Lord’s aim of increasing transparency supports the objectives of the scheme, but it is vital that we strike the balance of proportionality.
It is important that we maintain a distinction between funding, or donations, and control. However, I hope the noble Lord will be reassured that where, in practice, funding does result in a foreign power directing or controlling the activities of the entity, a condition for foreign power control already given in Schedule 13 will still be met. Where this condition is met, it will be possible to specify the entity under the enhanced tier.
We recognise that it is imperative that this scheme maintains the flexibility to adapt, should a foreign power seek to take action to evade the scheme’s scope and requirements. Part 3 of Schedule 13 provides this necessary flexibility by allowing for the conditions of control to be amended for permitted purposes by regulation. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept the proposed amendment and invite its withdrawal.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I foresee yet another bout of litigation over who really owns what as this is implemented. We have seen a fair amount of argument among different Russian oligarchs about who owns what, and what political influence may or may not have been involved, in the London courts. This is one of the many ways in which the Bill, in its current form, is not proportionate. This is, again, why we need to move slowly, carefully and cautiously as we complete our scrutiny of the Bill.
We must not put too much of a burden on the individual business man and woman, or the individual customer, but, at the same time, we must do our utmost to ensure that foreign money, as it comes into British politics and British political life, is identified as vigorously as possible. Incidentally, I am not convinced that the Bill does that, as I said in an earlier session. That is one of the ways in which the Bill needs to be strengthened rather than weakened. This will, I hope, form part of the discussions that we will have off the Floor, during the process in which the Government will produce their promised policy statement, and before we come to Report. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the activities being carried out must be registered at the time they are carried out.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the activities being carried out must be registered at the time they are carried out.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the activities being carried out must be registered at the time they are carried out.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that agreements can be “foreign influence arrangements”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a reference to the new Schedule inserted by Lord Sharpe after Schedule 13.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 90, 91, 93, 98, 122 and 123 insert senior leaders in the police and military, the mayors of London and of combined authority areas, and police and crime commissioners to the list of postholders who, if communicated with, trigger a requirement on the person doing the communication to register under FIRS.
State actors who pose a threat can and will seek to identify and target individuals who are relied on to inform decision-making by government. These amendments will require foreign principals, and those working on behalf of foreign principals, to be transparent where they are seeking to influence decision-making and political processes through the postholders listed. Requiring registration of these activities will shed light on the scale of the attempts to carry out this type of influencing and will allow for prosecutions where such activity is not registered. It will also provide a layer of protection for these postholders by providing a deterrent to hostile states seeking to act in this way to advance their own malign agendas and allow for postholders to inform themselves of who is communicating with them and why.
The existing list of potential targets of lobbying in Clause 68(2)(a) already includes senior officials. We consider that senior military and police officials fall into a similar category to senior civil servants; they are experts who are able to provide advice to Ministers on matters relating to government decisions.
Mayors are often senior political figures within their respective political parties whose views are likely to carry significant weight with Government Ministers, including when they are making government decisions. I hope that goes some way to answering the questions related to this matter from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in an earlier group. Mayors, alongside devolved and central Governments, form an important part of the UK’s political establishment and, as such, we believe it is appropriate to capture them within a scheme focused on political influencing activity.
Similarly, in their capacity as elected officials, police and crime commissioners also form a part of the UK’s political establishment and may be identified as being in a strong position to influence contacts within Westminster regarding government decisions.
We have listened to the concerns about the breadth of the FIRS scheme, but we do not believe that adding these individuals would disproportionately expand the scheme. This is because communication with these individuals will be registerable only when it is for the purpose of influencing one of the existing persons or matters at Clause 68(3); for example, communication with a combined authority mayor for the purpose of influencing a local government decision, as opposed to a UK government decision, would not require registration.
These measures seek to tackle scenarios where postholders are being targeted by foreign principals seeking to indirectly influence government decisions and other political processes. While we consider it important to include these postholders, it is vital that the scheme remains proportionate. For this reason, we have taken the decision to limit these additions to the mayors of London and combined authority areas, as opposed to all mayors, and limit the ranks of the police and military officials included to the most senior.
These amendments also amend the power to add further to this list. Amendment 98 provides that the Secretary of State can by regulations specify a person “exercising public functions”, rather than
“persons exercising functions on behalf of the Crown”,
as in the original drafting. This reflects the fact that the list is not only of persons who are exercising functions of the Crown but includes persons carrying out wider public functions. This amendment will allow the necessary flexibility to future-proof the list of those who may be targets of political lobbying. Any regulations made under this power will be thoroughly scrutinised by Parliament through the affirmative procedure. I ask the Committee to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
On the extent of the schedule of those to be included, unless I have misunderstood or misread, there does not appear to be any reference to senior members of the security and intelligence services, who I do not think fall into any of the other categories. Could the Minister explain whether I have misunderstood or if that is a deliberate exclusion, and what any reasoning might be?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is an intriguing question. I like the idea, as a concept, that any of these organisations which plan to meet with leaders of our intelligence services have to put that on a public register. To assist in transparency, that might meet the Minister’s case. In fact, if we do that, it might mean that we do not need the whole scheme for the other 300,000 people. It is an intriguing point. My questions about who is not covered are far less exciting than whether the intelligence community comes into it.
The Minister said he responded to my point but, with respect, I do not know why the Mayor of London is included but the Lord Mayor of London is not. I do not know why The City of London Corporation would not be included. I would have thought, if this is to do with political influence on our country’s interests, the Lord Mayor and the corporation and City of London represent an absolutely prime area where political influence could be sought over policy. I do not know why that is not included.
I do not know why the mayors of Tees Valley and North of Tyne are included but the leader of Glasgow City Council is not. If it is to do with ensuring a sensible way of operating, then, with the greatest respect to the mayor of the 600,000 people in Tees Valley, to include them in this because they are susceptible to foreign influence seems a bit odd when the leader of the council in Edinburgh, the capital city of one of our four nations, is not. I do not know how long this schedule will last, since the Minister says he is thinking about it and coming back, but, in the meantime, if he can respond to that point I would be grateful.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will have a go. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, very much for those comments. These amendments simply seek to add senior leaders in the police and military, the Mayor of London, mayors of combined authority areas and police and crime commissioners, as I have said, to the list of potential targets of communication by or on behalf of foreign principals.
I refer back to a statement I made in my opening remarks. We think it is important to include these postholders but we wish for the scheme to remain proportionate. For that reason, we have taken the decision to limit these additions to the mayors of London and combined authority areas, as opposed to all mayors, and limit the ranks of the police and military officials to include the most senior. The point about the mayors is surely a good one: they are politically elected and members of political parties. They therefore have significantly more political influence, I would argue, than the Lord Mayor of London, for example.
As regards the definition—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
What about the corporation? I am grateful to the Minister, but there is a quite considerable amount of executive authority in the City of London Corporation when it comes to what could well interact with the interests of the United Kingdom. So perhaps the Minister might reflect on that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will absolutely reflect on that but, as I say, they are not politically elected persons, as the noble Lord will know. As regards his example of a foreign defence contractor talking to somebody of the rank of brigadier, having had our lengthy discussions earlier I would have thought that they would be captured under the corporate side of the Bill. The effect of this amendment would be that foreign principals, or those in arrangements with them, would be required to register communication with these postholders, as well as those in the existing list, if it were conducted for the purpose of influencing one of those persons listed in Clause 68.
In answer to the other question about senior members of the security services, I believe that is captured under “senior civil servants”, but I will confirm that and come back to the noble Lord. For now, I ask that the House agrees this amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the list of persons in clause 68(2)(a). Those persons are now listed (with additional persons) in the new Schedule inserted by Lord Sharpe after Schedule 13.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that public communications are not within clause 68(2) if it is reasonably clear they are made by a foreign principal.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
I cannot call Amendment 92B, as it is an amendment to Amendment 92A.
Amendment 93
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes definitions that are no longer needed in clause 68 because the terms they define have been removed by Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 68, page 46, line 30.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the political influence activities being carried out must be registered at the time they are carried out.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the political influence activities being carried out must be registered at the time they are carried out.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the political influence activities being carried out must be registered at the time they are carried out.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“SchedulePublic officialsMinisters
1 A Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975).2 A Northern Ireland Minister (within the meaning of section 68).3 A Scottish Minister.4 A Welsh Minister (within the meaning of section 68).MPs etc
5 A member of either House of Parliament.6 A member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.7 A member of the Scottish Parliament.8 A member of Senedd Cymru.9 An employee or other member of staff of a person within any of paragraphs 5 to 8.Local government
10 The Mayor of London. 11 A mayor for the area of a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.Political parties
12 An officer, trustee or agent of a UK registered political party (within the meaning of section 68).13 A member of such a political party who exercises executive functions on behalf of the party.Election candidates
14 A candidate at an election for a relevant elective office (within the meaning of section 37 of the Elections Act 2022).15 A candidate at an election for a relevant Scottish elective office (within the meaning of that section).Civil servants
16 (1) A member of—(a) the Senior Civil Service;(b) the Northern Ireland Senior Civil Service;(c) the Senior Management Structure of Her Majesty’s Diplomatic Service.(2) A person who serves the government in a position in the civil service of the State and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements applicable to that position set out in section 15(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (special advisers).(3) A person appointed to a position in the Northern Ireland Civil Service by a Northern Ireland Minister (within the meaning of section 68) and whose appointment to that position meets the conditions set out in section 1(3) and (4) of the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 (c. 8 (N.I.)) (special advisers).Military personnel
17 (1) An officer subject to service law who is of or above the rank of commodore, brigadier or air commodore.(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “subject to service law” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).Police
18 The chief constable or deputy chief constable of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996.19 A police and crime commissioner.20 A person of one of the following ranks of the metropolitan police force—(a) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;(b) Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;(c) Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;(d) Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.21 The Commissioner of Police for the City of London or an Assistant Commissioner of Police for the City of London.22 The chief constable or deputy chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.23 The chief constable or a deputy chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland.24 The chief constable or a deputy chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police. 25 The chief constable or deputy chief constable of the British Transport Police Force.26 The chief constable or deputy chief constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.Persons exercising public functions
27 (1) A person exercising public functions who is specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.(2) “Public functions” means functions of a public nature—(a) exercisable in the United Kingdom, or(b) exercisable in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom by a person acting for or on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Schedule expands the list of persons, communication with whom is capable of being a political influence activity. It includes the persons previously listed in clause 68(2)(a), and additional persons.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the exemption for UK arrangements applies to agreements and arrangements within the meaning of “foreign activity arrangement” or “foreign influence arrangement”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Schedule 14, page 180, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the definition of UK arrangements to include agreements.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the exemption for news-related foreign influence arrangements applies to agreements and arrangements within the meaning of “foreign influence arrangement”.