Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
We are supporting businesses in all parts of the United Kingdom through our export support service, including our innovative Export Academy, which helps build market export capability among small and medium-sized enterprises across the UK. We have also established trade and investment offices in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, increasing the visibility of the Department’s services in the nations, and channelling the benefits of our new export and investment strategies to the entire UK. I am sure the hon. Member is aware of those benefits in his own constituency, with businesses such as Lynkeos Technology winning a £100,000 contract last year in Germany with the assistance of the Department.
Gavin Newlands
I like the hon. Member, but that answer was nonsense, quite frankly. The Institute of Directors found in a recent survey that almost half—47%—of businesses are still finding trade after Brexit a challenge, with just a third envisaging any opportunities at all from Brexit. That report also found that 45% of SMEs are exporting less to the European Union post Brexit, with Scottish exports having already slumped by £2.2 billion because of Brexit. Does the Minister agree that Brexit is an act of state-sanctioned economic vandalism?
Nigel Huddleston
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is saying this is nonsense. I am sure that those businesses in his constituency and across Scotland who get support from the Department do not share that attitude. As well as focusing on the EU, which is and will continue to be an important trading partner of the UK, we are looking to the entire world, hence focusing on so many other countries. I hope he will be a little more “glass half full” in the future.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Government are planning to bring forward draconian restrictions on the advertising of whisky and other drinks in Scotland? Not only will that cost jobs in Scotland but it will make it much more difficult for the industry to export to the EU and elsewhere.
Nigel Huddleston
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Such measures could have a considerable negative impact on so many Scottish businesses. That is precisely why we are seeking opportunities to support them, for example with trade deals, and trying to ensure that we reduce tariffs and are able to export more overseas. While we are backing our businesses right across the UK, I hope that in future we can get support from the Opposition, who might at some point come and join us and support one of the trade deals we are negotiating.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Unfortunately for the Minister, and unfortunately for Scotland, the latest data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shows that between July and September last year, exports from Scotland to the European Union slumped by 5%. Will the Minister explain for an expectant nation exactly how that is in any way strengthening the case for the Union?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that, as we recover from a global pandemic, certain sectors and certain industries are suffering more than others. That is precisely why we have an export strategy and why the Secretary of State has articulated a five-point strategy for growth. We will continue to work positively with all sectors to grow our export opportunities. UK exports to the EU for the 12-month period to September 2022 were up by 25% in current prices.
Richard Thomson
It is not just the SNP who are saying what a disaster Brexit has been. With the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying that Brexit is clearly an “economic own goal”, and even a former Brexit Secretary saying that there have been no economic benefits from Brexit, is it not surely time for voters in Scotland to be given the choice between continued British economic decline or a prosperous, independent European future?
Nigel Huddleston
I know the hon. Member and some people are tempted to continue to fight the battles of the past, but this Government will be laser-focused on the future and future opportunities. We have the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and so many other opportunities around the world, and I think it would be good for all of us in this place to talk the British economy up, rather than talk it down.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
We are taking tangible steps to improve our trade relationship with our largest bilateral trading partner, the United States. We have already signed state-level memorandums of understanding with Indiana, and North and South Carolina, which we are using to address barriers and promote British business in priority areas such as procurement, renewable energy, automotive, and life sciences. Together, those states imported more than £3.3 billion of UK goods in 2021. In December, the previous Minister for Trade Policy met counterparts in California to discuss an MOU, and counterparts in Utah to advance our talks. We are also making progress with Oklahoma and Texas, alongside our regular engagement with states across the US.
Greg Smith
I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer, particularly the priority areas he outlined. However, from financial services to online shopping, digital trade is at the heart of doing business with our closest ally—the United States. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the progress made on removing barriers specific to such digital trade with individual states?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the digital economy. We very much see digital trade as an excellent area to focus on, deepening ties between the US and the UK. As part of that, we are keen to explore where we might be able to facilitate co-operation and promote digital trade with the US at state level. Further, the US-UK trade dialogues in Baltimore and Aberdeen last year helped to identify a range of trade-related areas for the two countries to collaborate on, and we agreed to strengthen further our bilateral trade in a range of areas, including on digital trade.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
After failing to get a trade deal with the United States, the Government have resorted to signing non-binding agreements with separate US states. The Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on the different sectors was interesting, but the Government have refused to confirm what economic benefits these agreements will bring to the UK economy. I give the Minister another chance: will he tell me what value in pounds and pence these agreements will bring to our economy?
Nigel Huddleston
Again, I am somewhat disappointed that the Opposition are talking down the opportunities we have. These MOUs seek to bolster the already strong trading relationships with US states, which, as I said, are worth £3.3 billion of UK goods. As we move through and implement the MOUs—we have good faith and goodwill with the people we have been negotiating with—we will inevitably increase our trade volumes. The US is already our strongest and most important trading partner, accounting for about 16% of the UK’s overall trade, and growing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In my constituency, companies are able to sell to Europe, the far east, South Africa and south America, but they have difficulty selling their products—foodstuffs that come from our farms across Strangford in Northern Ireland—to the US. Will the Minister give some indication of what can be done in conjunction with the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to open those doors to sales?
Nigel Huddleston
We are fighting for opportunities right across the UK. As I said, the US is a really important trading partner. With the MOUs, we are seeking further opportunities, but we are also working on removing trade barriers and inhibitions to trade. For example, since leaving the EU, we have secured major trade deals with the US, reinstating beef and lamb imports and ending damaging steel and aluminium tariffs, so we are working in individual sectors to try to find further opportunities at both state and federal level.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
UK exports have grown by 24% year on year, and our landmark 12-point export strategy will challenge Government and the private sector to reach £1 trillion-worth of exports a year. As part of that strategy, we created the export support service, which has brought together helplines and services across Government to build a one-stop shop for UK exporters facing challenges in exporting to the EU. We are also delivering for businesses through our dedicated team of international trade advisers, reinforced by Department for International Trade events and programmes such as the UK Export Academy.
Mark Eastwood
Last month, I was delighted to co-host my first successful export academy at Kirklees College in association with the Department for International Trade and UK Export Finance. Will the Minister outline how local DIT officers and UKEF can assist SMEs to export their goods and services across the world?
Ms Ghani
Mr Speaker, may I first thank you for your leadership in hosting President Zelensky yesterday? It really was a humbling moment for us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), with his can-do attitude, is constantly championing everybody in Dewsbury. As he may know, UK Export Finance offers a range of trade, finance and insurance products to help small and medium-sized businesses fulfil export contracts. It works with more than 100 private sector partners, including all major UK banks. UKEF support is underpinned by the innovative general export facility, a product designed to give SME exporters more flexibility when accessing trade finance. It unlocked almost £250 million of working capital loans in the last financial year. Local trade has obviously helped strengthen the “Made in the UK” branding, which provides export support to SMEs across the country. Face-to-face support for exporters in England is delivered via a network of around 200 international trade advisers. There is so much to say, but I think I should stop there.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
SMEs in my area have been doing a huge amount of business internationally. One such company has been exporting 80% of its business for decades. In recent years, it has been challenged by China, and has had intellectual property issues; its IP has been stolen. I am afraid to say that it felt unsupported by the Department for International Trade. It faces an issue in Germany. Will the Minister meet me to help this business with the challenge that it faces in those countries?
Ms Ghani
The beauty of having former business Ministers in the new Department is that we are across most of these issues, including the issue of IP. I am more than happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman, or to make sure that the right Minister does, because we need to protect our IP.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
May I also pay tribute to you for the way that you welcomed President Zelensky here yesterday, Mr Speaker? The occasion made us even more proud to be British.
Over the financial year up to March 2022, we did away with 192 barriers across 79 countries, including by opening up markets for UK poultry meat in Japan, and for UK pork in Mexico—a market that will be worth £50 million to UK pork producers in the first five years of trade. Of course, Cornwall is home to fantastic British produce, such as Cornish yarg and clotted cream, which are promoted and recognised around the globe through the GREAT Britain and Northern Ireland campaign, and at home through our “Made in the UK, sold to the world” marketing strategy.
Mrs Murray
I have to mention Cornish blue and Cornish Gouda, which are made in my constituency. South East Cornwall farmers are rightly proud of their excellent produce. What more can the Department do to help these small businesses access the widest possible market?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we should be very proud of the food and drink sector. It is our largest manufacturing sector—larger than automotive and aerospace put together. Our Export Academy delivers specialist food and drink modules to get companies started, and our Export Support Service can answer questions on export markets in Europe. Companies can access our network of international trade advisers across England, and the Department has teams in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is over a year since the announcement of eight additional agrifood and drink attachés. Given that there was yet another gloomy report from the British Chambers of Commerce last month, which said that three quarters of SMEs anticipated zero or negative export growth this year, help is certainly needed. Will the Minister tell us what specialist training the attachés have completed on food and drink regulation in the relevant countries? How many UK SMEs have they helped to find new markets, and what is the value of any new exports that they have secured?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very happy to engage with the hon. Lady on that question, which had a number of other questions within it. As she knows, we have staff in more than 100 markets, and are building our existing attaché roles in China, Japan and the Gulf region. The Government are placing eight new dedicated UK agriculture, food and drink attachés in growth markets such as the US, Canada, Africa, India, South America, Brazil and Mexico.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Department is opening new markets and creating new opportunities for exporters by agreeing new trade agreements and tackling market access barriers in countries around the world. Indeed, recently a deal was struck, worth up to £20 million, that allows Welsh lamb exports to the US.
Gerald Jones
The 2019 Conservative manifesto committed to 80% of UK trade being done under free trade terms by the end of 2022. The Government have clearly failed in their commitment to deliver free trade agreements. Does the Minister believe that free trade deals with the USA and India would help more small and medium-sized businesses to export? If so, would he care to apologise to businesses for over-promising and under-delivering yet again when it comes to these deals?
Kevin Hollinrake
Trade agreements are clearly very important, which is why we have struck 71 agreements with countries around the world, as well as with the European Union. It would be a good thing if the Opposition were to support those free trade agreements. I just reassure the hon. Gentleman that trade with the EU, for example, is now at record levels. Last year, exports to the EU were £330 billion, compared to £298 billion in 2019.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Small and medium-sized businesses make up a large part of the huge food and drink export sector that the Minister has already discussed. Tomorrow, the Scotch whisky industry will announce full-year export results for 2022. Significant growth is expected, particularly in India, even with 150% tariffs. Will the Minister update the House on negotiations with India? Does he agree that a deal to reduce tariffs on Scotch whisky would be good not only for the distillers of Scotch whisky in Scotland but for the wider supply chain right across the UK?
Kevin Hollinrake
I know my hon. Friend is visiting one of his distilleries next week. I agree with him that opening new markets to our whisky exporters is one of the great opportunities open to us in a post-Brexit Britain. As he knows, whisky is one of the UK’s largest food and drink exports, with £4.6 billion in 2021. We have an ambitious programme of free trade agreement negotiations to break down barriers. We are now in our sixth round of negotiations with India this very week.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The UK’s total inward investment stock is the second highest in the world, having recently passed £2 trillion. As the Secretary of State outlined, we want to make the UK the undisputed top investment destination in Europe, attracting high-impact, high-value investment into our strategically important sectors which will make a real difference to the UK economy. We are facilitating both Government-to-Government and industry investment. The UK-UAE sovereign investment partnership will bring £10 billion to key UK sectors. Likewise, the Moderna partnership will support our research and clinical trials infrastructure, building a state-of-the-art vaccine manufacturing centre and creating over 150 highly skilled jobs in the UK. Compared to 2020-21, last year —2021-22—the estimated economic impact of foreign direct investment projects supported by the Department for International Trade increased by 82% and the number of new jobs by 53%.
Mr Speaker
Minister, why are the answers so long? We have not heard the rest of the questions yet. I have a big list.
Antony Higginbotham
Burnley and Padiham are already home to some brilliant international businesses, such as Safran Nacelles, Paradigm Precision and Futaba Manufacturing among many, many more. Together, they support thousands of local jobs. To make our area even better, we want to attract more investment, helping businesses already here to grow and attracting new ones in. Will the Minister agree to meet me to talk through how we can make Burnley the best place to invest in Britain?
Ms Ghani
I think my hon. Friend, in promoting Burnley so much, has already made it the best place to be doing business. Burnley has a global reputation for manufacturing excellence. The companies that he references demonstrate the attractiveness of his constituency to investors across the globe, and the free trade agreements make it easier for investors to bring capital and create jobs in Burnley. And, of course, we would be delighted to meet him.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister references the life sciences sector, which is so important for future prosperity, particularly in and around Cambridge. We are in danger of falling behind in the race for international investment, as evidenced by the fact that since 2018 we have fallen from fourth to 10th in hosting late-phase clinical trials. What are the Government doing to address that issue?
Ms Ghani
On clinical trials specifically, when I was life science Minister we commissioned a review of clinical trials—we knew that was a blockage—but I do not think the data he presents reflects the £1 billion Moderna deal we have just secured, including the deal with biotech. The fact that we have life science missions will enable us to attract more attention and work to the ecosystems we have here in the UK, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I am more than happy to work with him, because life science is one of our key exports of expertise.
Robbie Moore
I recently had the honour of welcoming the Prime Minister to Keighley, where he had the opportunity to visit Teconnex, a global leader in clamp technology that also provides battery storage to help commercial and industrial facilities to become more energy-independent. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that with businesses such as Teconnex in my constituency and other world-leading businesses right here in the UK, we can be seen as a more attractive place for foreign investment?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend proudly represents Teconnex as a firm in his constituency. The Department is keen to support all businesses that seek to invest or expand in the UK, particularly those that can help to spread jobs and opportunities across the UK and help us to deliver net zero. The Department is working across Government; we have previous Business Ministers here, and we are very close to the automotive sector and the supply chain. The new Department will ensure that there is a single, coherent voice for business inside Government to help my hon. Friend to represent business in his constituency.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The investment in Moderna will not be worth anything if we do not have the precision temperature-calibrated machinery to help with that development. SK Wiring in Denton is the UK’s only manufacturer of that high-tech wiring. It stayed open during the pandemic, even though it lost 70% of its industrial trade, to keep the covid vaccine going and keep the NHS going. It is now at risk of closure. Can we have an urgent meeting so that we can keep this critical national infrastructure developed in Britain?
Ms Ghani
Within the life sciences missions, manufacturing is a key point. I was at the life sciences conference in San Francisco when we finalised the deal with Moderna. Of course this is not about playing politics; I am more than happy to meet the firm in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, because vaccine manufacturing will be a key growth area for us.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
Europe remains a vital destination for British businesses, with exports of over £386 billion in the year to September 2022. That is up almost 25%, in current prices, on the previous year. As we speak, the Secretary of State is in Rome to establish the UK-Italy export and investment promotion dialogue, which will help to strengthen practical co-operation on exports in high-performing sectors and promote inward investment. We are also working closely with EU member states to tackle priority barriers and unlock export opportunities for UK businesses.
Wera Hobhouse
More than half of firms surveyed by the British Chambers of Commerce are struggling with the new post-Brexit export system. The Office for National Statistics reports that Brexit costs the economy £1 million per hour, and the UK economy has not recovered as well as other countries post covid. What plans does the Minister have to reduce trade barriers and EU border bureaucracy, which have hugely increased since Brexit?
Nigel Huddleston
As I said earlier, I hope that we can look at the opportunities of leaving the EU as well as trying to fight past battles. There are a host of opportunities; for example, I do not think that the EU had a particularly proud record on services around the globe. We are opening up services for many companies, which under the EU we were to a very large degree constrained in doing. We have huge resources for supporting businesses. Trade with the EU has been growing considerably, and we will do everything we can to support further growth.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
These barriers have had a greater impact on EU trade than on the UK. When does the Minister anticipate the EU will wake up to what is in our mutual interest?
Nigel Huddleston
My right hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point. Our agreement with the EU is one of the most thorough and comprehensive trade agreements, but we need to work further. We are constantly looking at opportunities—country by country, industry subsector by subsector—to open up more trade by reducing the barriers. These are barriers that also existed when we were in the EU.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the past three years, according to the latest German trade figures, exports to Germany are up by almost a third from the US, by almost a quarter from the rest of the EU and by more than 10% from China, yet exports from Britain to Germany are down. Everybody else’s exports are up; Britain’s are down. Is it a lack of support to our exporters to Germany, is it the poor deal that the Conservative party negotiated with the EU, or does the Minister blame British business for the situation, as one of last year’s Prime Ministers once did?
Nigel Huddleston
Again, all I have to say is that I have much greater confidence in British industries taking advantage of opportunities, not only in the EU but around the world. I wish others in this Chamber shared that optimism and confidence in British business.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
More global multinationals have set up subsidiaries in the UK than in any country other than the United States. This is the best place in Europe in which to raise capital. Between April 2016 and the end of March 2022, the Department assisted more than 8,700 foreign direct investment projects in the UK, which have created about 348,000 new jobs across the United Kingdom.
Mr Hollobone
The UK has had a great track record of attracting foreign direct investment since we voted to leave the European Union. The figures given by the Minister will include the £200 million investment by Ball Corporation in the United States in the UK’s largest and Europe’s most advanced can manufacturing plant, in Burton Latimer. How does the UK’s record of attracting foreign direct investment compare with those of our major EU competitors?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend has given a fantastic example of the opportunities that have been created. The UK is a highly attractive destination for FDI, and has been among the top recipients in Europe over the last decade. According to the Financial Times and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the UK has the highest market share of greenfield FDI capital expenditure in Europe, at 20%—almost double that of Spain, which is in second place with 12%. It also has the highest levels of Food and Drug Administration stock in Europe, second only to the United States globally. It is remarkable how far we have progressed in such a short time.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act 2022 makes investing in the US very attractive, particularly for innovative green technology. How are we going to compete?
Ms Ghani
In my previous role I was dealing with the impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act, and I hope I will continue to do so, because so many business representatives whom I have met have raised it as a concern. The hon. Lady has referred to green technology. A great deal of work has already been done to promote all our expertise, especially in relation to hydrogen, but there is a huge amount of investment in the UK’s green technology sector and technology in general, and we are also a leading light when it comes to lithium. I was recently in Cape Town with our Green Lithium firm, which wanted to negotiate on how it could do more work in the United States. That is exactly what we are here to do—to facilitate collaboration of that kind.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
The countries of the Commonwealth are important trading partners. Our total trading relationship was worth more than £146 billion in the 12 months to September 2022, which is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already appointed trade envoys to 15 Commonwealth nations. We have trade agreements with 33 Commonwealth members, and five of the 11 members of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership are in the Commonwealth as well.
Giles Watling
As chairman of the 1922 committee’s Back-Bench foreign affairs policy committee, I recently shared our report with ministerial colleagues. One of its recommendations was the creation of a Commonwealth-specific trade envoy post. Does my hon. Friend agree that in this post-Brexit era, increasing trade and movement between the Commonwealth and the UK should be a top priority to foster economic growth? By the way, this is not a pitch for that job.
Nigel Huddleston
Yes, I am afraid that those jobs are at the discretion of the Prime Minister.
I hear what my hon. Friend is saying. We already have extensive coverage through the existing network, but we review the network regularly because we are committed to working with our allies in the Commonwealth to remove the barriers to trade and strengthen trading relationships to foster economic growth. Growing exports to Commonwealth countries is a priority, and trade increased by 25% in the year to September 2022. As for movement, we have a new global immigration system which is vital in supporting trade and economic growth, and the movement of business people on a temporary basis promotes and supports trade in services and goods and investment activities. Recognition of professional qualifications and business travel are always an important part of our trade deals.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Department is working across Whitehall and with industry to secure export-led investment as the sector makes the transition to zero-emission vehicles, including new electric vehicle models, along with battery gigafactories and the electric vehicle supply chain. We have a dedicated export support system throughout the UK in the shape of our international trade advisers, ensuring that the automotive industry is the country’s biggest single exporter of goods, exporting nearly 80% of vehicle production—about 6% of the UK’s total exported goods.
Rachel Hopkins
If we are to continue to drive British automotive exports, it is critical that automotive businesses such as Vauxhall in Luton can make the transition to manufacturing electric vehicles effectively. The rules of origin from 2024 onwards highlight the need to attract the wider electrified supply chain to the UK as soon as possible. How is the Minister working with the automotive sector to expand our domestic electric vehicle supply chain—especially in respect of batteries—to avoid any future tariffs when rules of origin come into effect?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Lady will hopefully find some comfort in the fact that I have many meetings with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and have met the automotive sector multiple times to deal with this issue. We are very much aware of the rules-of-origin issue, which is why we are investing so much in batteries. In particular, the Faraday battery challenge is a £541 million project to help us to develop new battery technologies. I have mentioned already that I was in Cape Town to deal with the diversification of access to critical minerals in supply chains to ensure that we can process them and manufacture here.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Would the Minister like to congratulate Group Lotus in my constituency, which exports more than 70% of its car production? Would she like to take the opportunity to come to Hethel to see the new Lotus Evija supercar, which can do nought to 180 mph in nine seconds?
Ms Ghani
I am not sure that I can speak as far as that car goes, but I am more than happy to come to Hethel to visit Group Lotus. The amount of progress that has been made by experts, academics and scientists when it comes not only to zero emission vehicles but to speed is remarkable.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I met Andy Street this week to talk about foreign direct investment, and Lord Johnson will meet the 10 Metro Mayors today and look to discuss how we can attract more investment into mayoral combined authorities and how the Department can connect strategic regional opportunities to major international capital, such as the sovereign investment partnerships that have been established over the past 18 months by the Department and the Office for Investment.
Gareth Bacon
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for London as a global city, and last year we published our first report, which featured analysis of the London-plus effect, a term coined by the London & Partners agency to show that our capital is the gateway to the world and that companies that first invest in London go on to contribute £7.6 billion and create 40,000 jobs throughout the country. Is my hon. Friend’s Department willing to consider convening roundtables with the Metro Mayors on how to maximise the potential benefit to the UK of the London-plus effect?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Andy Street was very clear about the importance of London to regional development in the west midlands. The Department convenes roundtable joint sessions with the M10 Metro Mayors twice every year, in additional to ongoing ministerial-mayoral bilaterals and official-level engagement. Such meetings include the discussion of shared priorities in respect of international trade and investment and of greater collaboration throughout all regions to increase foreign direct investment from new and existing investors.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister will know that there are no Metro Mayors in Wales, but there are city deals and leaders that link across the south-west of England into Bristol and across the south Wales belt. Will the Minister set out what he is doing to work with local government leaders in Wales to ensure that investment is brought into Welsh constituencies as well as those throughout England?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are pleased that across York and North Yorkshire we are about to get our own Metro Mayor; I am sure he is working hard to bring that kind of governance to his area too, because it clearly delivers opportunity right across the country. As he knows, the FDI stock in the UK is worth £2 trillion, which is the second highest amount in the world. I am sure the opportunities would be beneficial to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents should he strike that kind of deal.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
We recognise that the US is not currently focused on FTAs. However, we stand ready to resume negotiations when they are ready. In the meantime, we are working to improve the trading landscape, including by removing US steel and aluminium tariffs and lifting the US ban on British lamb and beef. We are also working with the US on areas of shared interest that include digital trade, small and medium-sized enterprise support and supply chain security.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The reality is that there has been no real progress and, despite all the previous rhetoric, there remains no free trade agreement with the US. Does the Minister think his suggestion that this is the fault of the US President will help or hinder future negotiations?
Nigel Huddleston
As I said, the US is not currently negotiating FTAs, not just with us but with any other country. We are working and we have very good dialogue with one of our closest allies in so many areas, including economically, culturally and militarily, and that dialogue will of course continue. As I said in my previous answer, we are working in many areas, including steel and food, to create opportunities, alongside work in respect of the memorandum of understanding. Considerable progress can be and will continue to be made, even without an FTA.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Global free trade is and always has been the greatest motor for global prosperity, which is why many of us voted for Brexit. A free trade deal with America is the greatest prize of all. Will the Minister confirm that, as far as we are concerned, there are no barriers at all—whether it be chlorinated chicken or whatever—to trying to conclude an agreement? We want this deal with the US. Does the Minister think that it will happen?
Nigel Huddleston
We are very keen to conclude a deal with the US, but, at the moment, it is not able to enter into those negotiations. However, that will not prohibit us from continuing to find opportunities and to remove barriers where and when we can, as well as seeking those opportunities across the world. I appreciate what the right hon. Member said at the beginning of his question about how we, on the Conservative Benches, are firm proponents of free trade. It is good for the UK economy and good for the world economy, and we need to continue to make sure that that message is heard loud and clear.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Had the Conservative party negotiated a free trade agreement with the US, as it promised at the general election, British firms would have been protected from new market barriers to green trade that are being introduced by the US Inflation Reduction Act 2022. That means that new investment and jobs here in Britain in green energy, electric vehicles and new technology are at risk. Is it not the truth that the infighting in the Conservative party last year meant that Ministers woke up much too late to the threat and that they have done far too little since to try to ameliorate the damage?
Nigel Huddleston
As I said, the US is not focused on free trade agreements at the moment, and we are disappointed that the US has opted to pursue policies in the Inflation Reduction Act that will harm British businesses and impact global supply chains. The UK expects to be and, as the closest ally of the US, should be part of any flexibilities in the implementation of the IRA, and we will continue closely engaging with the US Administration to ensure that UK concerns are addressed.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
The UK is a world leader in the promotion of human rights and remains committed to ensuring that trade supports an environment where workers’ rights are upheld, including working towards the eradication of modern slavery in global supply chains. We should remember that the UK was the first country to produce a national action plan for the implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. In both our agreements with Australia and New Zealand, for example, we have secured world-leading modern slavery provisions.
Kate Osamor
I thank the Minister for his answer, but the UK has named the Gulf Cooperation Council as one of its priorities for trade deals and has begun negotiations. We know that the economies across the Gulf are built on the terrible kafala system, enabling coercion and debt bondage and facilitating modern slavery. How can the Government justify such talks with the Gulf Cooperation Council given those basic human rights concerns?
Nigel Huddleston
Protecting UK workers’ rights remains a priority for this Government. The UK will continue to meet its obligations under the International Labour Organisation and to advocate for the highest labour standards and working conditions globally, and that includes in our discussions on free trade agreements. In the UK GCC FTA, we will retain the UK’s high standards and protections, including the right to regulate labour, and we will also seek assurances that labour rights are not reduced to gain a trade advantage. We have these discussions in this and other Departments, and we are always happy to have frank conversations with our friends.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
Green trade is a foundational building block of sustainable growth, helping to protect our environment and our energy security, and future-proof UK jobs. In the two years to October 2022, the Government have supported £20 billion of net zero-related inward investment to help grow our green industries.
Selaine Saxby
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we drag our feet developing new renewable energy industries, foreign investment will go overseas?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with my hon. Friend and thank her for her incredible work on the Celtic sea initiative. I attended her reception in Parliament, which was very well attended indeed and very optimistic about the potential for the Celtic sea.
We know that the net zero transition will create new industries worth around $10 trillion to the global economy by 2050. We recognise that the international landscape is becoming increasingly competitive as a result, but we are not dragging our feet. Securing inward investment to the UK’s green economy is a top priority for the Government, and the Department will be working closely with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, UK Export Finance and the Office for Investment, using all the levers at our disposal to promote the UK offer overseas.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
The Government are committed to transparency and effective scrutiny in our trade agenda, going beyond the statutory framework set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. That includes providing extensive information prior to the commencement of talks on free trade agreements, as well as regular updates to Parliament during negotiations. At the end of negotiations, we have committed to additional parliamentary scrutiny time, as well as to publishing further information such as the advice of the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission.
Liz Twist
Over the last year, the Government’s former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has labelled the Government free trade agreements a failure, and the Prime Minister has called them one-sided. Is such criticism the reason the Government spend so much time avoiding any real detailed scrutiny of these trade agreements?
Nigel Huddleston
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation that there is insufficient scrutiny, and I respectfully disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who made some comments earlier this year. Last time I answered this question, you quite rightly had a go at me, Mr Speaker, because I gave a long list of examples of extensive scrutiny on our free trade agreements. I will spare the House by not repeating it , but I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave previously.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade is currently in Mexico, driving forward our negotiations to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and progressing bilateral trade discussions. I am delighted to be representing the Department as the Minister for international trade; I thank my predecessor for his work in delivering the Government’s ambitions, and the former Minister for exports as well.
Just last week, the then Minister for trade policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), held talks with his counterparts in Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore on trade, outlining the benefits the UK will bring to CPTPP as we look to conclude our accession process. When the UK joins, the bloc will represent 15.4% of global GDP, rising from 12%. Later today, I am meeting ambassadors and high commissioners from all CPTPP countries, where I look forward to discussing how we can enhance their ties with the UK. Our negotiators continue to engage with their counterparts.
Daniel Zeichner
International students are of huge benefit to every constituency in this country, not just to university cities such as Cambridge, but different parts of the Government seem to be sending out very different messages as to how welcome they are. Will the Minister tell us what his Department is doing to secure this important trade benefit for the UK?
Nigel Huddleston
The Government are always open across multiple Departments to engage constructively with industry and players, and that will continue to be the case. If the hon. Gentleman would like to invite us to have a discussion with him, somebody in his constituency or other stakeholders, we would be delighted to do so. We work with businesses in this party.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
My hon. Friend once again promotes a fantastic business in his constituency. The UK tech and digital sectors are key for us and are our greatest success stories, with a total valuation in excess of £1 trillion in 2022. The UK tech sector retains the No. 1 spot in Europe and is No. 3 in the world, as the sector’s resilience brings continued growth. On tech within life sciences, we are one of the top countries in the world to be seen collaborating and investing with.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and all House staff for the work on President Zelensky’s visit. I also welcome the Ministers to their rearranged places, but I do not think it is a surprise that the Prime Minister has decided to shuffle the deckchairs on this particular ship. We had a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy with no industrial strategy and we had a Department for International Trade delivering either no deals or bad deals. In an assessment of the Conservatives’ 13 years in office, can the Minister inform the House when they expect to hit the target of £1 trillion- worth of exports, which David Cameron promised by 2020?
Ms Ghani
What a blow to one’s ego to know that one’s Department is such a disappointment, but we are working so closely with our colleagues to drive investment, represent businesses and focus on trade that it makes absolute sense for us to be here. I know that I am new to this business, but I thought that the £1-trillion target was for 2030. If that is the case, we have seven years to go, so I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman be a little patient. In seven years’ time, he will be there, on the Opposition Benches, and we will be here, on the Government Benches, ready to update him.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
David Cameron promised it by 2020; the last Prime Minister but one promised it by 2030; and, as the Department for International Trade set out in a written response, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the target will not be met until 2035—15 years late. Is that any surprise? The Government have delivered no trade deal with the US, no trade deal with India, and an ongoing impasse on the Northern Ireland protocol, and the current Prime Minister said that the deals that they have delivered, such as the Australia deal, were “one sided”. The truth is that they can swap around Ministers and departmental names, but at the heart of it is a failing Government who are out of ideas.
Ms Ghani
I completely understand why the right hon. Member may be confused. We on the Conservative Benches represent business, and I know that the Labour party was stopping people from doing their business by backing the strikes. We on this side of the House represent trade, but I cannot think of a single trade deal that he was proud to support. I can understand the level of complete confusion, but I do not understand some of the figures that he cites.
There is such fantastic news out there. We have talked about the fact that we have attracted £20 billion in tech. Why would the right hon. Member not be proud of that? If he wants to talk about reports, just last night I read the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which said that the UK would be the fastest growing G7 economy by 2050, and will outgrow Germany, France and Italy. That is good news. I thought Thursday mornings were about promoting Great Britain—
Mr Speaker
And topical questions are meant to be short and brief. I call Philip Hollobone to set the example.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
Excitement is also building in me ahead of my visit to Kettering. I am a proud champion of small businesses, which, as we all know, are the engine room of growth in our economy. That growth has been good over the past 12 years—the third fastest in the G7—but we want it to be faster. I am very keen to engage with my hon. Friend to see how we can help small and medium-sized enterprises to do that.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for the constructive engagement that we have had about the TRA. I know that some of its decisions have been impactful on her and her constituency. We will be looking for some reform of the TRA, and I would be happy to discuss that further with her.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Kevin Hollinrake
Absolutely. We have agreed MOUs with Indiana, North Carolina and, most recently, South Carolina, as my hon. Friend sets out. We are actively engaging with other states, including Oklahoma, Utah, Texas and California, and I look forward to updating the House on further progress.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Nigel Huddleston
We are progressing with the free trade agreement with Israel. We are excited about the opportunities it presents, in particular because of the focus on science, technology and innovation. I understand the point that the hon. Lady is raising. I think some of it cuts across other Departments, but I will write to her.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The global dairy market is forecast to be growing in the region of 2%, so can my hon. Friend outline what steps his Department is taking to ensure that our world-class British dairy products are at the front of the queue to benefit from that growth?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said earlier, food and drink is our largest manufacturing sector—larger than aerospace and automotive put together. He is right to point out the opportunities for dairy in our free-trade negotiations, and that will be taken forward as the negotiations progress.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady raises an important point, but we are trying to work across all sectors—industry by industry and sector by sector. We have clear processes, particularly when it relates to arms. We are trying to seek opportunities for fair trade across the world, whether it is imports or exports, and we will continue to make sure that we do so on an ethical basis.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
What action does my hon. Friend intend to take to reduce tariff barriers with developing countries, such as Pakistan?
Ms Ghani
I believe that my hon. Friend is the trade envoy to Pakistan, and I look forward to collaborating with him. Pakistan already has a preferential trading relationship with the UK through our generalised scheme of preferences. This will be replaced by the developing countries trading scheme, and Pakistan will continue to benefit from duty-free exports to the UK and the removal of tariffs on 156 products. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Edusport Academy, based in my constituency, was set up in 2011 and had a thriving business prior to Brexit. It brings young sports people over to Scotland, combining sport and English language training. Since Brexit, Edusport has struggled to make the business work due to restrictions put in place by the Home Office. Will the Minister meet me and Edusport to discuss how we can make this business work and continue to thrive?
Nigel Huddleston
As I have said, we will continue to work with the EU to try to reduce barriers that do exist. I cannot make a promise on behalf of the Home Office, but I note what the hon. Lady has said, and I will try to facilitate the appropriate meeting with the appropriate Minister for her.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The fairness of imports and exports in Northern Ireland is hindered by the impacts of the Northern Ireland protocol. What steps are being taken to ensure that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which is sitting in the House of Lords like the Mary Celeste, as others have said, passes smoothly and efficiently to reinforce trading fairness for businesses in Northern Ireland?
Ms Ghani
Northern Ireland plays a full part in all our trading agreements, and I believe that a Northern Irish machinery exporter is involved in the Australia deal. My hon. Friend and I have spoken quite a bit about the Northern Ireland protocol in respect of the Bill I took through recently, and he will be aware of the sensitive discussions that have taken place with the Administration to ensure everything can be as smooth as possible. If needed, I will always be available to meet my hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
I will have to suspend the House until 10.30. I am sorry nobody else wanted to come in.
Governor of Xinjiang: UK Visit
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the planned visit to the UK of the Governor of Xinjiang.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
We understand from the Chinese embassy that the governor of Xinjiang may visit the UK next week. To be very clear, he has not been invited by the UK Government or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and we have no confirmation that he will, in fact, travel. Our expectation is that he will travel on a diplomatic passport, and therefore he has not yet been granted a visa. If he does visit, I assure this House that under no circumstances will he be dignified with a ministerial meeting.
China’s actions in Xinjiang are abhorrent and we will not legitimise them in any way. However, robust engagement to challenge human rights violations and to stand up for the rights of the oppressed is at the core of the UK’s diplomatic work around the world. We must be prepared to use diplomatic channels to achieve that end, hence officials would be prepared to offer him a meeting. In line with that principle, there is only one reason why such a meeting would take place—to make absolutely clear the UK’s abhorrence of the treatment of the Uyghur people and to say that we will not relent from exposing the horrors to which they are subject. That point needs to be set out clearly to China. It is only right that people responsible for human rights violations are confronted on these issues.
The UK has played a leading role in international efforts to hold China to account on Xinjiang. In 2019, we became the first country to step up to lead a joint statement on China’s actions in Xinjiang at the UN. Since that first statement, which was supported by 23 countries, we have worked tirelessly through our global diplomatic network to broaden the caucus of countries speaking out. Our leadership has sustained pressure on China to change its behaviour and consistently increase the number of countries speaking out. Most recently, our diplomatic effort helped to secure the support of a record 50 countries for a statement on Xinjiang at the UN third committee in October.
We have imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity in Xinjiang, and have introduced robust measures to tackle forced labour in supply chains. We have consistently raised our concerns at the highest level in Beijing. Let me be absolutely clear that we will continue to emphasise at all levels that the world is watching what China’s authorities say and do in Xinjiang. They cannot hide their abuses. The UK and our allies will not turn away.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I find that response from my hon. Friend, for whom I have the highest respect, to be a very weak turn from the Foreign Office. The Uyghur region in north-west China has been the site of severe human rights violations, crimes against humanity and genocide for more than six years. In 2017, satellite imagery confirmed that a network of internment camps had been set up throughout the region. Throughout this time, Erkin Tuniyaz has been responsible for the murderous and repressive policy, alongside its architect, Chen Quango.
Testimony from camp survivors—who are absolutely appalled to hear that a Foreign Office official will meet this individual—and leaked official Chinese Government documents, satellite images and drone footage indicate that the camps are sites of severe mass arbitrary detention and severe human rights abuses, including systematic sexual violence against women, torture and the forced sterilisation of many women. Reports of cultural and religious oppression, mass digital in-person surveillance, forced labour, mass sterilisations and abortions and a system of mass criminalisation and arbitrary detention are also completely documented.
The weak response from the Foreign Office hides something. It is not that it has invited him here, but it has made it clear that when he comes, he will be welcome to see officials. Whether or not the Foreign Office is tough, this is a propaganda coup for the Chinese Government. Governor Tuniyaz has defended the use of mass detention centres and doubled down and expanded their use. During his tenure, more than 1 million Uyghurs and other people from predominantly Muslim minorities have been detained in Xinjiang. A man who declares that nothing is going on is hardly likely to be bothered by a Foreign Office official telling him, “Now, now, you’ve got to stop this.”
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that in 2021, the House of Commons in this United Kingdom declared for the first time that genocide is taking place against the Uyghurs and other minorities in the Xinjiang region of China. Let us compare our response with that of the United States. The UK has sanctioned only three rather junior people. The US has introduced 107 punitive sanctions, five new laws, 11 specific investment bans and 10 sanctions on individuals, including Chen Quanguo and Erkin Tuniyaz. I call on the UK Government to rescind this invitation and sanction Erkin Tuniyaz and Chen Quanguo for their role in this crime against humanity and genocide. The place to deal with these individuals is in a tribunal or court of law, not in the quiet office of a Foreign Office official.
Leo Docherty
I appreciate sincerely the long-standing interest of my right hon. Friend in this issue, and he speaks with great sincerity and power. He draws a comparison with the sanctions regime in the US. The numbers might be different, but that reflects our desire and approach to use these opportunities to deliver a very strong and robust message. It is institutionally the judgment of the FCDO that we are better off not denying ourselves the opportunity to send extremely robust and strong messages of condemnation of the brutality that has been carried out by the Chinese state in Xinjiang. He alluded to that difference of approach, but we are confident in its utility.
My understanding is that, in advance of the suggestion of this meeting, the invitation was extended to human rights groups in the UK to afford them the opportunity to send a very strong message to this individual about their view of repression in Xinjiang. That was at the heart of what was judged to be useful about the prospect of such a meeting.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for bringing this urgent question to the House. The issue of Xinjiang has been debated in both Chambers of this Parliament, and following a Back-Bench motion, Members of this House voted that genocide had occurred in this area of China.
In September last year, the UN high commissioner for human rights said that the treatment of the Uyghurs may constitute crimes against humanity, and this House has made clear its view that the treatment of the Uyghurs amounts to genocide. It is therefore deeply worrying to learn of the planned visit to the UK of the governor of the very province in which these outrageous and systemic acts have taken place. Has the Minister made an assessment of the relationship between Chen Quanguo, who is an international pariah, and this particular individual?
I am acutely aware of, and in principle agree with, the general points that the Minister has made about engagement. However, we have to be very robust with regard to human rights. Is the meeting essential to UK-China relations? I do not think it is. I fear that this planned visit to the UK highlights the serious lack of political leadership at the Foreign Office. The Minister knows the views of this House and should have made it clear that this meeting was ill-judged and inappropriate.
When were Ministers first made aware of the planned visit, and did it receive personal approval from the Foreign Secretary? What assessment has been made of the moral injury that this would cause to the Uyghur minority in this country, who have come to the Houses of Parliament to tell us of their suffering? Has this decision been informed by the moral injury that it will cause? Finally, will the invitation to visit the UK now be rescinded? What action will the Foreign Office take as a result of this urgent question?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the constructive tone and characteristic interest that the hon. Lady shows. Is this meeting essential? We judge that this might be an opportunity to send a very strong message to someone who is involved in the governance of Xinjiang. That is at the heart of the judgment that was made about this opportunity.
The hon. Lady asked when Ministers were aware. I know that Ministers were aware in the usual, routine way and made a judgment that, on balance, it was useful to endorse the prospect of officials engaging with this individual.
The hon. Lady makes a good point about the risk of moral injury. It is important to say that, with regard to this specific proposition, FCDO officials were keen to invite Uyghur human rights groups in the UK so that they have an opportunity to express their views to this individual as a means of delivering a very strong message of condemnation. That judgment was at the heart of the decision, but she makes a good point about moral injury.
The hon. Lady asked whether the invitation will be rescinded and, of course, it is not an invitation. The FCDO did not invite this individual. Our expectation is that he is travelling on a diplomatic passport. I am grateful to have been able to answer these questions, and I am grateful for her constructive spirit.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this urgent question but, Minister, I am afraid this is simply not good enough.
In Xinjiang, women are being forcibly sterilised and children are in concentration camps. There are forced labour camps and systematic rape, yet the Minister has just confirmed from the Dispatch Box that Ministers approved of this visit by one of the masterminds of this genocide. Worse, a Cabinet Office Minister claimed this week that the complicity of Chinese state-run companies, such as Hikvision, in Xinjiang is “contested.” Exactly what position are this Government taking? There is no legitimate reason to allow this man, Erkin Tuniyaz, into our country. The only meetings with him should be in a courtroom.
Will the Government now sanction Erkin Tuniyaz, as well as Chen Quanguo, the butcher of Xinjiang? We have to refuse to meet them. Like-minded EU countries have already announced that they will not meet this man when he comes to Brussels. We should not only refuse to meet him, as our like-minded friends have, but we should deny him a visa.
Will we now introduce a sanctions regime specifically for Tibet, where we are seeing the exact same thing? Millions of children have been kidnapped from their parents and put into concentration camps so that they can be assimilated and so that genocide can be committed against their culture. This is wrong. I am sorry, but the Government have to get a grip on China issues. We let Chinese officials flee this country, having given them a week’s notice, and now we are inviting them into the halls of Westminster. It is not good enough. We have to get a grip.
Mr Speaker
I do not think they will be coming to Westminster, as we would have to give permission. Let us not open that debate.
Leo Docherty
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for her long-standing interest. She rightly mentions the suffering of women and children, specifically in Xinjiang, which has moved us all. Our judgment is that Erkin Tuniyaz is not travelling because of an invitation from the Foreign Office. Given that our expectation is that he is travelling on a diplomatic passport and will be here, because he is not sanctioned—
Leo Docherty
Because he is not sanctioned, we therefore judge that this is a useful opportunity to deliver an extremely strong message to this individual. Of course, colleagues will note that there is a differential approach with regard to the US sanctions regime.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am in the Chair. Members are meant to speak through the Chair, not face towards the back of the Chamber.
Leo Docherty
The judgment of Ministers is that such opportunities are useful in offering a chance to express a very forthright condemnation of the outrages in Xinjiang. I think this reflects the Government’s policy of robust pragmatism when it comes to China, which is at the heart of our wanting to continue such dialogue.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is absolutely right that the Government have handed a propaganda gift to Beijing.
In 2020, the Uyghur tribunal found that, beyond any reasonable doubt, China is responsible for crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, yet today we find that someone at the heart of those crimes is coming to the UK next week—a man accused by the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China of playing a central role in the persecution of the Uyghurs.
As we have heard, the Government’s position on China has been appallingly weak and goes no further than to urge the Chinese authorities to change their approach. Given that, hitherto, they have failed to move Beijing one iota in its treatment of the Uyghur people, why does the Minister believe that allowing this man to come to the United Kingdom and to meet FCDO officials will suddenly change things? Will it not be exactly the same message that they have given before, and will the Chinese not treat it with exactly the same contempt? Given that that is what will happen, why does the Minister honestly believe that meeting this man will make the slightest difference to Beijing’s approach?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman is questioning the utility of this kind of diplomacy, and it is a reasonable question, but our judgment, institutionally, is that opportunities to send strong messages to these sorts of individuals are useful and will be taken heed of by the state apparatus. I think the expectation of officials was that an invitation should be extended to Uyghur human rights groups in the UK to enable them to engage with this individual directly and send that strong message. I think that was at the core of the judgment that was made.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making it absolutely clear that this man is not getting in here, even if the Minister is going to give him space in the office. But I ask you this, Sir: is not the very fact that an announcement of his intention to travel has been made—in the language habitual to the Government of China—“a provocation”?
Mr Speaker
That is more for the Minister to answer, even though I am tempted.
Leo Docherty
I think this is an opportunity to send a robust message from our side about everything we judge completely outrageous and unacceptable in Xinjiang. We therefore judge that there is utility in the prospect of officials meeting this individual.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Is this the best we can do? This country used to have a tradition—on both sides of the House, in both major parties—of standing up to tyrants, butchers, fascists and great persecutors. That seems to have been abandoned. Is not the only conclusion to be drawn in Beijing from the actions of this Government that we will do nothing to stand up to them?
Leo Docherty
We have stood up to China when it comes to Xinjiang. We have sanctioned individuals, and we continue to make the strongest possible representations. That is in line with our policy of robust pragmatism. We will be robust, but we will also engage and send a strong message when opportunities arise.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I welcome the question from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), and her reference to the actions of Europe. One of the key freedoms I thought we had secured by leaving the EU was the freedom to act and to lead. Indeed, yesterday we heard powerfully in Westminster Hall from the President of Ukraine just how much the residents of Ukraine appreciate that leadership of the international community’s support for Ukraine. When this country speaks, the world listens, so can my hon. Friend explain why the UK Government appear unwilling to hold China to account with the same determination and vigour on this matter?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have shown leadership on Ukraine, and we seek to show the same leadership on matters relating to our relationship with China and the travails and suffering of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. Of course, we may take a slightly different approach on the numbers of individuals or entities sanctioned in relation to Xinjiang. That is based on the notion that a greater degree of engagement allows us to send extremely robust and strong messages of condemnation, and that is at the heart of our approach in this regard. I should also put on record that, of course, this individual would not be invited into King Charles Street—into the FCDO. This would be an external meeting, if indeed it took place.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Well, that will really show them, won’t it? There is really only one reason for having a meeting like this: to keep that man talking until the rozzers arrive with a stout pair of handcuffs. As I understand the Minister’s position today, the approach of His Majesty’s Government to sanctions for people like this is that they allow us to deliver robust messages. If that is the strategy—and it has been for some years now—can the Minister offer the House the list of areas where progress has been made as a consequence? In what way have things got better for the Uyghur population in Xinjiang?
Leo Docherty
We seek in a whole range of ways to condemn China’s brutality in order that it might be lessened, and we also seek expressly to advocate for individuals. The utility of this sort of engagement is often on behalf of specific individuals. I will not comment on individual cases here, but I do know that thorough engagement is carried out in the interests of specific and individual human rights activists imprisoned in Xinjiang, and I am sure that advocacy is appreciated.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The treatment of the Uyghur Muslims in China is absolutely outrageous—a genocide, and one that the whole House condemns. My hon. Friend is of course quite right that this individual is not sanctioned, but that prompts the question: why is he not sanctioned, given that he is the governor? I understand that the survivors of the camps have actually applied to the Attorney General for permission for him to be arrested on arrival. Will my hon. Friend take back to the Foreign Secretary the urgent need to review the number of people who are actually sanctioned? In fact, if the governor of that province is not sanctioned, the question is: why not?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his questions and, indeed, for his long-standing interest. I am sure the Foreign Secretary will be taking note of these proceedings in the House today. We do not speculate about future sanctions, and we always keep these sorts of issues under constant review.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It would be helpful to understand exactly why this particular individual has not been sanctioned. Can the Minister give some more clarity on that point, not least because my constituents—and, I suspect, the constituents of everyone else in the House who has spoken or is going to speak on this urgent question—will be profoundly concerned about the level of human rights violations taking place towards the Uyghur community, for which this man appears to be very directly responsible?
Leo Docherty
I think colleagues will know that, when it comes to the metrics for such things, the judgment has been made that it is worthwhile maintaining the opportunity to engage with some of these sorts of individuals. Of course, all of these cases are kept under review. We will not speculate on future sanctions, but I think it reflects the approach of more engagement in order to deliver strong messages, rather than less, and therefore more sanctions.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
What is happening in Xinjiang is an absolute disgrace, and the whole House clearly condemns it. The Minister says that inviting this gentleman over—sorry; not inviting, but allowing this gentleman over—will send a strong message, but what message is going to be sent that has not already been sent to the Chinese? The Minister also said that the meeting will not happen in King Charles Street—at the FCDO—so where exactly will it be happening? In the spirit of democracy, openness and the freedom to protest we have in this country, will he tell us where it is, so that those who want to protest can actually go and protest outside this meeting?
Leo Docherty
This is not organised by the FCDO, and our expectation, with the oversight that Ministers have, is that directors might meet this individual. The details of that are yet to be confirmed, if indeed it does happen. I think the opportunity therein was that they would give very strong messages, including on individual cases of human rights activists imprisoned in Xinjiang, and that was therefore the utility of such a proposition.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The strongest action, the most forthright message, or the robusto, would of course be for the Government to sanction this individual. That is the bottom line. Given how the Government are confronting this issue in Xinjiang, I fear for other parts of China. As a result of this soaking-wet response this morning, I fear even more for Hong Kong. The Government have been sitting on a sanctions report since a formal submission in November last year, calling for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to involve himself in sanction moves against 16 individuals in China. When are the Government going to report back on that sanctions request?
Leo Docherty
I note the hon. Gentleman’s question and he makes a good point in drawing a comparison with Hong Kong. I will not comment from the Dispatch Box about future sanctions, but we note the content of that report.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this urgent question. I hear what the Minister says about us taking a different approach, but what assessment is the FCDO making about whether that approach is working? Surely the fact that this individual is going to come to the United Kingdom, when we know they would not go to the United States, is evidence that the approach is not working and we need to rethink.
Leo Docherty
The Government’s approach is one of robust pragmatism, but we would always keep that under review and pay a great deal of attention to the actions of our allies.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am really struggling with the Minister’s thinking on this. On one hand he says that what is happening in Xinjiang is abhorrent, illegal under international law and a crime against humanity, but on the other hand he is facilitating meetings with the governor of that province. That is not a sustainable position, and it certainly does not hold China to account. When will the Government get a grip on this issue, finally and definitely stand up for human rights and against crimes against humanity, and tell China that this is not acceptable and the governor of Xinjiang is not welcome here?
Leo Docherty
We will continue to send those messages, and my expectation is that directors, were they to meet this individual, would be sending exactly those messages. More broadly, we will keep our approach under review at all times.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister knows how much I respect him, as we all do in this House, but his answers this morning have been incredibly disappointing. I have to say that—I know it may not be his Department to answer, and he has been given the job. Two years ago Parliament voted to declare the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims to be genocide. Erkin Tuniyaz has not only had direct involvement in those activities, but is one of the lead offenders, directly responsible for implementing mass detentions, forced sterilisations, sexual abuse, slave labour and even organ harvesting. A person responsible for such crimes should never, ever be welcome on British soil.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question and I respect him enormously—he knows that. Of course we all share a deep sense of sorrow about the appalling abuses of human rights in Xinjiang, and that is at the core of everything we do in our advocacy for human rights. With regard to the current issue, of course we will keep this approach under review.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek through you a correction by the Minister of something he said earlier? He said that the Foreign Office had invited those who have fled Xinjiang and are here in the UK to meet this murderous man, but in fact they were never invited; they were only invited to submit their thoughts about this to the Foreign Office, or perhaps to meet one of the officials.
Mr Speaker
While the Minister is here he may want to put the record straight.
Leo Docherty
I am happy to accept that clarification, Mr Speaker.
Capital Projects: Spending Decisions
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I have lost count of the number of times that we have had to drag Ministers from this shambolic—[Interruption.] To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities what is his assessment of the capital projects and spending decisions in his Department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am glad we know what question we are being asked. Levelling up is one of the defining missions of this Government. Whether it is moving 22,000 civil servants outside of London by 2030 and backing overlooked town centres and high streets, or devolving power and money away from Whitehall and Westminster, this Government are delivering for the people of this country. There has been significant focus on the mechanics of government in recent days. Even if the question asked today was not that clear at the outset, it is absolutely the case that processes change and may apply at times in different ways.
We are working within a new delegation approach with the Treasury, which involves Treasury sign-off on capital spend. We will always work closely with the Treasury. We value its focus on value for money; it values and shares our mission to level up the country as a whole, and we will continue to do that. We are making good on our promise to spread opportunity across the country, with £9.6 billion of levelling-up funds announced since 2019, on top of the £7.5 billion commitment to the nine city-based mayoral combined authorities in England. That includes £3.2 billion of funding via the towns and high street funds, £3.8 billion from the levelling-up fund, £2.6 billion from the UK shared prosperity fund and £16.7 million from the community ownership fund.
There has been no change to the budgets of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, whether capital or revenue; no change to our policy objectives; no dilution of our ambition; and there are no implications for the Government’s policy agenda. Four years ago, this Government promised the British people a stronger, fairer and more united country. It was a promise embodied in levelling up, and it is a promise we are going to keep.
Lisa Nandy
It appears that nothing is going right in this place today. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to drag Ministers from this shambolic, failing Department to the House to account for their failures—failures to deliver and failures to understand the impact of our money that is being spent. An extraordinary report in the Financial Times today suggests that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been banned from spending any new money on capital projects without approval from the Treasury. It follows a damning National Audit Office report, which provided evidence that the Department had no idea about the impact of the money that it was spending, and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee made an assessment that billions of pounds of our money were being wasted, because the Government had engaged in a programme without any understanding of the impact of that programme.
If this report is true, we are in the absurd situation of having a Secretary of State who does not even have the authority to sign off on a park bench. Is this true? If so, what is the Government’s assessment of what that means for the levelling-up agenda, of which a third round of spending has just been announced, and for tackling the housing crisis? Is it true that this decision by the Treasury was prompted by unauthorised spending commitments made by the Secretary of State at the convention of the north to spend money on improving appalling housing standards, after the desperate death of a two-year-old boy in Rochdale? I understand that the Secretary of State is in Rochdale today. How can he possibly tell housing associations to sort themselves out if he cannot sort out his own Department? We deserve to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that a Secretary of State who is finally—belatedly—spending money on improving housing standards is a Secretary of State who has gone rogue, because that would be very serious.
The rumours are swirling that there is huge underspend in the Department. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, yet I understand that the affordable housing budget has not been spent and that there are levelling-up funds that have not been spent either, which will now be clawed back by the Treasury. Is that true? Will the Government publish the correspondence between the Departments about this matter? It is our money, and we deserve to know.
Lee Rowley
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her questions. There was a significant amount of hyperbole in there and a significant amount of suggestion and inference, but the reality remains, as I confirmed in my initial response to her question, that there has been no change to budgets, capital or revenue. There has been no change to our policy objectives, no dilution of our ambition to level up, and no implications for the Government’s policy agenda. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State does what she does best, which is to heckle from a sedentary position, but I will try to answer her questions. She suggests that there has been a failure to deliver. I would talk to the communities up and down the land that have been given these funds, opportunities and possibilities. We see delivery daily. I see it in my constituency; towns are being transformed through the towns fund, which has been providing funding since 2019.
The shadow Secretary of State asked a question about capital spending; I answered it in my last response. She also asked about the implications for the levelling-up agenda. There are no implications for the levelling-up agenda.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for answering this urgent question. Capital projects across the country may be slipping because they cannot be delivered immediately. Will he confirm that where there is slippage, the capital funds will still be available, and will not be clawed back by the Treasury, so that we do not lose the benefits of capital projects that everyone wants?
Lee Rowley
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. My understanding is that where commitments have been made, they absolutely will be adhered to; that will be understood, and they will be provided for. In my constituency, there have been commitments of £25 million under the town deal for both Clay Cross and Staveley; we are still expecting that, and are spending. We will still realise the benefits of those two lots of £25 million, which will be spent transforming communities that were ignored for far too long under the Labour party.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Members need only have attended Tuesday afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on this subject to realise that the levelling-up agenda is unravelling. There was an astonishing admission of last-minute ministerial interference from the Treasury, particularly in Glasgow, where it is reported that £500,000-worth of employee work hours were put into bids that were unsuccessful due to that last-minute interference.
The Treasury’s decision to rein in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is far from being standard practice. So far, we have not received an honest reason why that happened. Have the Government given up all pretence of caring about levelling up, or do they no longer have faith in DLUHC to deliver it? Three of the five most deprived areas in Scotland have not received a penny of levelling-up funding. Is the levelling-up project now funnelling money from the poorest areas to the wealthiest? Given the astonishing admission on Tuesday afternoon in Westminster Hall that Ministers interfered at the last minute to take out any round 2 applications from areas that received money, no matter how little, in round 1, will the Minister apologise to the House, and to the local authorities that put so much time and effort into preparing the bids?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely incorrect to say that the levelling-up agenda is unravelling. Just last month we announced several billion pounds of additional capital spending on levelling-up projects bid for in round 2. As for caring about levelling up, communities up and down the land are getting the opportunity to transform their area, and to make good on promises that were not delivered under successive Governments for many decades. We in this place should celebrate that, rather than focusing on what is being focused on now. I gently say to him that if in Scotland, as in Derbyshire and elsewhere in the country, a number of areas have not been successful in getting funds that were on offer, are being provided and will be spent, I very much encourage those areas to apply when round 3 of the levelling-up fund opens in the coming months.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
As a great lady once reminded us, there is no such thing as public money, only taxpayers’ money. Does my hon. Friend agree that we Conservative Members should never apologise for applying the most stringent checks and balances, so that every penny spent is spent wisely?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are seeking to transform areas, including mine, that were ignored for far too long, but are doing so in a way that works for the Government and for taxpayers, so that their hard-earned money is spent in the right place, at the right time, to the right effect.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on a valiant attempt at deflection. He has said that the budget and the policy had not changed, and they have not; what has changed is that the Treasury no longer trusts the Department to spend the money without Treasury approval. That is the change, isn’t it? Normally, surely this would be a matter for conversation between permanent secretaries, or between the Secretary of State and the Chancellor—“Bring yourselves into line, and sort yourselves out.” That presumably has been done, but now there is the strongest public condemnation from the Treasury of the Department’s ability to spend money properly. How can the Minister ever again admonish a council leader, or hold them to account, for not spending money properly?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, my constituency neighbour in South Yorkshire and north Derbyshire, for his comments. We had a similar exchange yesterday on the local government finance settlement. I have already outlined what the change is and I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but I have to reiterate that there has been no change to budget or to policy objectives. We continue to look forward to working with the Treasury, and with all other Government Departments, to achieve the outcomes we all want in this House, whichever Bench we sit on.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Given the social and economic division created by the Government over 13 years, the announcement of levelling up led to a reasonable expectation that money would be directed to the areas of greatest deprivation. Having listened to several debates on the subject this week, I now have doubts that that is the case. Will the Minister confirm that the single criterion for the direction of funds will be based on deprivation? Will he publish the details?
Lee Rowley
The information about the distribution of levelling-up funds has been published. I have seen, across Yorkshire and north Derbyshire in the coalfields that the hon. Gentleman and I both represent, a significant transformative opportunity through the towns fund and the levelling-up fund, which will make a huge difference to those places that traditionally have been left behind and which this Government, and this Government only, have responded to in our policy agenda.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Colleagues will note that the Minister attempts to obfuscate through refusals to address the fundamental question of whether the approval process has changed. What supposedly drew the ire and frustration of the Secretary of State’s colleagues was a speech in Manchester on 25 January suggesting that further funding would be available for some northern councils. What caused more angst in the Treasury: the fact that money was being spent in a rogue manner, or the fact that it went against the Prime Minister’s long-standing ambition to divert money away from deprived areas back towards places such as Royal Tunbridge Wells?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for Stretford and Urmston for his point. He will know, because he has long experience in local government, that that would be a crude and inaccurate misrepresentation of what the Prime Minister said a number of months ago. The hon. Gentleman’s first point was about obfuscation. There was no obfuscation. I was absolutely clear at the beginning of my response about what has changed and why that is the case.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
As other Members have noted, it has been reported that the Treasury has intervened in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ban new capital projects—on which the Minister keeps avoiding to give us an answer—because of concerns that the Department is not effectively managing public money. The Government’s most recent decision to create four new Departments could, according to analysis conducted by the Liberal Democrats, cost the public an estimated £60 million. Does the Minister agree that the Government should get their existing Departments in order before making costly decisions to set up four more?
Lee Rowley
I refer the hon. Lady to my answers at the outset, which explained very clearly the changes and how there is no ultimate change to what is being spent in communities up and down the land to transform areas that have been left behind for a long time.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Let me put it in local government terms for the Minister. When a council is told that it cannot spend any more money without specific approval, it is called a section 114 notice. What is it like for his Department to get the equivalent of a section 114 notice?
Lee Rowley
Let me put it in terms of reality. This Government’s budgets are not changing, this Department’s objectives are not changing, and this Government’s ambition is not changing on levelling up.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is not here, but I wonder if the Minister can talk to the Secretary of State so that he can talk to the Treasury about the importance of support for local authorities with capital for repair and maintenance of highly important, much-loved but also sadly rapidly dilapidating existing buildings, such as in Gateshead our leisure centre and swimming pools and even Gateshead International Stadium? The huge withdrawal of revenue support grant, which is of course revenue, has paralysed the financial capacity of local councils like Gateshead to support investment in existing buildings. What will the Minister do about that? Will he talk to the Secretary of State and ask him to talk to the Treasury?
Lee Rowley
Obviously, I will speak to the Secretary of State; we talk very regularly about some of the challenges that the hon. Gentleman highlights. I know that the hon. Gentleman will have seen yesterday’s local government finance settlement, which makes £60 billion available to councils over the next financial year, both for revenue and for other activities. It is ultimately for councils to make decisions about how they spend that, but I absolutely accept his challenge. That is why we introduced the levelling-up fund and the towns fund: to try to respond to some of those challenges. That funding has already had a significant impact and will continue to do so over its delivery. However, I am happy to pass his points back to my colleagues.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Local councils, now and in the days and weeks ahead, will be going through their budget-making processes. The news that they may not be able to draw down on capital funding, whether it has already been agreed or is to be agreed, will put some of those budget-making processes at risk or add additional layers. I ask the Minister again: does his Department have the authority to release funds for current projects or authorise funds for future projects, or is the report in the Financial Times true—yes or no?
Lee Rowley
I explained the change at the outset: there is no change to the budgets that we have provided and there is no change to the local government finance settlement, which was announced yesterday.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Let us be under no illusions: this is wealth redistribution, but not the wealth redistribution and investment practised by the EU. This is Tory wealth redistribution, taking from areas that need investment and giving to areas that already have it. My constituency missed out on the towns fund: its bid was rejected. Despite an excellent bid from the Caledonian Railway in Brechin, it got hee-haw out of the levelling-up fund, too.
Dave Doogan
Will the Minister apologise for this grotesque “you can look, but you can’t touch” form of Tory funding?
Lee Rowley
We can always trust the Scottish National party to debate something that has already occurred and to take the situation back to the European Union. If that is the comparison that the hon. Gentleman wants to make, let me tell him that my constituency, North East Derbyshire, did not receive any significant money under the European Union in recent years, but as soon as we left the EU it received towns funding and levelling-up funding. That is because the Government have ensured that we are responding to the needs of local areas. We are actually trying to listen to and take heed of those areas that have been left behind, irrespective of the point about the European Union.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister’s Department covers some of the funds that are most vital to our communities. As it is, we do not have enough of them. He has been very clear that there is no change in the budget, but can he be absolutely clear that the Treasury will not stop decisions being made on important projects that we need in our communities?
Lee Rowley
It was only a few days ago that the Chancellor himself visited a successful levelling-up round 2 budget area, which demonstrates the commitment of the Treasury—just like the commitment of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—to deliver on what we say. We intend to do so, because it is so important for these communities to have the transformation that they need and want.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister has said in various answers that the ambition has not changed, the policy has not changed and the budget has not changed. The reality is that the sign-off process has changed: the Treasury now signs projects off for his Department because it does not trust the Secretary of State.
We are shortly due to move to stage 3 of the levelling-up fund. Stage 2 was a farce; stage 1 was a mess. What assurance can the Minister give that stage 3 will start delivering for some of the most deprived communities, including in my Ogmore constituency, which has had nothing?
Lee Rowley
Just for clarity, the Treasury signs off budgets across Departments without any issue, as it has done under the Labour party, the coalition and the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman asks about round 3 of the levelling- up fund. We have given out billions of pounds under rounds 1 and 2. Local communities are excited by the opportunities that the changes will bring. I encourage his area to apply for round 3; I hope it is successful, and I hope he can share in the transformation that will come, which is already being delivered elsewhere.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The first line of the policy paper “Levelling Up Fund Round 2: prospectus” states:
“Investing in infrastructure has the potential to improve lives”.
I am anxious to find out how such infrastructure improvement can take place on coastal roads, where the environmental impact of erosion is leading to the isolation of communities. Will the Minister commit himself to a dedicated levelling-up strategy to address this serious issue?
Lee Rowley
I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), to discuss that further.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know you have saved your favourite till last.
Mr Speaker
If the hon. Lady had not been complaining about my choices, she would not have been called last.
Patricia Gibson
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Minister has talked repeatedly today about the transformative effect of levelling up, but because levelling up is not inflation-proofed, councils that secured funding last October are facing shortfalls of about 30% in funding for projects because of soaring costs. So projects cannot be delivered as was envisaged and so they cannot level up as was envisaged—which is what led to the success of their bids in the first place. Can the Minister explain why levelling-up bids are not inflation-proofed and therefore cannot deliver on the Government’s own criteria?
Lee Rowley
We are happy to talk to councils about the challenges that they face, and we are happy to accept that inflation is a challenge. This is one of the reasons we need to get inflation out of the system. The difficult decisions made by the Chancellor will allow us to do that and will allow the money to go further, not just in the levelling-up fund but elsewhere in government, and in the private sector as a whole.
Business of the House
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
Before I do so, may I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Leader of the House of Lords for facilitating the visit of President Zelensky yesterday, and my thanks to all Members for giving him such a warm welcome? May I also join the many people who have expressed sorrow at the terrible events unfolding in Turkey and Syria, and urge everyone to donate to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal today?
The business for the week beginning 20 February will include:
Monday 20 February—A general debate on Ukraine.
Tuesday 21 February—Second Reading of the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No.2) Bill.
Wednesday 22 February—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill.
Thursday 23 February—A general debate on the future of the NHS, its funding and staffing. The subject of this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 24 February—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week beginning on 27 February includes:
Monday 27 February—Second Reading of the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business.
This week the news has been dominated by tragic scenes from the devastating earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. It is impossible to put into words the scale of human suffering, with people left out in the cold without food, shelter or medical supplies, and digging through the rubble with their bare hands to search for survivors. Earlier this week the Foreign Secretary seemed to be unable to answer questions about the reported cuts of between £6 million and £8 million in aid to Syria. Can the Leader of the House tell us now whether the Government plan to press ahead with them, and will she encourage the Foreign Secretary to return to the House and announce a longer-term plan for tackling this crisis?
I welcome the Leader of the House’s announcement of the debate scheduled for Monday week marking almost a year since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As she has said, it was an honour to be in Westminster Hall yesterday for President Zelensky’s historic address to both Houses of Parliament, and I, too, want to put on record my thanks to all the staff who were involved. President Zelensky said that our two nations were together on a mission to defeat evil and secure peace. That reminds us all that we have a duty to stand by Ukraine, and we must. Perhaps a debate on the seizure of frozen sanctioned assets would therefore be timely. Labour supports plans to repurpose frozen Russian assets and use them to rebuild Ukraine after the war, and to provide much-needed humanitarian aid to the country. The EU has already set out a plan to do so, and Canada has passed laws for this purpose. Why, then, are the Government lagging behind? May we have a debate on the steps that are still needed to ensure that Britain can never be a soft touch for corrupt oligarchs and warlords wishing to hide their ill-gotten wealth?
The Government’s announcement of a holocaust memorial Bill is welcome. It will allow the building of a new memorial and learning centre, which will go such a long way in educating future generations about the holocaust. I offer the Government Labour’s co-operation in getting the Bill through as quickly as possible, because there must be no delay.
Last week I raised the Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). It would be the first part of a Hillsborough law and would introduce an independent advocate to represent bereaved families and survivors of public disasters. The Leader of the House said then that the issue was “a huge concern” to many in this House and to many outside it, and she was right. Why, then, 24 hours later, did her own Tory MPs block it for the 12th time? My hon. Friend will not give up. She and the Hillsborough families will have Labour’s full support when she brings the Bill back in March; will they have the Government’s?
Finally, the Leader of the House should not be surprised to hear me raise the long-delayed football governance White Paper again. The Government committed to an independent regulator of English football in the last Queen’s Speech. We have had promises from numerous Culture Secretaries that it would be published—ahem—“soon”. Wednesday’s reshuffle seems to have delayed it yet again. This simply is not good enough. Labour has supported the introduction of an independent regulator for years. Clubs, players, staff and fans are fed up waiting for the Government to get on, do their job and actually govern. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the White Paper will be published?
Is it not the case that the Tories’ tactics are not working? They lack skill, they are tired and they simply cannot keep up with the reds any more. They have tried changing the squad around but the never-ending transfer window just is not helping. There is certainly no suitable Tory substitute for the captain, as we have seen all season: changing the Tory at the top does not work. This week, they have even tried changing the formation, but it will make no difference: they have no game plan for Britain.
But there is still everything to play for. The Tories might be relegating themselves into opposition, but they will not relegate Britain. The next Labour Government —a team with a brilliant captain—will restore Britain’s hope and optimism and help people through and beyond the cost of living crisis, repair our public services and support communities that have suffered from the sticking-plaster politics that has defined the past 13 years of Tory government. I say to the people of West Lancashire today, and the rest of the country whenever a general election may come: Labour’s coming home.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks about Turkey, Syria and Ukraine. She will know that we have contingencies in our aid budget. On our ODA score, it is not scored by us—it is an international definition. Although we have given some immediate support, that will be under review and we will of course look to see what more we can do. The Prime Minister has made direct contact with those involved in organising that.
On Ukraine, I have announced a general debate on Ukraine, at which I am sure that many issues, including those raised by the hon. Lady, can be raised. I welcome her remarks about the holocaust memorial and am glad to have her support for that. I will ask the relevant Department again about Hillsborough, which I know is extremely important to many, and I am also glad to have her support for the football governance review—
Penny Mordaunt
It is coming soon. Members, who I know care about it greatly, will not have long to wait.
I am very sorry that the hon. Lady does not welcome the machinery of government changes. She draws a comparison between both parties with regard to modernisation and being what this country needs. I believe that those changes were right—any organisation that wants to be its best has to modernise—and I thought they might be something that Labour Members would be trying to understand, given that their team captain, the Leader of the Opposition, has been channelling the modernising zeal of Neil Kinnock. The thing is, he is no Neil Kinnock, because Neil Kinnock knew what the problem was: a few well-paid union leaders and their destructive ideology—outdated, rigid political dogma that is irrelevant to today’s hard-working people.
Labour has been peddling the line to those hard-working people that what they care about and everything that is precious to them will be helped by going out on strike. The hon. Lady talks about the cost of living. What possible merits could come from trying to suggest that, by making ends meet, we drive those ends further and further apart? It is political cynicism of the worst order to encourage strikes, even if people do so by wringing their hands and avoiding being photographed on the picket line.
Those striking workers will lose pay from their pay packets. Even if their demands are met with an inflationary pay rise, they lose: inflation becomes embedded; every single taxpayer—every single household—pays an extra £1,000 in tax; learning for their children is lost; hospital appointments for their loved ones are lost; and investment into the UK is discouraged, affecting the very economy on which our NHS depends.
On every possible outcome, strike action hurts people and it hurts public services. The only beneficiary is the red team, the Labour party, but that is the point, is it not? Labour wants power at any price and it is happy that union members are collateral damage in that. It is the same old Labour that took the miners out on strike at the start of the warmest summer on record. It is the same old Labour that asks people to face huge hardships for no gain, and asks them to pay for that privilege through political donations via their union subs. Kinnock knew that this ends with the grotesque chaos of a Labour union handing out hardship payments to its own members with their own money. Britain’s workforce deserve better. I say to the hon. Lady: do not lecture us about modernisation and being fit for purpose to lead this country. Her party’s vision for the future looks very much like its past.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Local football clubs such as Southend United are the beating heart of their communities, but many local lower-league clubs are struggling with the after-effects of covid and the cost of living crisis, leading to consequent tax liabilities. Like me, Southend United fans are deeply concerned about the club’s financial viability. Please, can we have a debate in Government time on the future of community football?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of community football. I know that she is an avid supporter of Southend United, and that she has been working closely with the Shrimpers Trust to ensure that the voices of the fans are heard going into those negotiations with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I shall happily support her with the experience that I have from Portsmouth. We had such a debate earlier this year, and as I announced earlier, the fan-led review on football governance and what will follow will not be far away.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
My thanks go to Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and staff of the Houses for the wonderful visit of President Zelensky yesterday. He is right: freedom will win.
I, too, extend deepest sympathies to all those affected by the devastating earthquake in Turkey and Syria and the humanitarian emergency. I have been contacted by constituents with loved ones in those countries who have asked me to encourage the Government to consider any possible means of help, including offering even temporary refuge here.
We have heard a wee update on last week: HS2 is now rumoured to be facing even further delays of up to four more years, which means that it will be 12 years later than originally planned and the overall costs have gone stratospheric from its original £33 billion estimate up to £100 billion. Meanwhile, the Government are apparently replying to press inquiries with a snotty, “We do not comment on speculation”. Many in Scotland are furious to hear of this staggering overrun on a rail scheme that will offer us virtually no benefits. Surely the alarm bells are at ear-splitting levels, even for this Government. What can the Leader of the House do to encourage her colleagues in the Department for Transport to open up with a statement so that we can satisfy ourselves that it is only speculation and not cause for serious alarm? Can they come to the House before the Chancellor’s announced plans for HS3, 4 and 5 get anywhere near the drawing board?
Let me turn now to yet another Government project that is really not going very well: Brexit Britain. Polls show a huge rise in the number of folks realising that the brilliant Brexit bulldog they were sold is, in fact, just a poor, sick pup on life support. The evidence is stacking up wherever we look. I see that a reformed Remainer has just been persuaded to take on what must be one of the least desirable jobs in politics—chairing the Conservative party. Well done to the Leader of the House for giving that one a body-swerve, particularly now that we hear of the deputy chair’s views on capital punishment.
I wonder, though, whether in the wee small hours of the morning any of them ever think back on Brexit with a tiny tinge of regret, particularly when we hear that biometrics will likely render those precious blue passports redundant and the giant poll today—in The Daily Telegraph, no less—suggests a next general election will see their party in third place? Can we have a debate, definitely in Government time, on Brexit buyer’s remorse, where we might all finally take a good, clear, honest look at the many problems it has caused and the Government can tell us what they are doing to sort them out before everything swirls down the Brexit plughole? Thankfully, Scotland has a clear escape route available to us before then.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for what she says about Syria, Turkey and Ukraine. I am sorry she did not welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) to the deputy chairmanship of the Conservative party. I am sure that many in her party like to refer to him as “30p Lee”, but I can tell her that his constituents and many people across the whole of the United Kingdom refer to him as “He stands up for me Lee”. I think it is a tremendous credit that he sits in this House with his background and experience and I wish him all the luck in his new position.
I congratulate Scotland on its Six Nations victory over England and thank both teams for a blistering game of rugby, which I very much enjoyed despite sitting next to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who is not a gracious winner. It was a pity, though, to learn this week that we may never see The Famous Grouse on their jerseys again or even the Guinness Six Nations tournament; indeed, the multi-million pound Johnnie Walker development in Edinburgh may be seeking a new name. I hope the Scottish Government will consult those iconic brands and distilleries and related industries, which are so important to the Scottish economy, and find a sensible way forward.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) made a double complaint, surpassing her usual complaints, about a scheme she does not want but very much wants to see happen and stories of an overspend on it. I am not going to deviate from what the Department has told her, but I would gently point out to her again that a little self-awareness goes a long way, because today we have learned also that the modest ambition of the Scottish people to have a few miles of the A9 dualled is unlikely to transpire, despite their having waited 11 years. I understand that the Minister responsible has blamed Vladimir Putin for the delay.
The hon. Lady talks about delayed projects and overspend, but this week we had to have the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions write to the Scottish Government, urging them to take up the powers on welfare that have been available to them since 2016. At the time, they said they could create an independent state by spending just £200 million, yet the assessments of their taking over the benefit system now sit at £685 million. Also this week—perhaps because the Scottish Government have difficulty managing projects and budgets—we have learned of the need for the Scottish National party to receive loans that breached electoral rules.
We have seen more unexplained loans, the 19 complaints from SNP supporters currently being investigated by the police, allegations of fraud for around 600,000 missing donations, the former treasurer who quit due to the murk of the SNP’s finances, along with three others on the Finance Committee, and, more recently, an SNP-led council that has called for another police investigation into those ferries. The SNP wants to raise tax, but not to spend it on public services; it wants to represent the people of Scotland, but does not listen to them, their views or their priorities; it wants to take authority, but with no responsibility. Scotland deserves better.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Department for Education announced in November 2020 that the new secondary school for the Hanwood Park development in Kettering would be a new free school, but for boys only. Understandably, there is much local support for the secondary school to be open to boys and girls. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Orbis Education Trust and North Northamptonshire Council on launching a fresh public consultation—under the guidance of the Department for Education—on the make-up of the new school, and in encouraging residents to submit their views by the consultation deadline of 5 March?
Penny Mordaunt
That is indeed good news. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has managed to secure for his constituents. It is important that local views shape that new school, and I thank him for getting that call to arms on record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business and Backbench Business debates in her statement.
In early March, we anticipate a day of debates on remaining departmental estimates. We will welcome applications from Back Benchers for those debates immediately after the February recess, so Members may want to have a think about that. We are still very much open for applications for debates both here in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall.
Could we have a statement on what the Government might do to support Syrian refugee communities and Turkish communities, among whom there are significant levels of shock and distress following this week’s dreadful events in their homelands?
Lastly, although I very much welcome the suggestion from the Leader of the House that a White Paper on football governance will soon be announced, I think it needs to be more urgent than that because, in football, a spectre is haunting Europe. Yet again this morning, we have seen reports of the European super league being talked about in vigorous terms. It was in response to the previous iteration of the European super league that the whole question of remodelling football governance came about. I agree with earlier comments about the state of our lower-level game. I think it is more urgent than a White Paper; we need to get on with it.
Penny Mordaunt
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago. I know that this is an important matter. I very much understand the concern that many Members have, given my constituency and the experiences of Pompey. The White Paper will shortly come before hon. Members, and clearly, we will look to see if we need to legislate after it is published.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we have a great track record as a nation of supplying help and support, and we have some really quite unique expertise to help in the situation faced by Turkey and Syria at the moment. The emergency response teams— search and rescue, medical teams and so on—have already been dispatched, as he knows. There will be an ongoing assessment of need and asks. That is all being co-ordinated by certain non-governmental organisations working with those states. We will listen to those needs and see what more we can do, but as the Prime Minister has indicated, we will assist.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Yesterday’s visit by President Zelensky was magnificent. For me, it showed the very best of politics, as politicians from all sides, and from the House of Lords, came together to sit and stand in Westminster Hall listening to that great man. Of course, we wish him and the brave people of Ukraine every success as they face the challenges ahead.
Yesterday was also a reminder for me of the fantastic work that is done here to keep us safe: the security effort by the police and the Doorkeepers, and the work of our clerical staff, catering staff, and everybody involved in keeping this place running. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking everyone for making yesterday happen and, more broadly, for keeping us all safe in Westminster?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for placing his thanks on record. A huge amount goes into organising such a visit, and this one was at comparatively short notice. I thank him for providing all of us in the Chamber with the opportunity to put on the record our thanks to all the staff of the House, not just for what they did yesterday, but for what they do for us all every day.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Over the past few nights, I have lost sleep after hearing about and seeing a horrific incident that took place in which a young black child was physically assaulted and abused by three young white children. I understand that a police investigation is taking place and that, because of parliamentary protocol, we cannot go into too much detail, but this incident has torn through the heart of so many communities, and they are in pain and outraged because of what is happening.
It is the responsibility of local government and central Government to make sure that this situation, which cuts across so many Departments, is being investigated fully. Will the Leader of the House speak to her Education colleagues to look into what safeguarding practices are and are not taking place in that school? Will they address the professional performance of the school’s teachers? Will she ensure that justice has been served by speaking to her Home Office colleagues to make sure that the victims and their families are being protected and are receiving all the support they need? Finally, will she agree to come back to the House, after speaking to her colleagues, and make sure that a statement is given to update the House on exactly what has happened and what is happening with this case?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about this shocking case. The hon. Lady correctly says that it is being investigated. Those investigations are separate from Government, and rightly so. The next questions to the Department for Education—the matter affects other Departments as well, but that is the prime Department—will not be until the 27th of this month, so I will write on her behalf to raise her concerns with the Secretary of State.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House please set aside time in this House for a debate on the international socialist concept of so-called 15-minute cities and 20-minute neighbourhoods? Ultra low emission zones in their present form do untold economic damage to any city. The second step, after such zones, will take away personal freedoms as well. Sheffield is already on this journey, and I do not want Doncaster, which also has a Labour-run socialist council, to do the same. Low emission zones cost the taxpayer money—simple as. However, 15-minute cities will cost us our personal freedom, and that cannot be right.
Penny Mordaunt
Whatever the motivations for this new policy that some councils are adopting, the lives of the hard-working people of this country are complicated enough, especially at the moment when we are trying to boost the local economy and to enable tradesmen and sole traders to boost their income. It is right that people raise concerns about this kind of policy, and where such policies are brought forward, local communities ought to be properly consulted.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The prepayment meter scandal this winter was entirely avoidable. I have been contacted since the summer by Bath constituents with heartbreaking stories of confusion and hardship. According to Citizens Advice, 3.2 million people were left in the cold and dark after running out of credit. Can we have a statement from the relevant Minister about when the Government knew about the scale of the forced installation of prepayment meters, what they did about it, and why they are still opposed to an outright ban?
Penny Mordaunt
I know that this is an issue of concern to many Members across the House. Certainly we have seen, from the volume of warrants being issued at magistrates courts, that it has affected a large number of people. Anticipating that hon. Members would want to be able to provide good advice and support to their constituents who may have wrongly been put on a prepayment meter, I have already raised the issue with the relevant Department and asked it to put together a “Dear colleague” letter, so that where we find that vulnerable individuals have been forced on to prepayment meters, Members have the right information to ensure that the situation can be rectified swiftly. I shall make sure that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has heard the hon. Lady’s comments today.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I place on the record my concerns and condolences for all of the people affected by the terrible earthquake in Syria and Turkey.
Domestically, Royal Mail is reviewing customer service points to reduce markedly the number available. That will affect us all and constituents across the country, making it more inconvenient for people who are not at home when deliveries arrive to go to a customer service point and collect their parcels or post. Apparently, Royal Mail will not consult the public, just Ofcom, and will ask if it can reduce the service from six days a week to five. Can we have a debate in Government time on this vast reduction in service, which will be inconvenient for all our constituents?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for getting his concerns on the record. He is absolutely right that many people, especially the most vulnerable in our society, will be dependent on those services. I will make sure that the relevant Department has heard his concerns. Royal Mail often writes to Members when such concerns are expressed. I hope it will be in touch with my hon. Friend later today.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that for many years I had the great pleasure of sitting next to Ann Clwyd, our former colleague in this House, who is now my constituent. She has written to me once again, you will not be surprised to know. Due to a difficulty with her leg, she recently had to purchase an electric bed in order to elevate it. Subsequently, she found out that it could have been be subject to a VAT exemption. However, the shop that she purchased it from, Dreams, does not grant that VAT exemption on its beds, classifying them as entertainment rather than medical devices. She went on to survey all the shops in Cardiff and found that half of them offer VAT exemptions and half do not. May we have a statement from the Treasury on how people in that position can take advantage of the VAT exemption when they have medical needs, so that they can rest easy in their beds?
Penny Mordaunt
I am glad that our much-loved former Member is still using her formidable campaigning skills and has not retired them. Ann and the hon. Gentleman have raised an interesting point, and I will make sure that the Department knows about it.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Two weeks ago today, 14-year-old Josh was killed while walking along Laughton Road between Laughton Common and Thurcroft. I know that the whole House will join me in sending our prayers and condolences to his friends and family. Sadly, such accidents are becoming more common. This morning, there was another accident on the same stretch of road. That road, like many connecting the towns and villages of Rother Valley, has no footpath or street lights, and is subject to the national speed limit. There are entire villages without lighting or footpaths, such as Morthen, which vehicles may legally drive through at speeds of 60 mph. May we have a debate on giving local committees and parish councils the powers they need to force local councils to put in place appropriate traffic calming and speed restriction measures, so that Rother Valley can avoid any more road-related deaths?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about this tragic case. I am sure that all Members will want to send their condolences and sympathies to Josh’s family and friends. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that many measures can be put in place. If local authorities do not act, it is very concerning to our constituents. The next Transport questions are on 2 March, but in the light of the circumstances, I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend’s comments.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The long-awaited energy bills support scheme alternative fund is expected to open for applications on 27 February, but there is no clarity about whether the 200,000 park home residents who pay for their energy through an intermediary—the park home manager—will be eligible. Will the Leader of the House make a statement to provide clarity about the eligibility of park home residents to support with their energy bills? I have asked umpteen written and oral questions, and I am still unclear whether they will be eligible.
Penny Mordaunt
That is an incredibly important point. I shall contact the relevant Department after these questions and ask it to update colleagues, perhaps via a “Dear colleague” letter, given that we are about to go into recess.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Outdoor learning centres are an important part of my constituency, contributing jobs and visitors to the local economy. As importantly, they provide a unique and effective setting for young and old to learn not only about the outdoors but about themselves and to develop skills for life and work. These centres now find themselves squeezed by post-pandemic reviews, rising energy costs and tightening education budgets. What advice can my right hon. Friend give me about bringing the opportunities and challenges facing outdoor learning centres and the outdoor learning sector before the House and to the attention of Ministers?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, although skills are vital, all the other things that such facilities boost, such as attitude and confidence, are incredibly important to people. I would suggest two things. He has already done the first, which is to get his concerns on the record. I also know that he is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on outdoor learning, and if his APPG were to do a report highlighting the concerns of the sector, that would be an excellent subject to have a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate about.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and I have petitioned the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill Select Committee in respect of the impact that the Bill will have on the Metrolink line to Ashton-under-Lyne, where it will be severed and mothballed for the years of construction of the High Speed 2 rail line. We have had our petition to the Committee challenged by HS2 Ltd and now have to go before the Committee in March to argue why we should have our petition heard. I refer the Leader of the House to Standing Order No. 91B, “Right of Members of Parliament to have petition considered”:
“Any Members of Parliament whose constituencies are directly affected by the works proposed by a Bill shall be permitted to have their petition against the Bill considered by the committee.”
Why do we therefore have to argue our case?
Penny Mordaunt
I am in danger of completely agreeing with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. It would be very unusual if Members were prevented or discouraged from doing that, and I would be interested to see what HS2 Ltd’s grounds are for trying to block the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues from doing it. I will check the Standing Orders and ask my team to come back to his office with some advice.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
This week is National Apprenticeship Week. Across Keighley and Ilkley we have some fantastic businesses that go above and beyond to make sure apprentices get the best educational journey within their business. I have been lucky enough to visit a few—Spooner, A1 Roper, Fibreline, Teconnex, West Yorkshire Spinners and, of course, the mighty Byworth Boilers—but there are many more. We all know that investing in skills and development and helping young people discover their career path is so important, and the business sector plays a key role in that. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the business sector for the role it plays, and will she permit Government time for a debate on apprenticeships, which are so important in driving the skills agenda that this Government are so dedicated to?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his timely question and congratulate all those organisations in his constituency that are delivering on this agenda. He will know that the Government are increasing investment in apprenticeships to £2.7 billion. Since 2010, there have been more than 5.3 million apprenticeship starts, 3 million of which were among under-25s. We have also seen year- on-year growth of degree-level apprenticeships, with over 170,000 starts since their introduction.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I share the Government’s concern about vulnerable women in the Scottish prison estate who are required to be incarcerated alongside men who self-identify as female, and who often have convictions for rape and other sexual offences. I disagree with their use of a section 35 order, but I would like a Government statement or a debate on the situation south of the border, which predates and dwarfs the situation in Scotland. According to the latest statistics from the UK Ministry of Justice, 230 such transgender people are in prison in England and Wales, 97 of whom have a conviction for a sexual offence, 44 of them for rape, and they are incarcerated in the women’s estate. Can we therefore move from a constitutional question to the fundamental question of how we protect vulnerable women prisoners from abuse by predatory males?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman’s position. If memory serves me correctly, the UK Government strengthened their position on this matter about four years ago, but I will ask the Lord Chancellor to look at the issues he raises.
On the use of section 35, there are many issues, including social issues, on which we should have regard to the whole United Kingdom when we legislate. The social fabric of the United Kingdom, and what it is to be a citizen of this country, is incredibly important. I wish the SNP had listened and thought about the consequences of its legislation, as it was warned before the legislation was passed.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Residents of the hamlet of Askett are dumbfounded by a perverse Planning Inspectorate decision to permit illegally developed plots on a field between Askett and Meadle, contrary to two previous Planning Inspectorate decisions, leaving the door open for a dangerous precedent to be set on open countryside that everyone believed to be a protected buffer zone next to the town of Princes Risborough. A petition put together in the past few days already shows that 84% of residents are opposed to this decision. Can we have an urgent debate in Government time on how we can much better hold the Planning Inspectorate to account, get consistency in approach and put residents first?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about these circumstances. My hon. Friend has clearly been able to identify the tremendous strength of feeling in his community on that point. This would be an excellent topic for a debate, and he will know how to apply for one in the usual way.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Next week our fantastic Angel of the North sculpture turns 25 years old. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the Angel of the North a happy 25th birthday? I pay tribute to the vision of Gateshead Council leaders, including my constituent Alderman Sid Henderson, who were so instrumental in making sure the Angel of the North came about.
I also congratulate the schools that are taking part in a heritage project on the Angel of the North, including, in addition to the schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), Birtley East Community Primary School and Kibblesworth Academy in Blaydon. Can we have a debate on the importance of public art to our communities?
Penny Mordaunt
The Angel of the North will need one big birthday cake. I am sure all Members will join me in wishing the Angel of the North a happy birthday. The hon. Lady is right to give credit to all those who enabled the creation of this incredible piece of public art, and to all those educators and arts groups that are using it to inspire new generations.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Padiham greenway in my constituency is used by hundreds, if not thousands, of residents for leisure and to get to work. However, since June 2021, the Padiham greenway bridge, which crosses the Calder, has been closed because of concerns over structural damage and mineshafts underneath it. I have been working with Sustrans, the Environment Agency and the Coal Authority to try to find a resolution so that the bridge can be reopened and residents can use it, but to date we have not managed to find one, and more inspections are necessary. Could I enlist the Leader of the House’s help and also ask for a debate in Government time on the importance of local greenways for leisure and commuting to work?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The bridge sounds like a vital route for his constituents, and I shall happily raise the issue with Ministers to see what assistance and advice they can give him. His assiduous campaigning has resulted in the chief executive of the Coal Authority offering to meet him to discuss the issue further, and I wish him luck in those discussions.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Can I add the alternative fuel payment to the Leader of the House’s list? She has answered questions over a number of weeks, as have Ministers, about how constituents who are off the grid—particularly those who use oil—will receive the payment through their electricity companies, who will know that they are not on the gas network. I have received a number of complaints from constituents and businesses saying that their electricity companies have no idea that they use oil rather than the gas network for heating. Will the Leader of the House either arrange for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement about how these payments will work practically, or add it to her “Dear colleague” letter so that we can keep our constituents updated and, crucially, get them the money the Government have promised them?
Penny Mordaunt
In addition to raising these matters with the Department, as I mentioned before, I have looked at some of the statistics about who has had these payments. The bulk of people are getting them, but many constituents clearly are still in the dark about what they should be doing. I shall certainly add that to my list of things to talk to the Department about, and I hope we will be able to give colleagues the detailed information they need on the many schemes, so that they can give their constituents confidence.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
As a former regular customer of Brittany Ferries, I am very familiar with the Leader of the House’s constituency, and a fine corner of England it is too. Although she will agree that it cannot compete with the garden of Scotland that is Angus, one thing that links those two lovely constituencies is the problem of littering from cars. Her constituency in the bottom of England, mine in the north-east of Scotland and every constituency in between is blighted by littering from cars and by fly-tipping. Can we have a debate in Government time about how we can use the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database to take much more severe action against littering from cars and particularly fly-tipping, which is a huge problem for my constituents and, I am sure, those of the Leader of the House?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which upsets enormous numbers of people. Of course, the bulk of the public are very responsible about not dropping litter, but new ideas are coming on stream about how we can better find the offenders who are largely responsible, particularly for fly-tipping. The next Transport questions are on 2 March, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue then. Of course, he should also raise it with the local authorities concerned, as they will often be best placed to look at what camera infrastructure and so forth currently exists.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I represent a rural community with 23 separate villages, and there are 24,000 people in households with no access to a motorised vehicle. We are totally dependent on public transport, so yesterday’s announcement in the media by the bus companies—which was not discussed first with me, as the local MP—that they intend to again cut services in Rthe communities I represent will send a shudder of fear through all those villages. Does the Leader of the House agree that the deregulation of buses has been a disastrous mistake for rural communities such as mine and many others throughout our country? Can we have a debate in Government time to see whether we can find a different way of operating public transport services, and particularly buses, in the future?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and he is absolutely right: for many people in rural communities, those bus services are a complete lifeline and allow them to go about their daily business. He will know that we are providing up to £60 million over the next few months to assist with running those services and to keep fares down so that people can still use them, and we have also invested another £3 billion in such improvements. There are particular challenges, in part because of the fall-off in bus use during covid, but I shall make sure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Some 300,000 people are missing out on the warm home discount to which they are entitled. Would it be possible to have a debate in Government time to discuss that, and also the confusing and failing Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which has not given the decent homes standard another funding uplift to cover the deep problems with damp and mould across the whole of the housing estate in the UK? If there was decent homes funding and we could unlock those 300,000 applications for warm home discounts, we could have more people experiencing a better winter during which they do not freeze.
Penny Mordaunt
Again, I shall certainly add the hon. Lady’s name to my letter over to the Department concerned. A lot of this is about giving hon. Members detailed information about the many and quite complicated schemes, so that they can help their constituents and we can also best identify those people who may not have got what they are entitled to at the moment. Of course, we want to future-proof homes and make them as energy-efficient as possible. She will know about the schemes the Government have put forward for improving standards and insulating homes. Again, her local authority ought to have a plan for the particular housing stock that needs such attention.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
A constituent of mine, Keith, was born in the United States, but was brought to the UK by his British parents at 15 months old, and he has lived, worked and retired in the UK as a British citizen. So imagine his horror when he was opening a new bank account, and the bank told him he might be liable to pay taxes in the United States. If he does not provide the bank with a certificate that costs over £2,000, it will report him to HMRC. I am all for clamping down on tax avoidance, but can we have a Government statement on why UK banks are so beholden to the United States and on what steps the Government are taking to protect law-abiding British taxpayers?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s case. This is a classic situation in which Members of Parliament can make a difference, and I Rhope the hon. Gentleman will intervene and help his constituent. If he has any difficulty in doing that and needs help from the UK Government, we will be very happy to assist him.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Healthy Start scheme is a vital source of income for low-income families with young children, particularly newborns. The price of food has increased by 16% in the past year, while the cost of the cheapest milk formula has risen by some 22%. There are distressing stories of parents desperately mixing flour into milk formula to make it stretch further now that the cost of that formula exceeds the weekly Healthy Start allowance. Could the Leader of the House tell us when the Government will advise whether they intend to freeze the Healthy Start allowance yet again this year, and will she agree to a debate in Government time on the merits of the Healthy Start allowance and the need for an increase at least in line with inflation?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I hope he will have noticed the announcement today on family hubs and the local authorities that are particularly being focused on in that announcement. I would encourage all colleagues who have particular concerns about budgets to make representations to the Chancellor in the usual way, and I shall make sure he has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I raised a point of order last night, and the Deputy Speaker advised me to bring this forward as a business question, so I am doing so. Dáithí’s law in Northern Ireland has the potential to save hundreds of lives of people desperately in need of organ transplants. All political parties in Northern Ireland agree on the need for this lifesaving legislation. The only thing stopping it is the mechanism for introducing the legislation, due to the current impasse caused by the Northern Ireland protocol. Twice now, the Government have taken action in this House to enact legislation—the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 and the abortion legislation relating to Northern Ireland—despite the opposition of political parties in the Northern Ireland Executive. Dáithí’s law on organ transplants has the full support of all political parties in Northern Ireland and it will save lives. As our House’s representative in Cabinet, will the Leader of the House raise this with colleagues and urge action on an issue that will benefit all of the people of Northern Ireland?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I know that he cares passionately about this issue and will continue to campaign on it. He did note in his point of order yesterday that the UK Government had acted to put in place legislation on other matters when there was no Northern Ireland Assembly. This is clearly a positive and proactive thing, and the fastest way to get it to happen—he knows what I am going to say—is for the Northern Ireland parties to use the power they have to recall the Assembly, and they could then have the legislation in place in a matter of days. I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister in the Northern Ireland Office know about the hon. Gentleman’s campaign—I know he will continue it—but that is the answer for how to get this to happen in the swiftest possible way.
Point of Order
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to raise two points, about which I have given notice to both the Speaker’s Office and to the hon. Member to whom I will refer.
First, on 30 January the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), responded to my written parliamentary question 131454 by directing me toward a previous freedom of information request. However, my office, the House of Commons Library and the Table Office have all been unable to trace this FOI reference, which is not in a recognisable format. I understand that the House authorities are consulting with the Treasury to investigate this further.
Secondly, on 17 January I took part in a debate on the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Order 2022, the sole purpose of which is to set a variable in the formula used to calculate the small business non-domestic rating multiplier for the coming year. I asked the Financial Secretary three times to clarify why this variable was increasing. I checked her final answer with the House of Commons Library, which said it did not think what the Minister said was “entirely accurate”.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be grateful for your advice, first, on whose responsibility it is to ensure that responses to written parliamentary questions are accurate; and secondly, on how the record can be corrected when a Minister inadvertently gives incorrect information in Committee?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. On his first point, it is not acceptable for Ministers to provide answers referring to material that is not accessible. Answers should be free-standing or at least refer to material that can be accessed relatively easily.
On the hon. Member’s second point, Ministers and other Members, especially Opposition Front Benchers, sometimes take a different view about whether or not a response is accurate, and the Speaker cannot arbitrate about such differences. Ministers are obviously responsible for their answers. However, if a Minister accepts that a mistake has been made, they should correct the record. That is required of them by both the ministerial code and a resolution of this House. If the Minister does not accept that a correction is required, I am sure the hon. Member will find ways of pursuing his points in any event.
The hon. Member is very lucky that the Leader of the House is here and will have heard his comments, and I am sure she will take them back for consideration. I hope that any other Ministers this will be fed back to will have heard my response to the two issues, and I hope that they will help provide a more useful answer in the first instance and reflect on whether a correction is required in the second instance. As I say, the Leader of the House will have heard that as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you. I also thank the Leader of the House for answering the business questions.
Private Rented Sector
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. Clive Betts, Chair of the Committee, will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. I emphasise that these should be brief questions, not full speeches or reflections. I also emphasise that questions should be directed to the Chair of the Committee, Clive Betts, not to the relevant Government Minister. Front-Bench Members may take part in questioning, should they wish to do so.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am tempted to note that perhaps if Members direct their questions to me, they might get slightly better answers than from the Minister—that is probably very unfair at the beginning of the statement, because the Minister came and helpfully gave evidence to the Committee and I want to put that on record right at the beginning.
The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has published its report on reforming the private rented sector. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for a statement on that report. I also thank the staff of the Committee and its specialist advisers for their support and assistance with producing the report. I thank the other members of the Committee who, once again, agreed our report unanimously.
The Committee launched its inquiry following the publication of the Government’s White Paper, “A Fairer Private Rented Sector”, which sets out the Government’s long-term vision for the sector, particularly on matters of security of tenure and housing quality. We have been told that the Government plan to implement the proposals in the White Paper this Session through a renters’ reform Bill, and we look forward to that. We hope that the Government will examine our findings closely when finalising the Bill.
Some 4.6 million tenants in England are in the private rented sector today, representing 19% of households. Twenty years ago those tenants would typically have been students or young professionals saving for their first home. Today’s tenants are on average older, perhaps living with children, and more likely to be on low incomes. In the course of our inquiry we spoke to organisations representing tenants and landlords. We found that too often tenants are afraid to complain when things go wrong, due to the threat that they may be evicted without fault.
We also heard how private rented accommodation is more likely to be of poor quality than homes in other tenures. Some 21% of private rented homes are classed as non-decent, and category 1 hazards, such as serious damp and mould, are present in 12% of rental properties. However, the majority of private tenants are satisfied with their homes, and the majority of landlords manage their properties well. But any system of regulation has to deal effectively with those who do not—the rogues and, in extremis, the downright criminal.
In that context, the proposal to repeal section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, which allows for “no fault” evictions, is a welcome step in giving tenants the confidence to complain to landlords without fear of eviction. While the Committee recognises that the majority of private landlords have no desire or incentive to evict tenants without good reason, we concluded that the repeal of section 21 is necessary to stop unfair evictions and give tenants the security they deserve. Once section 21 is repealed, landlords will be reliant on section 8 of the Housing Act to evict tenants, particularly in cases concerning rent arrears and antisocial behaviour.
The Government intend to give landlords new grounds for possession when they wish to sell, or move themselves or close family members into their property. The Committee has identified that these new grounds could be exploited by bad landlords as a backdoor to “no fault” evictions. To avoid that, we recommend that landlords should not be allowed to sell or occupy their property during the first 12 months of a tenancy agreement, and that a property should not be marketed or re-let within six months of either ground being used.
Another challenge that risks undermining the Government’s progress on tenancy reform is in respect of court hearings required under the section 8 process. As it stands, courts are already struggling to process housing cases quickly enough, and an increase in the number of section 8 possession hearings risks overwhelming the system. In our report we recommend that a specialist housing court be introduced. That repeats our predecessor Committee’s recommendation from 2018. The Government rejected that recommendation at the time, saying that there are more effective ways to increase the efficiency and timeliness of the court process.
We are calling again for a specialist housing court to be introduced, as we have no confidence that court reforms will happen quickly enough. Either way, the Government must ensure that courts can process claims quickly, efficiently and fairly for all parties. That should include fast-tracking possession claims in respect of non-payment of rent, antisocial behaviour and serious cases of disrepair. Both landlords and tenants need that process to work effectively.
Our inquiry also considered the White Paper’s proposal that fixed-term tenancies be abolished. While we found that that would go a long way towards ensuring security of tenure for most tenants, the Committee recommends one exception, which is that this should not apply to the general student private rented sector. Students will be all too familiar with the annual dash for accommodation, with many university towns and cities now seeing queues around blocks to view properties that are reserved within hours of being listed. Abolishing 12-month fixed tenancies for that group could make letting to students much less attractive for private landlords and exacerbate the problem. Most students expect their tenancy to mirror the academic year, so we recommend that fixed-term contracts be retained for that group.
On the White Paper’s proposals on housing conditions, the Committee supports the Government’s plan to introduce a legally binding decent homes standard. This will bring standards for the private rented sector into line with those of social housing. We also welcome the proposed new property portal, which will serve as a central platform and information point with details of landlords and every property they let. That will support local authorities in enforcing the new standards, and will better inform tenants about prospective landlords and properties. However, we have heard concerns about the way the portal is being designed, in that it will only be a document-holding database. We were told that if effort is put into the design to digitise the documents it holds—particularly gas safety certificates, for example—that could be codified and automatically flag any issues, rather than tenants having to search for it.
The Committee believes that the cost to landlords of implementing the new decent homes standard is proportionate, given the £10,000 cap on costs that applies to most improvement works. However, the Committee has seen evidence that demonstrates a strong correlation between the energy efficiency of a property and its levels of damp and mould. We therefore recommend that the Government consider new financing solutions where works to improve energy efficiency may exceed that cap. If the Government are serious about raising standards in the private rented sector, they must ensure that local authorities are fully equipped to enforce the new regime. In the absence of extra funding, they must consult with local authorities to ensure that the regime can become self-financing, as well as address the shortage of qualified enforcement staff. Local authorities must be confident that they can collect appropriately large financial penalties imposed on those bad landlords who breach the standards, and get back the costs that they incur in taking court cases, which are often denied by the courts at the time.
Our report notes that data points to an apparent decline in the private rented sector, which may be associated with the rise of short and holiday-let markets. We heard that some smaller landlords believe the proposed reforms will drive them out of the sector. We urge the Government to review the impact of recent tax changes in the buy-to- let market. More broadly, the Government ought to make clear what role they wish the private rented sector to play in the wider housing mix in future, and assess their proposed reforms against that.
Although the Committee broadly welcomes the Government’s proposals for reform—I repeat, we welcome what the Minister had to say when she came to the Committee—we have some recommendations for where we believe we can improve the proposals. In the end—we challenged the Minister on this—the White Paper fails to address the most serious challenge currently facing many private renters, which is the high cost of renting caused by the housing crisis. Simply put, there has been a decades-long failure by successive Governments to build enough homes. The affordability crisis in housing can only be remedied by a significant increase in house building. The Committee previously recommended that we should be building 90,000 social rented homes every year out of the 300,000 total we all want to be achieved. Although we recognise that that was not the focus of the White Paper, there are still many unanswered questions that we hope the Government will eventually address.
I thank everybody who gave evidence to the Committee as part of this inquiry, and I pay particular tribute to Paul Owen, our Committee specialist, for his work on housing matters in recent years. I am sure that reform of the private rented sector is far less challenging than his new job in the House, which is something to do with Brexit.
It is my hope that the Committee’s report will be considered carefully by the Government and our recommendations will be implemented in full through the forthcoming renters reform Bill. In the meantime, we await a timely response from the Government—that has not always been the case for most of our recent reports —and I commend the report to the House.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s estimate that driving relatively small landlords with a few properties out of the market is the intent of Government policy, or are we just collateral damage?
Mr Betts
I thank the hon. Member for his question, which is one that he must address to the Minister. Certainly, we had evidence that the reforms particularly hit smaller landlords who personally own their properties, rather than the larger landlords who own their properties through a company and can continue to offset their interest payments against their rental income.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I congratulate the Select Committee on another first- rate report, and I trust the Government will give the recommendations serious consideration as we look forward to the long-overdue renters reform Bill.
The Opposition wholly agree with the report’s conclusion that the affordability crisis in the private rented sector can only be properly solved by a significant increase in housebuilding, particularly affordable housebuilding, with social rented housing as a large proportion of affordable supply. Given that we are going backwards in that regard, with the latest data released by the Department indicating a net loss of 14,000 social homes last year, what does my hon. Friend and the Committee believe the Government could and should do right now to arrest this loss and boost markedly the supply of genuinely affordable houses that the country so desperately needs?
Mr Betts
In the previous report, we did not look specifically at mechanisms for increasing housing supply. In this report, we recommended that 90,000 social homes are built a year and said that that could cost up to £10 billion a year, which is about £70 billion more than has been provided through social housing grant. The Government must give that serious consideration, because the housing crisis will not go away unless something significant is done. The worry is, and this is something the Committee is looking at, that housing associations and councils will start to build fewer homes because of the pressures from disrepair, particularly around mould and damp, and because they are fixing safety defects post-Grenfell, all of which are adding further demands on their limited capital resources.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It was an absolute privilege to be the previous Minister who was responsible for the White Paper. As an accidental landlord myself, I feel like I have a bit of a vested interest, but I am still evangelical in my support for the idea of a landlord portal because it will do two things: connect landlords to excellent advice available from the Government; and allow the Government to communicate directly with those 2.5 million landlords on environmental benefit schemes, reducing carbon emissions and so on. Does the Chair of the Select Committee feel my enthusiastic support for the portal and the difference it might make to local councils in driving up standards in the private rented sector under their control?
Mr Betts
This is probably not the first occasion that I agree with the hon. Member. The portal is an extremely important step forward, and it will bring that information together. We talked about the importance of how it is delivered, which will involve a lot of discussions with landlords and councils to get it right, digitalising some of the information so that it is accurate and proper. It also ought to help with the problems that many councils have in finding out who owns a property, as bad landlords often move it from one family member to another and the council has the challenge of chasing it round. I hope the information held in the portal will enable councils to enforce more appropriately in future.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Chair of the Committee will know that the gap between market rents in Bristol and the local housing allowance is among the worst in the country. The vast majority of private rented homes are simply not available to people on benefits. I note that the Committee was told that that was a matter for the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, but does he intend to carry on pursuing this issue of the failure of the local housing allowance to keep pace with market rents?
Mr Betts
Yes, because it is a recommendation in our report. Wherever the reply to our report comes from—I presume it will come from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but no doubt it will come after consultation with other Ministers—the situation is one that the Committee will follow through. In the end, if there are so many properties in an area that are offered for a rent that someone who is working on a relatively low income cannot afford, and the housing allowance does not cover it, that is a problem that we simply must address. We cannot go on ignoring it, and that is what the Committee says. We ought to get back to the previous 30% decile position, and look at whether even that is satisfactory in some areas to make housing genuinely affordable.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In considering the report, one issue of concern is inadvertent consequences. Just abolishing section 21 evictions will almost certainly lead to more tenants being evicted under section 8, and with a county court judgment against them they will not be able to get another tenancy. Does the hon. Member agree, therefore, that when the Government finally come out with the long promised renters reform Bill, it is important that it is not only comprehensive but has pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee, to enable the Government to get it absolutely right?
Mr Betts
That would be a good idea because, in the end, how the court process and the ways of resolving disputes will work are key to the reforms. We ought to be able to talk through that before we get to a final conclusion. Something like the small claims court, with mediation embedded, might be the best way to resolve most of these disputes quickly, but there is nothing there at present that can do that.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked part of my question, but, while I welcome the proposed changes around section 21 and the end of fixed-term tenancies for all but students, does my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) have any concerns about the deliverability of the recommendations, given that we are now on our 15th Housing Minister in 13 years?
Mr Betts
It is not my job to select Housing Ministers, unfortunately. Maybe one reform we could introduce in future is Select Committees choosing Ministers, but we are not there yet. In any organisation, if someone is there for only a few weeks or months, it is harder for them to do the job. I am pleased that the existing Housing Minister has been there longer than a few weeks now. Hopefully that brings some stability and we can get the Bill through shortly to implement the reforms.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am sure the Committee Chairman will recognise that there is not one single housing market, even in the private rented sector. The markets are different in different parts of the country and even within different neighbourhoods. Sadly, in many parts of the north and north-east, the private rented sector has become housing of last resort for far too many people. We have many negligent, absentee and rogue landlords who employee deliberately negligent managing agents. Does my hon. Friend believe that any additional regulatory powers are required to remove rogue managing agents from the sector?
Mr Betts
We did not specifically look at that, but my hon. Friend makes a very good point. We made the following recommendation: the Government propose one housing ombudsman for landlords, and a separate housing ombudsman, or system of mediation, for agents, but why cannot we bring those together, and have just one private rented sector ombudsman, covering landlords and agents?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Select Committee and its Chair for their report. Private rents are rising dramatically—by as much as 35% or 40%, in some instances of which I am aware. For many renting in the private sector, that means that they could well be evicted. Tenants are betwixt a rock and a hard place. Did the Select Committee consider whether agreements should contain a proviso that would protect tenants from undue rent increases and the alternative of council accommodation?
Mr Betts
The issue of rent in the private rented sector is clearly important. We did not propose any change relating to the first time a tenancy is let, but we recognise that there must be some mechanism for agreeing rent increases once the tenancy is let. Otherwise, landlords could simply jack up the rent to an extortionate amount to get a tenant out. The Government propose letting landlords suggest increases, and tenants going to tribunal if they do not agree with them. We do not know why the Government resisted the proposal that there be built-in clauses in tenancy agreements—many agreements have such a clause—that say that rents can go up by a certain amount each year. The agreements could also include a break clause, so that there could be a reassessment every few years. Otherwise, we may find that the tribunal system, like the court system, gets completely overloaded. That would be another unintended consequence, which we want to avoid.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement, and for answering questions.
Bill presented
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Michael Gove, Mr Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary David T. C. Davies and Mr Steve Baker, presented a Bill to make provision to extend the period following the Northern Ireland Assembly election of 5 May 2022 during which Ministers may be appointed and after which the Secretary of State must propose a date for another election; and to allow the Secretary of State to propose a date for another election before Ministers have been appointed.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 20 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 247) with explanatory notes (Bill 247-EN).
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter; I gave Mr Speaker advance notice, as this has a bearing on the subject matter of today’s business. I have been attempting since May last year to register my interest in a large-scale change of policy by the parliamentary contributory pension fund, which will now invest in renewable energy. Those investments will amount to no less than 10% of the fund, but the registrar and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards have not allowed me to register an interest, citing a provision of the rules that says the pension scheme does not have to be registered as an interest because it is available to all Members.
You may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the rules also said that unremunerated directorships did not have to be registered; however, the commissioner has said that they nonetheless need to be, in view of the commissioner’s assessment of the need to register anything that might reasonably be thought to be relevant. That is regardless of whether a link to the company to which the unremunerated directorship related was declared. There is large-scale investment in renewables by the parliamentary contributory pension fund, from which MPs benefit, at a time when there is a Government-mandated transition to renewables and huge subsidy of such investments. In my view, it is obvious that members of the public might reasonably think that the change to investment in renewables might influence MPs’ actions or words, or be relevant, and the commissioner and registrar should allow MPs to register that interest.
I am grateful to the registrar and the new commissioner for the helpful dialogue that I have had with them on the issue; I believe that the latter has written to Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could help, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note that information about the renewable investment policy is not at all easy to find in the pension scheme documents that are available on Parliament’s website, hence the delay in my coming across it. I wish to ask how you might ensure that this interest can be registered, so that there can be no perception of an undeclared interest, no institutional bias in Parliament towards policies favourable to renewable investment, and no attempt to cover anything up.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is independent, and it is difficult for the Chair to comment on what is a matter for the independent commissioner. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record. The Committee on Standards might like to take note of the issue. I am sure that his comments will be passed on, and if there is anything on which we need to come back to him, I will ensure that we do.
Independent Review of Net Zero
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Independent Review of Net Zero.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and should declare that I am the chair of the independent review of net zero that we are discussing. I thank the Backbench Committee and its Chair for agreeing to this debate. We had an excellent debate in the other place, led by Baroness Hayman, on the recommendations in the “Mission Zero” report, which was published on 13 January. Members may recall that the review was commissioned by the previous Administration, and the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), in September 2022. The review’s remit was to allow us to understand how we can transition to net zero in a more affordable, efficient manner that is pro-business and pro-growth.
Having been appointed chair of the review, I undertook what I understand is perhaps the largest ever engagement exercise specifically on net zero conducted in Government. We received 1,800 written responses to our consultation. I held 52 roundtables, virtually and in person. I toured every region of England and every devolved nation of the UK, and spoke in person to around 1,000 people to understand directly the challenges and opportunities of energy transition for the UK. In that consultation, the message that I heard from the overwhelming majority of respondents was that when it comes to the opportunities that net zero and energy transition can bring to the UK, Westminster, Whitehall and Government are falling behind the curve. Thousands of infrastructure projects are ready to take place, and thousands of businesses see the opportunity in net zero.
The opportunities are not just national; 2022 marked a tipping point in international opportunities for green technology. First, Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine woke countries up to their dependency on foreign-owned gas and oil. We have to be able to provide domestic sources of energy in future. That is why interest in renewable and clean technologies has escalated. Not least, as the report was being prepared, the US passed its Inflation Reduction Act, which provides for $369 billion of investment in green and climate technologies for the future, and sets out a clear direction of travel, and a programmatic approach to investing in carbon capture, utilisation and storage technology, hydrogen, renewable power and new nuclear power. At the same time, the European Union has taken forward its “Fit for 55” programme, and has provided further detail of how it will invest up to €1 trillion in the European green deal.
The review comes at a time when we are at a crossroads. On the one hand, we could continue on our trajectory as leaders on climate policy. We were the first G7 country to sign net zero into law. We could carry on showing leadership, as the only major industrial nation that has been able to reduce its emissions by 40%. Or we could take the other turning—a turning that is not zero and would see us resile from our climate commitments, and from the investments that we have made. Ultimately, the choice of not zero will cost more than continuing in the direction of working towards net zero. That is the choice. I was the Minister at the Dispatch Box 43 months ago, taking forward legislation to ensure we could be the first G7 country to sign net zero into law. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) for his commitment and congratulate him on his new role. I understand that this is probably his first debate as a Minister in the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. It may even be the first debate that the new Department responds to. I am delighted that we have a new Department with “Net Zero” in its title. I hope he enjoys reading the “Mission Zero” report. I am sorry it is 340 pages. I am not holding him to having read every page for this debate, but hopefully it will form part of his weekend box.
Chris Skidmore
It needs to be sooner than that. Basically, we have an opportunity now for the Government to look at the recommendations in the report.
The report is divided into two sections. The first part is a new narrative on net zero. As the chair of the net zero review team, I put on record my thanks to my fantastic team of 22 dedicated civil servants who were drawn from across all Departments. I can see one in the Box now, who is working with the Minister. If it was not for the team, we would not have produced a report of such quality. We set out a new narrative on net zero. It is not some kind of eco-project or religion, and I do not stand here thinking that I want the imposition from the centre of top-down policies. I recognise that the challenge we face is to ensure that everyone in society is able to see the opportunities of the energy transition for the future. There will be challenges, and the report is open about those challenges and costs. At the same time, there is an international opportunity: we are now in a global net zero race. We can either continue to lead or we will follow, and the cost of following will always be greater than the opportunity of showing first mover advantage. There are no free rider opportunities here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had been to all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ascertain opinions for the independent review. Can he tell us what the opinions were in Northern Ireland? Were they similar to everywhere else, so we can go forward collectively? If we can do that, we can achieve our goals. We cannot achieve them if we are divided.
Chris Skidmore
I had a fascinating opportunity to visit Belfast to hold two separate evidence roundtables. The first was with Belfast City Council, which gave me the public sector perspective on the challenges of decarbonisation and the public estate in Northern Ireland. The second roundtable was with private business and industry, with the Belfast chamber of trade and commerce. What I took from that opportunity to speak specifically about Northern Ireland’s concerns and opportunities was that there are challenges in Northern Ireland. In particular, it will probably achieve net zero later than 2050. On our overall UK net zero target, that is the case for both Northern Ireland and Wales. For Scotland, it will be a bit sooner, in 2045, as I am sure the Minister knows given that his constituency is at the forefront of bringing forward some of the green opportunities that will allow Scotland to go further and faster.
Chris Skidmore
A really important part of the report, which I will come on to in the moment, is taking a place-based approach to net zero. We will achieve net zero in a more affordable and efficient way if we allow local communities, whether they are cities or rural areas, the opportunity to be more empowered to understand how to achieve net zero in a way that suits their local communities.
In Northern Ireland, I listened to concerns about how agriculture could be decarbonised. Northern Ireland wants a whole raft of new biomethane plants. At the same time, there is a new fleet of hydrogen buses in Belfast—it is really pushing forward on fully decarbonising public transport. There was a fascinating discussion on how Northern Ireland wanted to be a leader on green hydrogen. It may not have much offshore wind, but there is a huge opportunity for onshore wind and for the use of hydrogen to drive a whole new economy. Picking up all the pieces that come together that demonstrate the opportunities in every region is exactly what the report tries to reflect.
The report sets out the new narrative that net zero is the primary economic opportunity of this century, but if we do not invest now—that investment is primarily private sector investment, but it needs certainty, clarity, consistency and continuity from the Government on policy—we will turn our backs on a potential £1 trillion of investment by 2030 and turn our backs on up to 480,000 new jobs by 2035. In a way, the net zero review is a bit of a misnomer. I was keen to look at the targets that have been set and to understand how we will realistically meet them. The worst thing one can do in politics is overpromise and underdeliver; it completely undermines confidence in the ability to deliver on our climate commitments and the energy transition.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the report. It is very welcome, and was very ably chaired and put together by him, so I put my thanks to him on record. On delivery, is it not the case that some kind of delivery authority is needed—a body that combines all the quite difficult and complex strands we face on net zero?
Chris Skidmore
Yes. I thank the hon. Member for that point. One of the key recommendations of the report is that we have an office for net zero delivery, which will be able to join all Government Departments to ensure they speak with one voice on the policy commitments that are needed. We have the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. That is fantastic news. I hope it will be given the powers and the mandate to enforce an understanding of what we need to do to achieve net zero across all Departments, because it is certain that Departments are falling behind.
On net zero, I am a realist. I understand that on delivery we must be able to provide public confidence in our ability to achieve some of the ambitions that at the moment are just words on paper. The document is very much about delivery and implementation. I created a structure of six pillars to inform the report. The pillars strengthen the foundations of the pathway towards net zero by 2050, but also refer to some sub-commitments such as decarbonising power supply by 2035 and looking at our electric vehicle mandate by 2030. How will we achieve those targets if we do not get the basic under-the-bonnet issues right, such as infrastructure or grid? Delays in the planning system mean that current targets are way off beam and will not be achieved. Unless we are realistic now about what we need to do to unblock those problems and get, as I called it during the review, the debris off the tracks, we will not be able to reach our commitments in time.
Making decisions now is absolutely critical for this Administration. I include 129 recommendations in the report, but I set out 25 key recommendations for 2025, recognising that this Administration probably has about 300 legislative days left in Parliament until October 2024. That is not to say I would not urge them to take on all 129 recommendations. I understand that the Government will respond to the report by the end of March. Coincidentally, as I was taking forward the work on the review, the Government decided not to challenge the High Court judgment that their net zero strategy was illegal and they have agreed, in secondary legislation, to respond to the High Court judgment and the Committee on Climate Change by 31 March. I hope that their response to the judgment will also form part of the response to the “Mission Zero” report, but the more we can do now, the more we will reduce the costs of the transition overall. The report sets out that if we delay action on net zero by 10 years, we add on 23 base points of GDP to our public debt.
There are huge challenges to achieving net zero. I recognise that, which is why we set out in pillar 1 that securing net zero must be a priority—understanding how we will be able to have in place the materials, supply chains and skills to ensure we can deliver on time. The sooner we act, the sooner we will be able to achieve net zero in an affordable and efficient manner. Other pillars cover powering net zero. I asked each sector how it could achieve net zero in a better way. A third pillar looks at net zero and the economy, and how we could work with those hard-to-abate sectors, whether energy intensives or agriculture, to make sure they can also achieve net zero on track.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I am very grateful indeed for my right hon. Friend’s report. The House will remember my interest: I was the aviation Minister responsible for the jet zero strategy. My right hon. Friend referred to hard-to-decarbonise sectors, which include aviation. He also referred to economic opportunities, and sustainable aviation fuel springs to mind. Would he like to comment on that sector? If sustainable aviation fuel can be provided, if we have the feedstocks and if we provide price stability, there will be an opportunity for the UK economy, as well as an opportunity to decarbonise that crucial yet hard-to-decarbonise sector. Does he think it as important as I do?
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend’s point is very well made. Our mandate for 10% SAF by 2030 is one of our greatest opportunities to decarbonise in the short term to meet our 2030 nationally determined contribution. If we are to do that, we need to build out the supply chain and take advantage of opportunities to use biogenetic materials and waste materials for SAF, so we need the processing plants in place. My point about what happens under the bonnet is vital to SAF. That is why a circular economy is one of the 10 missions in “Mission Zero”.
I have set out for the Government what I believe needs to happen now in order to unblock the immediate challenges and keep net zero on track, but if as politicians we are to succeed—both in government and as Members of this House—in delivering our long-term net zero goal over a 28-year period, we need to retain the cross-party consensus that it is the right thing to do not just to tackle the climate crisis, but to ensure the future of the British economy and to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in future transition.
I have set out ten 10-year missions, because I believe that tackling energy transition, just like tackling climate change, requires a long-term vision of programmatic certainty, ensuring that businesses and investors have the confidence to invest and to grow, because they know that things will not continue on a start-stop, chop-and-change, project-by-project basis. Germany has a 10-year plan for hydrogen and the US has just set out 10-year visions for its climate technology programmes as part of its Inflation Reduction Act. We, too, need 10-year missions. The ten 10-year missions that our report sets out would start in 2025, after we have got the basics right, and be carried through to 2035.
In writing the report, I took my role as independent chair very seriously. I nearly became an independent MP on the back of the fracking no-confidence vote that happened during the review. I had meetings with every political party, including the SNP and the Liberal Democrats, and several with the Labour party. Whoever wins the next general election and whoever forms the next Administration come 2024, I want them to see the report as a road map not just to delivering net zero, but to delivering it for the benefit of the British people and the British economy.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for his work on the report and for his speech, which will have given many people across the House and across the country a lot of hope—something that the actions and words of the Government leave to be desired.
Perhaps the most important constituency work that we do as Members of Parliament is meeting students from schools and colleges. Whether they are little ones in years 1 and 2, arriving in their hi-vis jackets, or sixth-formers who are passionate about the world on which they are about to have a say, it is a huge honour to speak to so many of them and to hear about their worries, their concerns and their hope for the world. The one message I always take away, above all else, is their absolute determination to ensure that as politicians we take the climate crisis seriously and, more importantly, that we act.
It is not enough for politicians to stand up and talk about the climate crisis; it is time to act. We have a responsibility to act, yet over the past decade of Conservative rule, we have seen an approach to the climate crisis that has too often put the need for short-term political gain ahead of the needs of our planet—the planet that our children and grandchildren will inherit.
The irony is that the review’s second conclusion is that the UK
“must act decisively to seize the economic opportunities”,
but as the right hon. Member points out, the UK is now dropping back from the economic leadership role it once had on climate change and net zero across the world. If only the Government had listened to that message over the past decade, the country might now be in a different position. On Heathrow expansion, for example, they have not ruled out a third runway, despite the undeniable climate impact of the project.
On onshore wind, British businesses have been leading the way in developing the newest turbines, yet because of the decade-long ban on further onshore wind developments, UK companies have been exporting that technology rather than building it for projects on the hills of the UK to join the ones we already have, like the one my brother can see from his house. The UK could have been a wind superpower by now. We know that more wind power means cheaper bills for our constituents, yet the Government did not act.
Home insulation is another example. Homes in the UK leak three times as much heat as those in Europe, which means that energy bills are far higher than they should be. That adds to the cost of living crisis that our constituents face. The last Labour Government rolled out a plan to insulate new homes and retrofit old ones, but thanks to the Conservative Government’s promise to cut the “green crap”, the programme was massively scaled back.
Almost a decade after coming to power, the Government realised the scale of the crisis and finally introduced a green homes grant programme. My constituents were overjoyed, as were local businesses, but what happened? The scheme was a disaster: it closed down early, and many small businesses lost a lot of money. No wonder the Public Accounts Committee wrote a report on the grant and called it a “slam dunk fail”—a fitting epitaph for the Government’s climate agenda, perhaps. The most frustrating part of that slam dunk fail is that I know from listening to my constituents that they want to see action on the climate crisis.
Electric vehicles are another example. My inbox is full of emails from constituents who want to be able to buy electric cars or vans for their business, but who face hurdle after hurdle. From blocks of flats and residential streets to the strategic road network, there are so many gaps in the EV charging infrastructure that the Government are taking too long to address.
There is inadequate support for local authorities and elected Mayors, who are doing their best. Let me give a couple of examples of good work that is going on. The Mayor of London’s ambition is to cut emissions and pollution and to move to net zero. It is useful to know that all new bus contracts in London include a requirement to use zero-emission buses. My council, Hounslow, has done a lot of work on climate change: all new council homes built will be ultra-low emission, for example. But local elected leaders need national leadership, they need tools and sometimes they need funding from the Government, and too many of them say that they are not getting it. Unfortunately, short-termism and austerity have been the Government’s approach to net zero, which is why I believe the UK has been failing.
I am sure Conservative Members will ask what a Labour Government would do. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) will cover that, but I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has set out the bold action that a Labour Government would take to tackle the climate crisis. We would create Great British Energy to champion green and clean energy, we would invest in wind power, we would insulate 19 million homes, we would lower bills, we would improve our energy security, and, most important, we would work to tackle the climate crisis.
I think back to the dozens of students I have heard from throughout my constituency who are desperate for the Government, and indeed the world, to do much more to tackle the climate crisis. Many of them will be voting in the next general election, and the rest will vote in subsequent general elections. We owe it to them to go beyond words and to take action. It is nearly four years since the House declared a climate emergency, and I was proud to be an MP at that time. We know that we are living in a climate emergency: we see the flash floods, the displacement and the degradation of biodiversity across the planet, and we see the implications of all those developments. We can all see the damage that is being done. What we need to do is act now, but it is such a shame that action was not taken a decade ago.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on an excellent report. It is also a very long report, and very comprehensive.
Net zero is all well and good. Of course we need to make effective use of our natural resources—everyone agrees with that. Cutting out waste from our society and using what we have in better ways has always been a sound conservative principle, so none of us can disagree with it. However, we need to approach these issues holistically, and avoid making huge errors that would set us back in other respects for the sole purpose of chasing the goal of net zero.
Let me give an example. Since the second invasion of Ukraine last year, we have realised how tenuous our food security is. The world food supply is incredibly delicate, and it makes no sense whatsoever to take good land out of agricultural use to build huge solar farms. I know quite a lot about this, because in my constituency there are applications to build solar farms on 10,000 acres of good agricultural land. Each of the panels will be 4.7 metres high. Those 10,000 acres that will be taken out of agricultural use could feed two cities the size of Hull every year. Vast resources, in the form of financial compensation, are going to a very few people. Someone who owns 1,000 acres could receive £2 million a year, but tenant farmers, unlike landlords, are being put out of business.
This is a serious issue, and I hope that when people chase goals like net zero, they will try to think creatively. The report rightly says—on page 9, I think, and I have read it—that we must do much more to put solar panels on the rooftops of schools, factories, and logistics and distribution centres. We have millions of acres of flat-roof warehouses where they could go, but cutting the amount of land that feeds our families and communities is surely nonsensical. By all means have as many solar panels as you like and have them within scale, but the applications in a single district that I represent, West Lindsey, cover an area greater than the whole of the east midlands. Whatever anyone says, ultimately the consumer will not benefit from lower prices; the rewards will go into very few pockets indeed.
The excellent report refers to—I like this phrase—
“a clean and endless supply of wind blowing across the North Sea.”
In Lincolnshire, I can stand behind my house, on the top of the Wolds, and see in the distance huge arrays of wind farms in the North sea. They are built with virtually no objections, and we are becoming—perhaps already are—world leaders in this regard. However, when it comes to onshore windmills, while I assure the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) that I understand what she is saying, the ones for which there have been applications in my constituency would be taller than Lincoln cathedral, which for 400 years was the tallest building in the world. None of these huge windmills will be built in Brentford and Isleworth, I am afraid. If they were, there would be such fantastic opposition that it would never happen, so they will all be built in rural constituencies.
Sir Edward Leigh
I mentioned the hon. Lady, so the least I can do is give way to her.
Ruth Cadbury
There are actually at least two windmills in my constituency, one on Ormiston Wire in Isleworth and the other, a large one that a great many people see when they see drive in or out of London on the elevated section of the M4, on Sky Studios.
Sir Edward Leigh
Well, if I am wrong I am wrong, but I do not think there is much enthusiasm for building windmills as tall as Lincoln cathedral in urban areas. We can say that in theory we are in favour of onshore windmills, but I assure the hon. Lady that every time they are proposed, there is a gruelling process of public inquiries and fierce opposition lasting many years. How much better it would be to concentrate our resources offshore. As I have said, we are world leaders in offshore wind, and there is never any objection.
The report also refers to achieving net zero through better public transport. It talks of the importance of getting more people to use sustainable public transport rather than making individual car journeys. When I am down in London I hate using a car; I would much rather use the tube, the bus or even a Boris bike. However, it is different in rural areas such as Lincolnshire, where we have been calling for better public transport links for decades. Little has been done; indeed, the services have become worse and worse. Too often, we have fallen victim to service cuts when budgets from central Government have been reduced.
If services for people who live in less built up areas are only two-hourly, or even once a day—or indeed, in the village where I live, non-existent—those people have to rely on cars, not just to socialise but for essential activities such as working and shopping. If the Government are serious about net zero in public transport, they must radically upgrade our rural transport links, and that includes the frequency of service. However, that is never going to happen, because it is so fantastically expensive, so I am afraid we will be reliant on cars for decades, or perhaps forever in rural areas such as Lincolnshire. By all means reduce the carbon footprint of buses—put solar panels on them if you want—but a net zero bus that arrives only once a day will not be of much use to you.
It is now 2023, but the sale of all conventional cars is to be banned from 2030, and the sale of hybrids by 2035. Lincolnshire measures 2,687 square miles, or 1,719,600 acres. The Government need to make clear how they are going to roll out charging points across such a vast area, because it is simply not going to happen by 2030. Are they in touch with the energy supply companies? Have they had discussions with rural councils about the transition? I put it to the Minister, who represents a Scottish constituency, that this is simply not practical in rural counties, and we need to think very seriously about it.
The excellent report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood points out that the UK’s housing stock is much older than that of most similar nations. More than 50% of homes in England were built before 1965, and almost 20% before 1919. As the report says, that has a huge impact on energy efficiency. I live in an old house, and I know very well how difficult it is to heat such houses. Nearly 50% of low-income households in England are in homes with energy performance certificate ratings of D or lower, and on average they use 27% more gas and 18% more electricity than higher-rated homes. These are the least well-off people, but there is no point in our preaching to them about the value of heat pumps, which they cannot afford. Lower-income households simply do not have the disposable income to pay for this kind of investment, unless we are prepared to devote massive resources to helping them.
We are also paying the price of decades of failure to invest in clean nuclear energy. In the wake of OPEC and the oil crisis in the 1970s, France’s Gaullist Prime Minister Pierre Messmer realised how vulnerable his country was, and ordered a huge upscaling of French nuclear energy. As a result, France now has a cheaper, cleaner energy supply, and is selling the surplus to needy countries such as ours.
As I said, we need to approach this issue holistically. The UK’s contribution to carbon emissions is minuscule on the global scale. I am not saying that is an argument for doing nothing, but it is a fact. If we achieve net zero, the gain for the planet can be wiped out by a tiny percentage increase in China’s or India’s huge carbon emissions. These are growing developing economies. Let us be realistic about it: they look at us telling them to cut their emissions and think we are cheating them. They both have complex relationships with the west. We are very friendly with India, but we are the former colonial power there. The rise of Hindu nationalism makes that relationship even more complicated and difficult.
As for communist China, it views us with distain. Judging by China’s actions, it is not wholly convinced by environmentalism. If people view the world from a totally materialist utilitarian perspective, as a communist Government do, why would they be as environmental as we claim to be? They would see all the leading developed and industrialised nations such as ours, which were totally reckless when we were industrialising, lecturing them. Now that we are on top, we tell developing countries to toe the line and not do what we did to get to the top—that is their view. They view our preaching as hypocritical on the one hand and patronising on the other.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am about to finish, but I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Wera Hobhouse
Is the right hon. Gentleman not making an excellent argument for why we should lead by example? We cannot tell others what to do unless we show leadership ourselves.
Sir Edward Leigh
Yes, of course we should lead by example. I accept everything that is in the report and we must lead by example, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, who was an excellent Minister and has written a wonderful report, accepts that some of the points I have made about being realistic, particularly in terms of rural areas, should be taken into account. That is the point I wish to emphasise.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), because it is important to hear where people’s concerns are. The report sets out the fact that we must overcome our concerns because we have no option: we need to reach net zero. The House knows how passionate I am about making sure that this country reaches its net zero targets.
While recent news has overwhelmed us with the tragedies of war and natural disasters, the climate emergency continues to threaten our global future. We have to act together, in solidarity. I welcome the independent review of net zero. It is uncompromising in its demand that the Government get a grip and actually deliver on the targets they have set themselves. Last year, the Climate Change Committee made a similar point: tangible progress now lags badly behind the country’s net zero ambitions.
We are on course to overshoot our target level of greenhouse gas emissions twofold. The CCC had previously set the Government several targets for 2022 to stay on course for net zero by 2050; only a fifth of them have been achieved. This is an unforgivable underperformance and shows that the Conservative Government’s commitment to net zero is lukewarm at best. We need to do a lot more persuasion. It is about winning hearts and minds, not just in this House but in our local communities, to persuade people that we need to get to net zero. The commitment has to be more than lukewarm: it has to be hot and passionate. We want to get to net zero.
Too many people still treat our net zero targets like a bus that we can miss and then catch another. We must understand that there will be no next time if we do not reach net zero by 2050—and that means net zero globally. Climate change is already leading to chaotic consequences in our societies. Since 1950, the global number of floods has increased by a factor of 15 and wildfires have increased by a factor of seven. We have seen droughts and famine across east Africa, floods in Pakistan and a heatwave in the UK. The dangers of missing net zero are staring us right in the face. The difference in limiting global warming to 1.5°C instead of 2° would save around 420 million people from exposure to extreme heatwaves.
Our Government should be leading by example—I say that for the third time now. We are an advanced economy. We cannot tell economies that are less advanced that they have to get to net zero but our contribution is so tiny that it does not matter. It matters that we lead by example. I am so glad we have a report that says that net zero is not only good for the planet but makes sense economically. We will miss out hugely if we do not really get to grips with this and deliver on the targets. We must set ourselves ambitious targets and be very passionate and hot about them, not just lukewarm. What message does it send to the rest of the world when our advanced economy does not meet its obligations in the global fight to keep temperature rises below 1.5°?
The independent review recognises that the Government’s tepid approach to net zero means the UK is losing out on green investment. This concern is shared by the Confederation of British Industry and many renewable energy companies, such as Equinor, SSE and Vattenfall. The USA and the EU are developing huge financial packages to encourage green investment, and China is currently the biggest investor in renewable energy, while our Government are still playing to the tune of the oil and gas giants. The UK lags behind all but one of its G7 counterparts in investment in green infrastructure and jobs. It is a massive missed opportunity.
We are in a cost of living crisis because of our reliance on gas and oil. The Government fail to recognise that the fastest and cheapest way to guarantee energy security is to phase out oil and gas rather than invest in more exploration and extraction. I welcome the fact that we now have the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—that the two have been put together—because so much of energy security depends on our getting to net zero and phasing out our reliance on gas and oil.
I am pleased that the net zero review recommends that the Government support the Local Electricity Bill. The lack of growth in community energy in the past seven years is a significant missed opportunity. Its major strength is its connection to people and places. It engages people in energy systems and makes that important connection so that we win hearts and minds and people see the advantages of changing. I absolutely agree that change is difficult and we need to get people behind the net zero agenda.
In my Bath constituency, Bath and West Community Energy has installed enough renewable energy to power nearly 4,500 homes. Many of the projects are installed in local school and community buildings. The energy is net zero and far cheaper than gas and oil, but the huge potential for more community energy cannot be realised because current energy market and licensing rules mean that community energy schemes face high grid-access costs.
The Local Electricity Bill would reform the energy market to empower community-owned and run schemes to sell local renewable energy directly to households and businesses. It would make new community energy businesses viable, and those businesses would keep significant additional value within local economies by bypassing large utilities. It is incomprehensible to me why the Government are dragging their feet on enacting this vital change to help an industry that has so much potential not only in reaching net zero but in doing exactly as we are doing with this debate—aiming to win hearts and minds and make people and politicians aware of how important net zero is and how deliverable and advantageous for our society it will ultimately be.
The transition to net zero must be at the heart of every Government policy if we are to hit our targets. The Climate Change Committee has criticised the lack of joined-up thinking on net zero in the Government. Last year, I spoke to a group of sub-national transport bodies that noted the lack of synergy between the Department for Transport and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in the development of sustainable land planning principles. That is just one example of siloed thinking in the Government.
I agree with the review that there needs to be a group with actual power that can work across Government to ensure that net zero is considered in every policy decision. A net zero delivery authority, as outlined in a recent Policy Connect paper, could do exactly that. Such a public body should be placed on a statutory footing and operate at arm’s length from the Government to provide assurance to business and people about its longevity and clout. It would be tasked with monitoring and accelerating the delivery of key net zero strategies.
The Government would set the authority’s objectives, rules and principles of operation and the authority would then be responsible for delivery within that framework. I am glad that we have already discussed that this afternoon. [Interruption.] I hope the Minister is listening, because he might be involved in setting up such an authority. I am looking forward to progress with that.
A net zero delivery authority would co-ordinate the delivery of Government strategies between local and national Government. That, too, is incredibly important and has already been mentioned. The delivery of many of our net zero targets should be devolved to local areas, because local people know best, and the delivery of net zero can be so much better achieved through local authorities. The authority would gather information and understanding about local delivery from local government and businesses to inform the national strategy. It would work with partner organisations and national bodies to inform both national and local delivery strategies for decarbonisation.
However, a net zero delivery authority is not enough, which is why we, as Liberal Democrats, are proposing a net zero action plan, backed by a £150 billion public investment programme to fire up progress to net zero and help the UK become a global leader in future technologies. What a net zero delivery authority could do is avoid policy inconsistency and ensure total focus within Government on the climate emergency.
The net zero transition will impact every aspect of our lives. The evidence is clear that the costs of combating the climate emergency are dwarfed by the consequences of inaction. We must all work together to deliver the net zero transition as efficiently and sustainably as possible. If we do not do so, we risk losing the battle to preserve our climate, the future of our country and the wellbeing of our people.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and his team are to be congratulated on carrying out the herculean and timely task of reviewing the UK’s legal commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Generally, I agree with his findings and recommendations, and I urge the Government to consider them carefully and to respond to them proactively. This must not be a document that gathers dust on a bookshelf, or to which occasional reference is made in preparation for debates such as this. Instead, it must mark a sea change in how we set about ensuring that the UK realises the full potential of the growth opportunities that net zero presents.
My right hon. Friend’s review calls for action on the “key 25 for 2025 recommendations”. Each of these proposals warrants a debate of its own, but what I shall briefly do is home in on one subject that is not only very important to delivering net zero, but already bringing significant job opportunities to areas such as Waveney and Lowestoft and, with the right policy framework, can deliver even more. What I am talking about is the offshore wind industry.
Offshore wind has come a long way in the past decade. At the outset, 10 years ago, there were many Doubting Thomases questioning whether the industry had a future, saying that, as a technology, it was way too expensive. However, the industry, working with Government, has proved them wrong. It is now an undoubted British success story, with everyone wanting a slice of the action. As a result, the Government have set very ambitious targets for 2030 and 2050 for the amount of electricity that offshore wind will generate.
The industry has brought significant benefits to East Anglia, with half of the nation’s offshore wind fleet anchored off the Suffolk and Norfolk coast. Its construction is being project managed from ports such as Lowestoft, where ScottishPower Renewables and SSE Renewables also have their operations and maintenance bases, and where Associated British Ports has obtained planning permission and is designing its Lowestoft Eastern Energy facility.
This success can be attributed to a combination of the ingenuity of business and the foresight of Government, who, in the Energy Act 2013, set down a policy framework that has been an undoubted success. However, times change. In many respects, offshore wind is a victim of its own success. The scale of the Government’s vision for the future of the industry means that a more strategic approach to its future development is now required. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing global gas crisis mean that other nations, in particular the US with its Inflation Reduction Act 2022, are upping their game in developing their own renewable energy strategies. All of a sudden, the UK, which is still the No. 1 world leader in offshore wind, is at risk of being an also-ran. Energy is a globally footloose industry, and it is vital that we respond to ensure that the UK retains its pole and premier position.
I shall briefly outline how I believe this can be done. First, there is a need to streamline the planning process. A more co-ordinated and efficient planning system is required if we are to achieve the 50 GW 2030 target. The establishment of the offshore wind acceleration taskforce will help achieve that, but its reforming work does need to take place at a greater pace.
Secondly, and in the same vein, we need to speed up the development of the grid system, so that offshore wind projects can be delivered more rapidly. We require a new model of grid development where critical investments are accelerated by Ofgem and the transmission owners. To deliver this step change in grid development, the Government should reform the remit of Ofgem through an amendment to the Energy Bill, as recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and his team.
Thirdly, there is a need for a stable and attractive fiscal framework that enables businesses to make what are enormous investment decisions with confidence. It would be wrong to get into a bidding war with the US, the EU and other nations, but we do need a taxation regime that encourages investment through a compelling range of capital allowances. I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to introduce these in the forthcoming spring statement.
Fourthly, although the framework set down in the Energy Act 2013 has served us very well, it does need considered reform to take account of the harsh new global economic reality. Due to inflation and supply chain constraints, it is necessary for Government to adjust the parameters for future contracts for difference auctions, both with regard to their overall budget and the strike prices that are set. In the longer term, it is necessary to reform the contracts for difference allocation process so as to better balance price and supply chain considerations. In doing so, we will be able to maximise the opportunities that offshore wind presents for economic regeneration and job creation in places such as Lowestoft.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Member agree that one of the biggest problems that we encounter is not so much the CfDs, but the delay that is caused by grid access? The National Grid cannot develop new grid infra- structure until projects have come on board.
Peter Aldous
I agree with the hon. Lady. The industry faces a whole range of challenges. The contracts for difference one is very important at the moment, with developers putting forward their bids, but the grid is an important issue. As I have said, the industry has been a victim of its own success. The point-to-point approach to making connections into the grid, which we have had up until now, is, I fear, no longer sustainable and we need to move on to that more strategic approach.
My fifth and final point is that it is important that the Government act as a catalyst for investment in key infrastructure, particularly in ports. That is vital in order not to deflect investment overseas. Such leveraging could include revenue guarantee support for investors for a limited period, to overcome the risk gap at the time of final investment decisions, and looking to see what the UK Infrastructure Bank can do to crowd in private investment.
In conclusion, as I mentioned at the outset, offshore wind has come a long way over the past decade. In many respects it is now the UK’s star player in mission zero. It provides hope and opportunity for communities all around the UK. The existing partnership between business and Government, which culminated in the sector deal signed in Lowestoft nearly four years ago, has served us well. However, the regulatory and policy frameworks now urgently need reviewing if the UK industry is to retain its premier position. If we do not do that—my apologies for this metaphor, Madam Deputy Speaker—there is a risk that we will have blown it.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on compiling this review—an impressive feat in such a short period of time since it was first requested of him. The focus on this issue is long overdue. This place and this country need far more urgency and purpose in trying to achieve our net zero ambitions. I absolutely respect him; he is a decent individual and, while I have not read the entire review, I am sure that all 129 recommendations are sensible and well-founded.
For me, net zero is not just the right thing to do, something that is critical for our society, our future and our civilisation, but economically important. That is why I am so struck by the failure in recent years to grab that opportunity. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the internal discussions on this review; certainly I fear that the Government perhaps have not engaged as much with Lord Deben and the Climate Change Committee in recent years, which is a real shame.
I think back to the signals we have had for many years now, going back to 2006 and Lord Stern’s report and the international work of people such as Al Gore, speaking about the inconvenient truth that we face and the lack of urgency in recent years. That was in 2006. We are approaching almost 20 years since then. Funnily enough, it was in the same year, 2006, that I approached my local district council, wanting to convert a building into a low-carbon property. Sadly, I was refused permission—to be fair, it was a minor change of use from a storage building, although it had been used as a house in times past—so I went to the Planning Inspectorate and appealed. The planning inspector found in my favour and I was given permission to convert that building. I wanted to prove what could be done in terms of developing a low-carbon building.
I appreciate that in the last 24 hours the Government are now refocusing on the importance of net zero with the restructuring of the departmental teams, but we are only really going back to where we were in 2010, when we had the Department of Energy and Climate Change, in recognition of the work of Lord Stern, Al Gore and so many others. That recognition led to the world-first Climate Change Act 2008, passed by Labour in government, which I think was a fantastic piece of work. Even though I was nowhere near this place at the time, I had a huge amount of respect for the work being done.
Sadly, in the intervening 12 to 13 years, we have seen massive retrograde actions by first the coalition Government and then successive Conservative Governments, when there was an enormous economic opportunity for us. I will come back to some of those opportunities later, but the decision to do away with the zero-carbon homes legislation was one of the most retrograde acts that they could have committed. We are now seeing why building new homes with gas dependency was such a wrong decision, first because of increasing demand for gas, but secondly because it was not the right thing to do to combat climate change.
As I am sure other colleagues across the House do, I visited a new housing estate a couple of weeks ago. There were 130 properties on the estate I visited, and of those none had EV charging points, solar photovoltaics, solar thermal or heat pumps. Those are brand-new houses that have not yet been completed. When I asked why those things were not being done, the builders said, “Well, it didn’t need to be done, to be fair, and the owners can always retrofit them.” Trust me—having been through building a house, I can tell hon. Members it can be quite challenging, but if a house is being built from scratch, it is much cheaper to install those things there and then. The fact that we are not installing such basic things, or even making provision for energy storage units in those properties, is a massive failure of the system. That should have been going on all this time; it would have happened under Labour had the party been returned to power in 2010.
The issue of existing homes has also been discussed and mentioned by a couple of hon. Members. I appreciate that we have a much older housing stock, but we could have been taking action over many years to change properties through secondary glazing, triple glazing and so on. When I visited properties built in the late 1950s in Germany, which had had double glazing and underfloor heating installed back then, I was struck by just how far in advance of us other nations have been on this.
There is an economic opportunity on insulation schemes, where we can not only reduce households’ dependency on fossil fuels, but also significantly reduce their energy bills. To the naysayers who say there really is very little advantage for an individual or a household, the gas consumption in my property in the last 13 years has been 130 cubic metres. When hon. Members next look at their gas meters and see how much they have used in the last year or the last quarter, they will realise how staggeringly low that figure is.
On power generation, I am afraid I do not share the views of the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who has sadly just departed the Chamber. I believe there is an exciting opportunity in the field of power generation to introduce much more onshore wind, and offshore wind as well. Those of us who have the apps on our phones will have seen that for many months now, offshore wind-generated power has typically produced 40% to 50% of UK electricity energy. That is a fantastic result and just shows what can be achieved. Domestic solar is also a good and important thing that should be installed as a matter of course, not just in new build, but retrospectively, and then of course there is the opportunity for localised modular reactors to supplement power generation across the UK.
Power distribution is another important part of the equation, as the right hon. Member for Kingswood was saying. National Grid, which is headquartered in Warwick in my constituency, is central to that. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was up in the Wansbeck constituency, where there is a National Grid site with two cables coming ashore from a plant in Norway. Those are the interconnectors about which hon. Members may have heard, whereby hydroelectric power is generated and comes into the UK as renewable energy.
To visualise that, at that diameter, those two cables provide 3% of UK electricity. That is just how extraordinary those connections can be. Of course, more are planned, not just from Norway, say, but from Denmark and France. Those cables work both ways: we can bring power from Norway, but we can also supply power to Norway from the excess generated in the UK. That is why they present such a great opportunity. I appreciate that there is an issue on the planning side of distribution. We have to be much more joined up in the way that we approach it. Without localised power distribution, we will not be able to supply much-needed electric power to households and businesses.
One of last areas that I will cover is transport, on which we are really behind the curve. The EV industry is frustrated by where the Government are on this. It is easy to set targets, but we need to give the industries and sectors frameworks and structures against which they can deliver those targets. They recognise that those targets are challenging, and they want to achieve them, but they need more than just the setting of a target. Currently, we do not have an EV gigafactory at scale in the UK other than Envision up in Sunderland, which is very small. We need to get many more built in the UK. Other nations, including France, Germany, the US, Japan and China, are already manufacturing, while we do not even have a spade in the ground. Unless we do that, we will miss out big time on the economic opportunity.
Linked to that is the charging network. I mentioned the distribution of power; what we do not have is an overall strategy for the delivery of charging points across the UK. Again, we are way behind our international partners. The other point to mention on transport is the importance of the insistence on transport hubs across our towns and cities to encourage active travel.
The report that the right hon. Member for Kingswood has put together gives hope. Every time I visit a school, there are one or two issues on the minds of the young people there, and climate change is absolutely the foremost. They do not expect us just to talk about it; they demand that we act and deliver for their futures.
There is, as I say, an economic opportunity, and not just with gigafactories. I remember that the solar thermal unit I bought was manufactured in Scotland. I do not even know if that plant still exists, but I would be surprised if it does after the changes in 2010 and the green whatever- it-was that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) referred to. That change in legislation meant that we lost a lot of good businesses and manufacturers in the UK that could have been supplying to this economic opportunity. Even Alternative Energy Technology, a small business based in Atherstone in Warwickshire, which installed all the kit in my property, fell by the wayside because of those changes.
I commend the right hon. Member for Kingswood for this substantive report. He spoke of challenges and opportunities, and he is absolutely right. I see huge opportunities, and we need to minimise the challenges. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) about how planning needs to be addressed across Departments if we are to speed it up. It is so, so slow. I hear his point about “not zero”. If we do not do this, we will miss a huge economic—as well as critical—point in our history. Many people talk about this stuff, but I think the right hon. Member for Kingswood is absolutely sincere, and I welcome his report, for which I thank him.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We come now to the wind-ups. I call Alan Brown.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I commend the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for the work he has done, and for securing the debate. I thank the hon. Members who have taken part. As always, I tend to disagree with the contribution from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I certainly agreed with most of the others.
There is certainly much to like in the report, with stuff to debate and, of course, some stuff to disagree on. Given that the review was commissioned by the previous Prime Minister, after her ill-informed leadership campaign in which she pledged to remove levies from bills and alluded to net zero as a costly commitment, I welcome the fact that the report was undertaken purely independently and did not go down that rabbit hole. The key thing now is what the Government do with the recommendations, especially in the short term, given that implementation for 25 of them is recommended before 2025. That is critical because existing carbon budgets are off track. We need re-alignment if we are to hit net zero by 2050.
I note that the term “Scottish Government” is not used once in the main body of the report. Although I accept that there is engagement, and that some good practice from Scotland is mentioned in the report, I would have expected more references to and understanding of where the Scottish Government are taking a lead, including on the roll-out for electric vehicle chargers, interest-free loans for EVs, the embracing of onshore wind, peatland restoration, woodland planting, the just transition commission, the £500 million low-carbon fund for the north-east, energy efficiency measures and the roll-out of zero-emissions buses. There is a lot of good practice in Scotland that the rest of the UK could learn from. More consideration is required of devolved Governments’ inability to deliver because of funding constraints and, in the case of the Scottish Government, strict borrowing powers. That also needs to be debated.
What is abundantly clear in the report is the need for stable and consistent long-term policy to be matched by funding. The Treasury cannot be a blocker. As the right hon. Member for Kingswood said, other countries are now taking the lead in investment. The Inflation Reduction Act in the United States is making it a more attractive place for investment in renewables.
The folly of previous chopping and changing, and the cutting of solar and onshore wind from the contracts for difference auctions as part of David Cameron’s “cutting the green crap” agenda, has meant eight years of investment lost overnight from one policy decision. That has stopped the deployment of the cheapest forms of renewable energy. At least I can say that I am glad that we in Scotland continue to embrace onshore wind. We have made it integral to the decarbonisation of the power sector. The fact is that Scotland generates the equivalent of 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables. That should be held up as a fantastic achievement and an example for the UK Government to follow south of the border.
At least the deployment rate of solar is now recovering and will soon stand at 1 GW installed per year. That means that, in a period of just three years, the solar equivalent of a Hinkley Point C will come online. Solar is quicker, cheaper and can be deployed where required, providing greater grid stability. I agree with the recommendation for a plan to get a road map for 70 GW of deployment by 2035.
I also agree with the right hon. Member for Kingswood about the need for a re-envisaged road map for carbon capture, utilisation and storage to be delivered this year. The report rightly points out that the investment landscape for CCUS and hydrogen is currently unclear, and that needs to be remedied as soon as possible.
Additionally, the track-2 clusters need to be expedited. It is outrageous that the Scottish cluster remains a reserve when it is probably the most advanced of the CCS clusters and is likely to be delivered quickest. Acorn represents the worst example of the UK Government chopping and changing policy and withdrawing funding. The reality is that the Scottish cluster needs to commence for Scotland to meet the 2030 target of a 75% reduction in emissions.
The new Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), obviously knows how important the Scottish cluster is as part of the just transition, and how important it is for jobs in the north- east of Scotland. I hope to hear a more positive response, rather than holding with the mantra of, “It is okay, Acorn is the reserve.” Being the reserve is not good enough, and it needs to commence sooner rather than later.
For the record, I agree with the detail on pages 67-68 that we will still rely on North sea oil and gas as we transition towards net zero. Where I fundamentally disagree with the report is in its continued blinkered approach about new nuclear. New nuclear does not form a great deal or a big part of the report, and there is not much evidence, yet it still comes out as a key recommendation and one of the suggested 10 missions. I disagree with applying the phrase “no-regrets option” to the concept of new nuclear.
The report rightly identifies that four of the five remaining nuclear plants will go offline in the next few years, before Hinkley Point C will come on stream. If the UK grid can cope with that scenario, fundamentally we do not need new nuclear as this mythical baseload. It proves we can cope without nuclear. Nuclear is not flexible enough and is relatively incompatible with intermittent renewables. There are still the issues and costs associated with radioactive waste. If we look at long-term performance, we see that nuclear is not necessarily there when the wind does not blow. Over a 10-year period, each nuclear reactor is shown to be offline for roughly a quarter of the year, so it cannot be depended on to be there when it is needed. The reality is that we need to invest in other technologies, particularly storage, to balance intermittent renewables.
The reality is that the nuclear market has failed, because it is too expensive and too risky. There is not a successful operational EPR plant in the world, yet despite that and the ongoing performance issues at Hinkley Point C, the Government seem hellbent on signing up for Sizewell C and using a regulated asset base model that will transfer risk to bill payers. Some £700 million of taxpayers’ money has already been thrown at the development of Sizewell C. That money could be better spent elsewhere. Capital costs for Sizewell C will be at least £30 billion. Think what that money could do if invested in other technologies and in particular in energy efficiency. I welcome the recommendations about aggressive energy efficiency targets going forward. Not only will that make bills cheaper, but it means healthier homes, healthier lifestyles and demand reduction.
Finally on nuclear, the report highlights elsewhere the issue of rising sea levels. It is madness to propose building a new nuclear power station in an area subject to coastal erosion and at risk of rising sea levels. Also, the report demonstrates that nuclear energy has never got cheaper cost-wise, whereas all other technologies, including battery storage and power-to-X fuels, are now cheaper than nuclear. Figures 1 and 2 from the report make the case that we do not need new nuclear and should be investing in other technologies.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Conservatives embrace so wholeheartedly dirty, outdated technologies, such as nuclear energy, and refuse to fully embrace tidal energy, which has so much potential for our renewables industry, certainly in Scotland, but right across the United Kingdom?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before you respond, Mr Brown, just remember the timings that were agreed.
Alan Brown
I will aim to be brief. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and I would like to see the Government set a 1 GW target for tidal stream. We need to follow through on the recommendation of the report and set a clear plan for investing long-term in CCUS, hydrogen production and pumped storage hydro, for supporting a carbon floor mechanism and for replacing the EU funding for the European Marine Energy Centre. I hope the Minister will work with us on planning consents for major infrastructure projects. Section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989 is reserved to Westminster, and there is a sign-off process for Scottish Ministers. If we are going to speed up the consent process, we need to work with the UK Government to do that. Hopefully the Minister will work with us on that with the Energy Bill going forward. There is so much to welcome in the report. I wish we had more time to debate it further, but I commend the right hon. Member for Kingswood on it.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West for that enthusiastic endorsement. May I welcome the new Minister to his place and thank the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), another constituency neighbour, for authoring this important review? As the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said, it was a Herculean task, and I know how much effort the right hon. Gentleman put into it and how many meetings he had to have. I also thank him for being so open to briefing MPs from all parts of the House about the report’s contents since it was published.
The hon. Member for Waveney also said it is vital that the Government act as a catalyst, so I hope he listens avidly to what I have to say a bit later in my speech about what a Labour Government would do with our green prosperity plan. I certainly agree that this Government could do more to act as a catalyst. I might leave it to the new Minister to respond to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who does not like solar on agricultural land, does not like onshore wind, and says there is not much point doing anything because China is not doing anything. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) pointed out, that is not quite the case. I point out that we are hoping that the Government will produce a land-use strategy before too long, which will hopefully thrash out some of these issues, such as the balance between making sure that good agricultural land is used for food growing and having solar.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) talked about the local context, how enthusiastic young people in her constituency are, the impact of Heathrow and the fact that new social housing should be low carbon, as well as electric vehicle charging infrastructure, which is a subject dear to my heart. She said that local leaders need support to deliver this agenda. The right hon. Member for Kingswood will know what Bristol is doing on that front in trying to lead the way in becoming a net zero city. Again, I thank him for his support on that as a near Bristol MP.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) mentioned the creation of the new Department, which I welcome. I just hope that the net zero and climate change side of it does not get too swamped by the energy side, because the Government have made pretty good progress on decarbonising the energy sector. Much more, however, needs to be done in other sectors, and as the report we are discussing today says, there needs to be faster progress on that. It cannot just be seen as the energy Department with the occasional reference to other aspects of achieving net zero.
This report makes clear what we have known for some time now: this Government are failing to grasp the economic opportunities that come with net zero. I am pleased that the report is so unambivalent about the benefits that can come from a transition to a greener economy. It calls it
“the economic opportunity of the 21st century.”
We know this report was originally commissioned to take the heat off a Government who were hellbent on doubling down on polluting expensive fossil fuels, regardless of the cost to the taxpayer or planet. The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) desperately needed political cover while she tried to push through her attempts to bring back fracking and ban new solar developments. Thankfully she did not stick around for long enough to do that.
We hoped that the next prime Minister would learn from the mistakes of his predecessor and embrace climate action as the huge economic opportunity that we know it to be. However, what were his first moves in office? He sacked the President of the COP26 climate summit, tried to duck out of attending COP27, attempted to resurrect the ban on onshore wind and was whizzing around the country by private jet, which I gather he was at again this morning. Those are hardly the actions of a climate champion.
Given that context of two Prime Ministers who, let us be frank, clearly could not care less about the climate, I am pleased that this review is not the greenwash many of us expected it to be. It does a comprehensive job of highlighting the many areas where the Government are falling woefully short in getting us to net zero. It makes clear that constant U-turns and lack of continuity make it impossible to plan and invest. All the businesses that I speak to in my role are telling me that time and again. They do not care about the politics of who is doing it; they just want that certainty, stability and sense of direction. It is clear also that the Government are not doing enough to make green technologies affordable for ordinary households. It is clear that this Government’s decision to axe support for home insulation in 2013 is the reason for plummeting energy efficiency improvements. It is clear that this Government have failed to set out a proper plan to restore nature or balance land-use pressures. It is crystal clear that we are falling behind in the global race to seize the economic opportunities of net zero.
That last point is particularly important. The review states that we must act quickly
“to cement the UK as a prime destination for international capital”.
Economic opportunities are being missed today because of weaknesses in the UK’s investment environment. The right hon. Member for Kingswood mentioned falling behind the curve—we are in danger of doing that.
These missed opportunities are blindingly obvious to anyone paying attention. We have lost Britishvolt in Blythe, the electric Mini in Oxford and Arrival’s electric vans in Bicester, and we are losing our steel industry piece by piece. It was worrying to hear the new Business and Trade Secretary being asked this week whether Britain would retain a steel industry. She said:
“Nothing is ever a given.”
We need to green and retain our steel industry here. Other nations are not facing the exodus of jobs but are actively encouraging their own green industries. They understand that green investment pays for itself. The United States has just announced unprecedented support for green industries through the $369 billion Inflation Reduction Act. Much of that support is linked to support for domestic green industries and designed to attract investment from overseas, too. The European Union has been quick and clear in its response to that Act, with more support for green industries that need it, and proposals for a net zero industry Act and a critical raw materials Act.
How has the UK responded? With a deafening and perplexing silence. I tabled a named day question on the first day back in January asking what our response to the Inflation Reduction Act would be. I keep being told that the Government are not ready to reply. I asked about that at International Trade questions this morning and I think the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) had a slip of the tongue and replied that she was talking to green lithium companies about investing in the US. I suspect that she meant the UK. But there was not a concrete response to IRA and there needs to be if we are not to be left behind.
We should be seizing the initiative, not sitting on our hands. The Government should work night and day to ensure that we do not lose a penny more in green investment because of the failure to make the UK attractive to green industries, especially those at the cutting edge of innovation. The companies doing something new and taking the risks really need that Government support and catalyst that the hon. Member for Waveney talked about. I hope the Minister tells us whether and how the Government are planning to respond to the huge international investment in green industries. Or have they simply given up?
As much as I welcome the report’s findings, it has only told us what we already know about the Government’s progress towards net zero. We are simply not going far or fast enough. The right hon. Member for Kingswood is far from alone in that opinion. His report is merely the latest in a string of scathing assessments of this Government’s record on climate change. The Climate Change Committee said in last year’s progress report that the Government’s climate strategy “will not deliver” net zero. The High Court said that the net zero strategy is unlawful and inadequate. How many times do the Government need to be told that before they get their act together? Given the repeated warnings about the snail’s pace progress towards net zero, the huge uncertainty for investors and the staggering lack of ambition on crucial policy areas, I have little faith that the Government will finally step up a gear. I hope that the creation of the new Department is a sign that it will, but we will be there to hold them to account if they do not.
If this Government do not act, the next Labour Government will. We have put forward a transformative agenda for Government, with a fairer, greener future at the core. We will invest £28 billion per year to tackle the climate emergency through our green prosperity plan, which will allow us to insulate 19 million homes within a decade; to deliver a clean power system by 2030; to establish GB Energy, a publicly owned clean energy company to ensure the benefits of our green investments are returned to the taxpayer; and to set up a national wealth fund to invest in those green industries that the Government seem happy to ignore and drive overseas. That means investment in new gigafactories, renewable-ready ports, green steel plants, green hydrogen, net zero industrial clusters and carbon capture and storage. It means good green jobs and growth for every corner of the UK. That is the kind of vision that this report makes clear is necessary. It is the kind of vision that British industry and this country are crying out for.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for publishing the report and pushing for this debate.
Before I move to the subject of the debate, it will not have escaped the notice of Members—in fact, it has been referenced a few times—that I stand here as a Minister on behalf of the brand-new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. As my right hon. Friend suggested, this is the first debate for this new Department, on my second day. I hope that demonstrates our commitment to net zero. The Department’s laser-like focus will be on securing a long-term energy supply, bringing down bills and halving inflation, giving the UK cheaper, cleaner and more secure sources of energy—something covered in great detail in part 2 of this excellent report.
The report and the creation of the Department align wholeheartedly with the great strides the UK has already made in our actions to tackle climate change. In 2019, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), ensured that the United Kingdom became the world’s first developed country to set a legal commitment to reach net zero by 2050. That was followed by our 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, published in November 2020. We built on that momentum in October 2021 by publishing the net zero strategy, which set out a detailed pathway to meeting our carbon budgets and net zero targets. That was followed by the British energy security strategy in April 2022, accelerating our ambitions on cleaner energy.
As Members will be aware, since publishing the net zero strategy, the economic conditions have changed significantly, due primarily to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Energy prices and inflation rose sharply—the former to record levels. In the light of that, in September last year the Government appointed my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood to chair an independent review of our approach to meeting our net zero 2050 target, to ensure that we deliver on our legal commitment to reach net zero by 2050 in a way that is pro-business and pro-growth, given the change in the economic landscape.
I am delighted that the results of my right hon. Friend’s independent net zero review were published on 13 January 2023. I wholeheartedly thank him and congratulate him on his work. This is a substantial and thorough report. I assure him that I will read it in full very soon, and that a full Government response will follow later this year. As we have heard, the independent review of net zero heard from businesses, academia, individuals and local government across the country that net zero is creating a new era of change and opportunity. It confirms that the Government have understood that the benefits of net zero far outweigh the costs and have acted on that for some time. It explains the opportunities and benefits of net zero for individuals and the economy, and specifies the action needed in individual sectors of the economy, through to how we enhance the role of local authorities, communities and the individual to deliver a just tradition. [Interruption.] If those on the Opposition Front Bench would listen rather than chuntering from a sedentary position, I said I would read it in full. I have read the report, but I will read all 120 recommendations in full and we will reply in full later this year.
Furthermore, the report reconfirms that the 2021 net zero strategy is still the right pathway, based on modelling on the most cost-effective net zero energy system in 2050, and that the policy should go ahead.
Andrew Bowie
I will not, given that I have made a commitment on time.
The review of net zero recognises that we have all made a great deal of progress through leveraging our international leadership in COP26. The proportion of the world committed to net zero has risen from 30% of global GDP to 90%. His Majesty’s Government have committed more than £2 billion to support the transition to zero-emission vehicles. That funding has focused on reducing barriers to adopting such vehicles, including offsetting the higher upfront cost and accelerating the roll-out of charge point infrastructure.
I take issue with the tone taken by the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who claimed that the Government had done nothing on climate. It was a Conservative Government who legislated for net zero. It was a Conservative Government who hosted COP26, and we look forward to working with the UAE as it looks to deliver COP this year to carry on that excellent work. It was a Conservative MP who brought forward the legislation for net zero—indeed, the same MP who wrote the report that we are debating. It was a Conservative Government who hosted the green trade and investment expo in Gateshead last year.
Unlike the Opposition, I am proud that we are leading the way in developing and exporting green technology. There were 430,000 green tech jobs in this country, worth £41.2 billion, in 2022. Companies like Catagen in Belfast, which I visited late last year, are developing green hydrogen and the e-fuels of the future. The hon. Member for Bristol East talked about onshore wind but completely ignored offshore wind. We are the world leader in offshore wind. We have the four largest offshore wind farms in the world off the coast of this island right now.
Despite all that, we are not resting on our laurels. We are raising our ambitions to ensure that we deliver net zero and realise the benefits. In last April’s British energy security strategy, we raised the ambition to deliver up to 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030, including 5 GW of floating offshore wind. We have already invested millions in offshore wind, securing many jobs and up to £320 million of Government support for fixed-bottom and floating wind ports and infrastructure.
To accelerate a reduction in energy demand—[Interruption.] If those on the Opposition Front Bench listen, they might learn something from what we are announcing today in response to the report. To accelerate a reduction in energy demand, the Government announced a long-term commitment in the 2022 autumn statement to drive improvement in energy efficiency to bring down bills for households, businesses and the public sector, with an ambition to reduce the UK’s final energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030, against 2021 levels. That will be supported by an additional £6 billion commitment to 2028 and the launch of a new energy efficiency taskforce, further details of which will be announced in due course. By 2030, 95% of British electricity could, if we work together, be low carbon, and by 2035 we will have decarbonised our electricity system, subject to security of supply.
I turn to the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). As a Member representing a vast rural constituency with a similarly vast road network, I hear the concerns about the EV charging network and the protection of farmland for food security. The Government take this incredibly seriously, and in due course the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our Department will publish plans for how we speed up the roll-out of the EV charging network and ensure food security while meeting our net zero ambitions.
We continue to build on the strong progress we have already made. We have many exciting policy announcements in the coming year. The Energy Bill, which is going through Parliament right now, will deliver an energy system that is cleaner, more affordable and more secure. We are committed to publishing an update to our green finance strategy early this year, setting out how we will mobilise finance for the UK’s energy security, climate and environmental objectives, and maintain our position as a leading green finance hub. We will set out the next steps of the United Kingdom’s emissions trading scheme in response to last year’s consultation. We have committed to adopting a zero-emission vehicle mandate, requiring that a percentage of manufacturers’ new car and van sales be zero-emission each year from 2024.
Alan Brown
The Minister is talking about green finance. What about the key recommendation that the UK Government have to do more funding-wise, particularly to offset the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States? We have the electricity generator levy here. The US is incentivising investment in renewables. Will the UK Government address that?
Andrew Bowie
This Government are committed to incentivising investment in renewables across the piece, working with the energy sector and others. In the full response to this report, which I assure Members will come later in the year, we will set out more plans in that regard. The hon. Gentleman is right; that is something we need to do.
New technology will be critical to the transition, and this comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) about phasing out fossil fuels. Of course we need to move away from a reliance on fossil fuels as our energy baseload. That is why we are transitioning. That is why Offshore Energies UK has its “Vision 2035” to make the North sea the first net zero basin in the world. We continue to work with the oil and gas sector as it produces the energy we require and will need for many years to come, and as it invests in the new technologies of the future, including carbon capture and storage—a technology in which there are many projects across the country.
Wera Hobhouse
Is the Minister not aware that the biggest investment is still in oil and gas exploration and extraction? How does that fit with what he just said?
Andrew Bowie
Exploration and drilling will continue. We will be reliant in some way on oil and gas for years to come. At the same time, we are working to increase our investment in renewables, as well as new technologies, including the developments in hydrogen and e-fuels that I have seen myself. This is a transition. It is not a case of simply turning off one form of energy and turning on another. We need to transition away from fossil fuels. That is why it is really important that we work with the oil and gas companies operating in the North sea to achieve that, as well as increasing our investment in new technologies being developed in this country.
We are a world leader in green and clean tech, as I saw just last week. We are delivering green and clean tech to countries across the world, but we must also work with our existing industry. The net zero research and innovation delivery plan will set out the Government’s current portfolio of research and innovation programmes that are backing Britain’s most innovative businesses to develop the next generation of technologies needed to deliver net zero. We expect to set out the next steps in a range of other critical areas, from energy efficiency to carbon capture and storage, very soon.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that part of the overall package needs to be improvements in connectivity for new solar farms to improve the roll-out of solar across the country?
Andrew Bowie
Yes, that will play a major part in where we move to, as we take forward the ambitious agenda that this Government instigated by legislating for net zero and that has been reinforced by this report, which we will reply to in full in due course. Extending and improving connectivity for solar farms is, of course, important.
As I have set out today, our net zero target remains a Government priority. I assure the House that we will carefully consider the recommendations proposed in the review and in this debate, and provide a full Government response later in the year.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Backbench Business Committee again for granting this debate and all Members who have spoken in it. The debate has demonstrated that, while Members may disagree on some of the contents of the report and its recommendations, as should be the case, the overall narrative of the review—that net zero is an opportunity and not a cost, and that we must seize this opportunity now and not delay—is overwhelmingly welcomed by all parties in the House. I stand ready to brief any political party that is willing to continue to look closely at the recommendations in the report.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) spoke about the Stern review, and it would be an honour if this report was seen in the same bracket in terms of its ability to influence future policy innovation.
Mention was made of the length of the report and the fact that it was done in three months. I am grateful for the incredible work that was done by the wider net zero review team in Government. Three months is 1% of our journey to net zero. We do not have time to waste. It has been 43 months since I, as the Minister, signed net zero into law. There are 323 months left until we reach net zero by 2050. The net zero clock is ticking. This year alone, that window is vanishing in front of our eyes. To borrow the analogy used by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), the bus is already at the stop and is about to depart, and we have to decide now whether we want to get on it or leave it behind. We need to look at this change this year and move as soon as possible.
When John F. Kennedy introduced the moon landing mission in 1962, he said that we do these things
“not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.
It will be hard to get to net zero, but let us all work together across parties to recognise the scale of the challenge. This challenge must reflect the whole of society. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, we must not leave any community behind. When it comes to net zero, we should not impose this on communities, but work with them and the wealth of views and opinions on how we can deliver on decarbonisation for the future. I hope that this report is not just the beginning but is a blueprint for a new Department on how it needs to move forward as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Independent Review of Net Zero.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for granting this point of order. I would welcome your advice. I wrote in both December and January to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to press him on the status and costs of the Rosalind Franklin laboratory, otherwise known as the mega-lab, in my constituency. Three weeks ago, it was announced that it would be closing, with a loss of 670 highly-skilled jobs, with four weeks’ notice. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), two weeks ago, and she told me to write to the UK Health Security Agency. I am not sure what I should do now, but surely the responsible Department should reply to me directly.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Speaker has made it clear that he believes any parliamentary written question should have a timely response. I am sure those on the Treasury Bench have heard the request and will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and our concerns, that he has not yet had a proper response from the Department.
Parliamentary Services for MPs
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of Parliamentary services for Members.
Before I get to the substance of my speech, it is worth referring to the Administration Committee’s meeting earlier this week with officers of the parliamentary contributory pension fund—we regularly meet the House’s excellent Officers. The fund’s documentation is almost impenetrable to normal human beings. It is 284 pages long, and those who started reading it 10 years ago are about halfway through. The officers tried their best, but the upshot of our informative meeting was a joint letter from the chairmen of the 1922 committee and the parliamentary Labour party asking the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for greater clarity on the technicalities of the McCloud judgment. That is how the Administration Committee makes progress on a weekly basis.
We are debating House services, and I will focus most of my remarks on the Administration Committee’s report, published yesterday, “Smoothing the cliff edge: supporting MPs at their point of departure from elected office.” Before I move into the substance of the report, it is important that I thank the Clerks who wrote the report and gathered the evidence. I have been a Select Committee Chair for 10 years, and it is remarkable that, wherever I go, I am always given the best Clerks. I said to my wife, “What is it about me that means I always get the best Clerks in the House of Commons?” And she said, “It’s because you require close management.” I am not sure that is entirely what I wanted to hear, but I have wonderful Clerks. All Clerks in this House serve us brilliantly, day in and day out.
I am alive to the public and media cry that we need better MPs. We have heard the cry in its various guises: “We need better MPs,” “All MPs are rubbish” and so on. When I was in business before coming to the House, I always welcomed conversations with colleagues who said, “We need to make this company more profitable.” That was not the end of the conversation but the beginning: “Okay, so we need to make the business more profitable. How will we do it?” If people genuinely want better MPs, that is the start of the conversation and we need to ask ourselves how we will do it. That is what the Administration Committee—we have members of the Committee in the Chamber today—set its mind to doing when we embarked on this report. The Committee started taking evidence about four months ago.
Most members of the Administration Committee have a business background, which is a hugely valuable resource. We learned and appreciated that Parliament is in a war for talent, and it is an employer like any other. If we want to attract some of the best and brightest 30 and 40-year-olds from their successful careers, we need to compete with business, academia, science, the arts, healthcare and education. All these wonderful careers are now not just nationally focused but internationally focused. These talented young people are working on not only a national stage but an international stage. We need to convince them that a vocation in Parliament is worth undertaking. That is now very difficult because, increasingly, a vocation in Parliament is linked to career jeopardy.
I speak to young people on both sides of the political divide—Labour and Conservative, and Scottish National party when I am up in Scotland—and they say, “That’s all very well, Charles, but we love what we do. We love to discuss politics and think about politics, but you would be mad to think that we will step out of our career to take part in politics.” I hear that too often.
As we move towards the 100-hours-a-week MP, where we expect Members of Parliament to focus every waking hour solely on their constituency, the gap between the career they have left, their vocation in Parliament and their future career—the difficulty of accessing and reintegrating with a career—becomes wider and wider. That is what we start to address in our report.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I spoke to you earlier while you were in the Chair. Every single Member is prepared to make sacrifices to serve their constituents. Some of those sacrifices are very large, and some of them are far too large. I look across at the shields on the Opposition side of the Chamber, which I know will soon be joined by another shield on the Government side of the Chamber.
We address that career cliff edge in this report. Wherever people come to Parliament from—Scotland, Wales or England; Labour or Conservative—they serve their constituents with diligence and with every ounce of energy, but there is a career cliff edge when they leave this place. Employers say, “It is all very well that you’ve been a Member of Parliament, but what skills do you have? What can you bring to our company? You are all very remote, aren’t you? That’s what we read in the newspapers.” We need to address that, because we want people who serve here to be able to take their amazing skills—I will address the skills that people secure in this place—to future employers.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
It has been a great pleasure to serve on my hon. Friend’s Committee. Does he agree that, for Members of Parliament, there is a difference between working here and working in a company? Generally, one leaves a company either because one has not performed well and is sacked or because one chooses to make a different career choice. Many people leave this place not because they have behaved improperly or because they did not do the work well, but because the general tide of national politics sees them go. We saw that in 2019, when many good Labour MPs lost their seats. That was not a reflection on them, just a reflection of the national tide. Is that not why we have a duty of care to these people?
Sir Charles Walker
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point that gets to the crux of the report. I was going to say that he encapsulates the report in a short sentence, but it was a brief intervention of more like three sentences. I will address his points more directly in a moment.
We did not just sit down and write this report. I did not grab a pen, drag my colleagues into a room and say, “Let’s just write a report. Let’s put down on paper the first thing that pops into our heads.” No, we went out and consulted academics, leading headhunters, outplacement specialists, retired senior Army officers and senior officials from Sport England. We went out and talked to people who know how to transition people from one all-encompassing vocation or career to another, and they all said that the way an institution treats people at their point of departure impacts that institution’s ability to recruit bright and talented people. That is because people watch this place closely now—30, 40 and 50-year-olds watch closely—and they know what is going on here. We also took evidence from former colleagues, who, as my hon. Friend said, largely lost their seats through no fault of their own.
Although we have a wonderful parliamentary democracy in so many ways, it does not score highly when it comes to the way it treats departing Members, so the Committee came up with a number of key recommendations, and I will go through them briefly—our report is actually brilliantly short, and while many Select Committee reports are 200 pages, ours is a little more than 50.
First, Members of Parliament should be preparing to leave this place from the day they arrive. That is a really difficult thing to get your head around. When I was elected in Broxbourne and handed the envelope that the winning candidate gets, I went white with fear, but never once did it occur to me that I would ever leave this place. Now I have announced that I am going, and I am preparing for my departure, but I wish I had thought about it a little harder over the past 17 years.
I am lucky, because I am leaving voluntarily, from what is notionally a safe seat, although if we read Electoral Calculus at the moment, that may not be the case. The average tenure of a Member of Parliament is nine years, but this is an uncertain career and vocation. However, even if a Member of Parliament serves for just one Session —for two, three, four or five years—they build up a huge skillset: mediating, negotiating, communicating and dispute resolution, to name just four. The Committee’s report suggests that those skills are not just captured but accredited by top-flight universities—in a sense, they are micro-qualifications. In this busy and complicated world, those are just the types of skills that industry needs. Members of Parliament are brilliant at juggling a whole range of complex issues and seeing a way through quickly. I am talking not just about those at ministerial level, but about what we do day in, day out with competing interests in our constituencies. So there is the issue of micro-accreditation and micro-qualifications.
Secondly, Members of Parliament must have access to ongoing career advice while they are here, and to outplacement services before, during and after their point of departure. That is absolutely critical. When I say “point of departure”, I do not mean the ballot box—I do not mean just those MPs who lose at the ballot box in a general election. I mean that all Members of Parliament need access to good, ongoing career advice and outplacement services. Again, the Committee did not make that up; it is what all the expert witnesses told us. They said, “You need to support people out of one workplace into another.”
Thirdly—there is no way of dodging this for an easy life, and I do not want an easy life—there should be better financial support for those leaving Parliament. Winding up a parliamentary office with tens of thousands of bits of casework does not take a couple of months; it can take many months. The way we financially support leaving Members is, again, an area where we score really badly. We score really badly against the Scottish Parliament. We score really badly against the Senedd in Wales. We score badly against almost every major, mature western democracy.
Let me put this into perspective. Since I announced I was leaving, I have had—possibly this is a slightly made-up number, because I have not kept a close record—511 conversations with people who know that I am leaving. Two of those were extremely positive: “Oh my word, Charles, you’re leaving. You’re going to be a huge success at whatever you do.” The other 509 have been, “Oh my word, what the hell are you going to do when you leave? What can you do?” It will be no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you know these two people, that the two positive conversations were with my mother and my wife. The other 509 were with people who are quite worried for my future welfare. It is that difficult. I am smiling, but I am making a serious point.
Although I cannot prove this, I suspect that some, although by no means all, long-serving Members of Parliament would love to leave, but are frightened and put off leaving because of the financial uncertainty—the financial cliff edge—and the career cliff edge they will face if they do go. With perhaps six months’ resettlement grant and some outplacement advice and career advice, we could actually free up seats, which would be to the benefit of those who want to leave and certainly to the benefit of their constituents.
The Committee’s fourth key recommendation—it makes me extremely sad that we had to make it—is to do with the security of Members of Parliament. In most cases, when you leave this place the personal risk to you—I mean you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as well as me and all colleagues in this place—diminishes very quickly. However, for some it does not. In the past, as soon as someone ceased to be a Member of Parliament, responsibility for their security was handed to his or her local police force. That is not ideal. We took some powerful evidence in private from Members of Parliament and ex-Members of Parliament who faced an ongoing and real risk. I was really pleased that we had the head of House security before us, and we are definitely going to do something on this issue—and we need to.
Fifthly and finally—there are more recommendations after five, but this is the final one in my speech—we need to give MPs better advice throughout each Parliament about Dissolution, winding up their offices, the expectations placed on them, the expectations they can place on the House, and the support services they will be able to access. All those things need to be thought about. I know we do not like to think about leaving, but we must have the opportunity to think about it and to understand what is expected of us and what we can expect of the House. Provision for that needs to be updated on a six-month basis and regularly notified to not just Members of Parliament but their office managers.
I want to touch on something briefly. There was a sentence in the report—I think the shadow Leader of the House knows where I am going with this, because I can see her smiling—suggesting that Members of Parliament should receive a medallion from the Speaker in recognition of their service to democracy. This has been positioned as a medal of the type that changes one’s name or means one gets letters after one’s name, but that is not what we are suggesting; this is about workplace recognition. A decade ago, I was awarded the president’s medal by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. It gives me no standing anywhere, and it does not mean that I get to the front of the queue anywhere. It gives me huge personal pleasure and satisfaction to know that the royal college recognised my contribution to mental health, and I may just wear it if I am invited to one of its events. That is what I meant, and what the report and my colleagues on the Committee meant, about a medallion of service. It is something that we could be presented with by the Speaker, and that would mean something to us.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for such a powerful speech. He is reminding me of the medallions that my councillors wear—perhaps former mayors, aldermen or people who have served with distinction—and surely what he is talking about is similar to that. Many hundreds or thousands of people have those sorts of medallions.
Sir Charles Walker
That is exactly what I am talking about. It is a nice and kind thing to do, and there is nothing wrong with being nice and kind. Workplace recognition is a good thing. I received a lovely pen when I left my first substantive job. I received a lovely decanter from the 1922 committee to mark my 11 years of service to it. Is it going to change my life? It is not going to change my life at all. Is it something that I will enjoy and that, I hope, my family and children will enjoy? Yes, it is. I just wanted to put that into context.
Treating people well is important, and it will encourage good people to run for office. As I have said, I entirely concur with the idea that we need better Members of Parliament. I suppose I should not be surprised that, when the Committee and my wonderful colleagues on it went away and thought about how we could do that, they got criticised for having done it, but the people criticising them are the very ones saying that we need better Members of Parliament. Excellence in this place should be the norm, not the outlier.
I will conclude by saying this—
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend concludes, may I just put it on the record that I would like to think on both sides of the House there could be no better Member of Parliament than he has proved to be during his time here?
Sir Charles Walker
I absolutely thank my right hon. Friend for that. He and I have been friends since I got here, and that means a huge amount to me. I thank him.
This is what I want to conclude with. We will never in this place struggle to attract the shrill, the loud and the raucous. We will always be inundated with the practitioners of the clear thinking of the totally uninformed. That is what makes this Parliament so wonderful. There are those who believe there are simple solutions to complex problems. If there were, we would have found them, Mr Deputy Speaker. I promise you that we would have found them. There is always space for that, and at times I have been one of the raucous, the loud, the shrill and the emotional—I celebrate that. But we also need the thoughtful, the considered and the intellectually inquiring. Their numbers really are thinning, and we in this place have a duty to reach out to them.
We have a duty—not just to ourselves, but to future generations of Members of Parliament—to make this place the greatest Chamber with the greatest vocation someone can pursue in this country. A President came yesterday, welcomed by literally thousands of people, and he referred to our Parliament as the greatest in the world. I take great comfort from that, and I want to prove him right day in and day out.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Dame Maria Miller, may I too put something on the record? Many of you will not know this, but when I was a rookie Member of Parliament, I employed a young Charles Walker as my researcher. I knew then that he was a bright lad, and I was thrilled when he became a Member of Parliament. He has been an outstanding Chair of the Administration Committee. I salute your bravery, Charles, in the way you have promoted mental health issues at a time when it was a taboo. You have been remarkable. I am so proud of you.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
On my very first day in Parliament, I decided to sit next to this blond-haired man whom I had never met before in my life. He stood up, and I will not repeat what he said to the assembled masses because it would embarrass him, but my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) was entertaining, informed and, above all, principled right from the start. He has been a great colleague for the last 17 years, and we will miss him.
It is therefore a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend, who has clearly set out how parliamentary services must change to help our democracy, and particularly to recruit the brightest and the best to Parliament. I would like to take that one stage further and talk about how we can broaden the debate to consider how parliamentary services must work even harder to ensure that this place functions in a way that can protect our democracy into the future. We have already mentioned that amazing visit yesterday from Volodymyr Zelensky, who is fighting for democratic freedoms for his nation, and the way that he talked so affectionately about our own Parliament. It made me feel, even more than ever, that we cannot take these things for granted, even in western Europe. That is why I am so grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and to the staff of the Administration Committee for all the work they do in helping us with the running of this House.
I also pay tribute to those who sit in the Chair you sit in, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is easy in this place to come in, be important and talk about important things that happen to our constituents and to the nation, but very few people take the time to think about how this place runs, and how they can play their part in making it better. Too few come forward to sit in that Chair and do the sorts of things that you do, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that your colleagues do in the Speaker’s Office. It is important that we acknowledge that. It is always behind the scenes, but it is what makes one of the most important and central institutions of our democracy work. Probably the people sitting in front of you also have a bit of a role in that, but we won’t go there.
The last two Speakers of this House were appointed at times of crisis, which is an interesting thing to reflect on. Our current Speaker—I will not refer to the previous one—was recruited to the role in the midst of a behavioural and cultural crisis in this place. I think that our Mr Speaker’s focus on security, culture and behaviour change has been exemplary, and led to a rapid change in a way that many people would not have foreseen. We also saw the way that the Speaker and staff rapidly changed the way our Parliament worked during the coronavirus pandemic, and the way that Mr Speaker has changed attitudes towards the security of Members of Parliament. We know that individuals in the Chair you are sitting in, Mr Deputy Speaker, can change the way this place works, but I suggest that we cannot rely on individuals alone, not least because we have had some recent Speakers who have not been entirely unflawed characters. We have to think about the governance of the institution, and the way it creates the right framework for the running of this important place.
The services provided by Parliament are crucial to MPs being effective. We are elected to come here, to scrutinise, and to get things done for the people we represent. We do that with the support of the House of Commons; we cannot do it ourselves. There is an army of literally thousands of people, from cleaners to Clerks, police to chefs, and subject experts in the Library to dedicated constituency staff, who are all there to help us be effective. Being effective MPs requires the right services to be in place—not just the same services that were there 40 years ago, but the right services for today. Even the most time-poor manager of a small business ensures that they have the right services in place for their business, and that is why this debate is important.
It is important that we discuss these things to explore whether parliamentary services are delivering in a way that helps MPs to be effective, and delivering for the way that we need Parliament to run. Effective MPs are not just a good thing in their own right; effective MPs help to build trust in the House of Commons; they help to build trust in Parliament and so they help to build trust in democracy. It could not be more important, particularly for those who believe that we have a responsibility to strengthen democracy in our time here.
Let us also remember that the staff of this place, whether they are extremely specialised, highly intellectual people drafting bits of legislation, the people who keep us safe as we enter this place or the people who service our meals when we are here late into the night, choose to be here. They choose to be in Parliament, not because it is just another place to work but because they want to be part of the democratic function of this country—what makes it so special.
Like much of Parliament, the provision of services is organised through Committees, predominately the Administration Committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne chairs incredibly well. Unlike other Committees, these are House Committees and, for the most part, they are advisory. When members of the Committee, including a number of Members present, raise issues around how this place is run or that they would like to see done differently, such as the quality of the wi-fi, the availability of mobile phone chargers in the Tea Room, as I was reminded a few minutes ago, or concerns about the perimeter security, these concerns can be voiced and they will be heard. However, we have absolutely no power whatsoever to get any action taken. We only usually get action taken because of the vivacious character of our Chair. That cannot be enough; things need to be more structured than that. Only the Commission has oversight of all these issues and can take action—a Commission, I remind everybody, that has no process to elect its members.
When it comes to planning ahead and the issues that the administration might want to consider because there are problems on the horizon, we have no ability to do that effectively either. The Administration Committee is strictly limited in what it can do. Of course, when it comes to the provision of services, the Procedure Committee and our Finance Committee are also crucial, but there is no structure in place for these Committees to work together. For example, if we have something like the uncertainty of sitting hours, which can go late into the night, there is no way of viewing how that might affect members of staff who are employed to run the services in this place.
The Leader of the House has been clear in her vision, such as in her recent speech to the Institute for Government, that the House of Commons should be the best legislature in the world. I could not agree more with her sentiment, but to achieve that not just noble but essential ambition, our parliamentary services also need to be the best in the world. They need to fit into that vision of a modern workplace, with modern procedures, adequate finance and accountability, and an ability to plan for the future and to respond to events. We have made huge strides under Mr Speaker’s leadership, but I am concerned that our governance and structures have changed very little, that they are not as good as they should be and that we need to look at them more. Indeed, some experts would say that the governance of the House of Commons is opaque, lacks accountability and is complex to understand. Those are not the attributes of an organisation that I would like to work for. To make provision for parliamentary services for MPs to be their most effective, Parliament needs to look at these things in detail. It needs to look at the governance and structures of how we can be a trusted institution into the future that reflects an organisation not of yesterday, but of tomorrow.
There are some notable examples, of which I am sure other Members will be aware, of where the inability to change things and evolve the way we work have received the full glare of publicity. Not least of them is the recent example of where we tried to set up a nursery in this place, which took three debates, two papers and a lot of behind-the-scenes work. Some of the hon. and right hon. Members involved have been in this place even longer than I have, and they still could not work out how we could effect that change. That is a salutary lesson; it shows that we cannot evolve services to meet the needs of Members. The result will be that we cannot attract the right Members to this place. We cannot then expect this place to be the world-class legislature that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would like it to be.
How do we make sure that parliamentary services are effective, and are what our MPs, and our democracy, really need? Some straightforward changes could easily be made that would make a real difference. It would be quite a revolution if we ensured that House Committees could work together and take a common look at how this place is run. We should evolve their role from a “take note” or advisory role, to a strategic one of the sort that Select Committees perhaps already have, so that they do not merely rubber-stamp decisions after the event, which, as colleagues on the Administration Committee will remember, was what happened in the case of the removal of the trees in the atrium of Portcullis House.
We should make the House Committees, which are fundamental to how the place runs, accountable through elections. They are the last area of Parliament in which Members are not elected to posts. We are appointed to our posts, and that simply does not pass the sniff test. We need to change that; the way that people gain positions on those Committees should be similar to the way that Select Committee members gain theirs. That would increase accountability. Our meetings are already transparent, but let us look at ways of opening them up even more, if they are so fundamental to democracy.
Scrutiny of the House of Commons Commission should be firmly in the remit of the House Committees. Just as Select Committees scrutinise Government, House Committees should scrutinise the Commission. That would be a very simple change of our role, but it might increase transparency about how the Commission runs, so that more Members can understand it, and can understand how decisions are taken. For too long it has felt as though the House of Commons is run from behind closed doors. Perhaps it is easier that way; that is what I have been told when I have asked why that is. There are concerns that scrutiny will undermine trust in this organisation. My argument is that a lack of scrutiny has already done that job for us, so let us have that change.
We cannot continue to rely on individuals, rather than governance, structures and systems, to ensure that this place is run well. I am told that it is Members who decide, when it comes to the running of this House, but I am afraid that those are hollow words to me when I think back to the debacle over the establishment of a nursery in this place. “It is for Members to decide!” No, it really was not, because there was no way for us to crystallise the decision and ensure action.
As a result of this debate, I hope that people not just in this Chamber, or listening in Parliament, but from outside start to call loudly for the changes that I have outlined. It has taken a year to get this debate, so I can already feel that this is not necessarily a debate that people in this place want to have. The issue is important because we need to support MPs, so that they can be their most effective. We need this to be a modern workplace, where both MPs and their staff can function at their best. We must attract a diverse cross-section of society to stand for election. We will not do that unless this place works better, and we have to start taking that far more seriously.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Maria, for your very generous and kind words. I will make sure that Sir Lindsay hears them. Those thanks are on behalf of Sir Lindsay, his entire team, and the Clerks. Thank you very much for your generosity.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I was fascinated by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) about the transparency of this organisation, because in many ways it is not transparent. I rather suspect that she has been waiting a long time for the opportunity to say all those things. I am not sure that I agree with all of them, but her point that this place must have transparency was very clear. All of us on the Administration Committee feel frustration at times with the fact that when we do not agree with something, we let it be known, and the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), lets it be known, but then it happens anyway. That sometimes causes members of the Committee, and members of the Finance Committee, to think, “Why are we even serving on the Committee?” But you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker, that does not actually have anything to do with the report. The report, which the Chairman spoke about in so much detail, is entitled: “Smoothing the cliff edge: supporting MPs at their point of departure from elected office”.
A lot of praise has been heaped, quite rightly, on all the people who work here. At the risk of being accused of gross sycophancy, I am going to mention the Whips on both sides of the House. I think people outside this place think that all the Whips do is impose discipline, but that is not the case. What they do is partly HR with attitude, as a former Whip once put it. They are also, talking about my former career, the floor managers of this place. If it were not for the Whips—I am looking at Labour, Conservative and SNP Whips—people would not turn up on time and debates would not finish on time. Mr Speaker and Mr Deputy Speaker might try to arrange that, but they are in the Chair. It is the Whips who go scurrying around, making phone calls and sending messages to ensure that Ministers and shadow Ministers are there on time for the work to be done. I am only singling them out because they were not mentioned in all those marvellous comments that my hon. Friend—he should be right honourable—spoke about.
This is an odd place. We want to get people of the finest ability to work here and there are many different types of people who come here. My hon. Friend talks about the loud and the raucous. Occasionally, it is rather nice to be loud and raucous in this place. When I first became an MP—I joined at the same time as you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I remember standing up in the Chamber and giving one or two earnest speeches and asking one or two earnest questions. A marvellous former Member of Parliament in the Press Gallery, Matthew Parris, then a sketch writer for The Times, said, “Michael, why are you like this in the Chamber? You must never forget that this place is theatre. Be theatrical, make your points. Be yourself.” And since I have done that, I have never been promoted! [Laughter.] No, no, I have. It is important that people should be themselves, but we have to be able to attract them in the first place.
Sir Charles Walker
My hon. Friend is raucous and wonderful, but he also does himself a great disservice. He is an expert in technology and has a background in radio. The Committee works so much better for having someone who knows not just how to plug in a PC, but how turn it on.
Michael Fabricant
This is turning into a mutual admiration society, but what is wrong with that occasionally, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is all about friendship, too. That is important in this place.
It is true, and I raised this point with my hon. Friend when he gave his excellent and passionate speech, that we have a duty of care to one another generally in society—there is such a thing as society—and we have a duty of care to Members of Parliament. I was there, I think, for all the evidence sessions—correct me if I am wrong—but reading the report again, drawn up by excellent Clerks, one becomes aware of how distraught and empty people are when they leave here in an involuntary way. Sometimes people leave voluntarily, as my hon. Friend is doing, as in any other organisation. Sometimes they leave because they have performed so badly here that the electorate decide to get rid of them. But more often than not they leave simply because of a national swing which is no fault of the individual Member of Parliament.
There is a rather lovely quote in the report:
“For some Members, coming to terms with their departure, whether through choice or not, could be similar to the grieving process. Dame Jane Roberts told us how ‘That loss…is akin to grief. That is true about all work but…leaving Parliament involves an intensity of emotion that does not often apply to other jobs’. She noted in her research how the majority of those that she had interviewed ‘had grieved the loss of political office in some way, often intensely. In adjusting to a very different life, most had experienced a sense of dislocation. They had initially struggled to find a new narrative about who they were and what they did, and a number had struggled to find employment.’”
It is not that these people are unemployable, as I sometimes say, or that they came here only because they could not get a job anywhere else; it is that if they have dedicated their life to a political ideal or to helping others, they will be emotionally invested in this place. Because of that investment, the movement away—the wrench—is as extreme as a torn muscle or worse, or the bereavement of losing a close relative.
Nick de Bois, a former Member of Parliament, told us:
“Sensitivity is lacking in the whole process.”
We heard evidence of people turning up and being told that they had to clear their office within two weeks. We know why—they have been replaced, and the House authorities have to decide how to deal with the House’s property—but when someone loses their seat after being here for many years, being expected to clear their office is a huge burden when they are grieving over the loss of a lifestyle.
What about staff? We heard evidence from staff who were completely at a loss as to whether they would be able to get a job with another MP. Colleagues already know all this, but it is worth saying. You never know: somebody might read Hansard. Many years ago, a former Chief Whip—a great friend of mine who is now in another place, with whom I had dinner last night, as it happens—said to me, absolutely rightly, “Michael, if you want to keep a secret, say it in a speech in this place and it’ll still be a secret.”
Assuming that somebody will actually read this speech, however, let me say in case people do not realise it that it is Members of Parliament who choose their staff. Members’ staff are imbued with huge trust: trust that they will keep constituents’ secrets and trust in how they help Members. What if there is a big change? In 2019, there were staff who had worked really hard for Labour Members, and it would have been difficult for them to get a job with a Conservative MP. We have a duty of care to them, as well as to Members of Parliament.
One Member said:
“You come out of an election when you are losing the thing that you have given your life to, for however many years. I have taken that as an experience of how I would not want to treat my employees today. It was an experience of what not to do rather than what to do. You immediately had your pass removed. You had to be escorted everywhere, whether it is around that centre or around the building. At moments, it felt like you were a criminal.”
Nick de Bois said that there is
“a huge gap that…the party needs to address”.
I think it is a gap that the House of Commons needs to address. He also said that
“you are cut off overnight. Your phone stops ringing pretty quickly”—
actually, to me that would be a relief. He went on to say:
“Friends are there, but there is not the support that some colleagues need.”
Dame Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the impact on departing Members. Does he share my concern that that impact, which he is describing so eloquently, may also be a massive disincentive for right-minded people to stand for election? As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) has been saying, we need to attract the brightest and the best to this place, but such people generally do not want to set themselves up to fail, or to be in an environment where they may end up being treated in not the most respectful way.
Michael Fabricant
I agree with my right hon. Friend, up to a point. I would argue that the problem is not one of people coming to this place, because they came to this place knowing that it was a risk. You do not become a Member of Parliament thinking you are here as of right. What concerns me more is that people who come here should think that they will be treated decently and that their staff will be treated decently, and that means being treated with kindness and compassion.
That brings me back to something that impressed me hugely. The duty of care is a great principle in English law: “Neither through action nor through inaction should someone cause someone else to be damaged.” We heard about it from members of the armed forces who gave evidence to the Committee.
Michael Fabricant
My hon. and gallant Friend wishes to intervene, and I will let him do so in a moment.
Those members of the armed forces talked about the continuing treatment that people who join the forces are given right from the very beginning. The Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, also talked about that in his excellent speech. It is the sort of treatment that we should be giving MPs, and perhaps their staff as well—again, right from the very beginning. We should be giving them knowledge that they can use when they eventually leave, and we all leave at some point. What was it that Enoch Powell said? I am looking at my friends on the Front Bench now! “All political careers end in failure.” It may not be true, but I think it probably is: “failure” in the sense that one leaves a ministerial career eventually.
James Sunderland
I commend my hon. Friend for his outstanding and thought-provoking speech. As Members will know, I served for a long time in Her Majesty’s forces—in the Army—and then left at very short notice to become an MP.
I will be honest: at times I have grappled with comparisons between the two organisations in which I have served. I think that Members do sometimes behave badly here— perhaps there is a lack of team spirit, perhaps people are uncompromising, perhaps people do not behave in the right way—but I am absolutely convinced of the sanctity of what politicians do, and I am also clear in my mind that the vast majority of Members on both sides of the House behave impeccably, are here for the right reasons and always operate in good faith. So my question to my hon. Friend is this: how do we convince people more broadly that politicians are a force for good? How do we convince them that we are here doing a very important job, that we work very hard, and that, actually, our intent, most of the time, is pure and honourable?
Michael Fabricant
I have an answer to that question, deep as it was. Stop watching Prime Minister’s Question Time; instead, watch parliamentlive.tv, and see the work that goes on in Committees and in debates like this, among others. Often there is huge consensus and co-operation between the parties on either side of the House.
The other day, I was present when some legislation was going through Parliament. The Liberal Democrats had tabled an amendment, and it was not a bad amendment, and we accepted it. I was rather amused, I have to say, that the Liberal Democrats looked more shocked than we were. They all started waving their Order Papers as if it were a victory—but the victory was that they had come up with a good idea and the Government had said, “Yes, it is a good idea. We will incorporate it in law.” And they did. That is the sort of thing that people need to see: that Parliament is a thoughtful place, and that on the whole, as my hon. Friend has just said, we strive to work together, and we strive to do what is best for the British people, and indeed for others, too, outside the United Kingdom, whether it be in war-torn Ukraine or in developing countries elsewhere in the world.
Nevertheless, the House has a duty of care to ensure that Members of Parliament can do their job as best they can by restructuring the existing systems, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke so marvellously explained, and by attracting people here by showing care for the time when they will eventually leave this place. The Daily Mail, and one or two other newspapers and one or two broadcasters were saying, “This report says we should be giving hundreds of thousands of pounds to Members of Parliament when they leave.” No, the report does not say that. But redundancy rules do exist for ordinary companies and for those who work in the civil service. For all the reasons I have explained, our job is far more volatile than those careers, because we can lose our job for reasons that have nothing to do with our own ability, or lack thereof.
Our redundancy payments should be the same as those in other sectors. Is that unreasonable? The press might say so; I would say it is just natural justice, and that is all the report asks for. I hope that people will read it and that the House of Commons Commission—we do not know what exactly it gets up to—reads it. I hope that Mr Speaker, who is very imaginative and for whom I have the highest respect, reads it. More importantly, though, I hope that something is done about it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We come now to the Front-Bench contributions, starting with Deidre Brock.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and the rest of the Administration Committee on securing this debate. It really is important that Members have an opportunity to reflect on how we can best ensure that the House’s services and facilities are equipped to help us carry out our roles as representatives of our constituents and as legislators. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who is a member of the Administration Committee, is very sorry that she is unable to be here today herself.
Some might wonder why an SNP Member is concerned about the running of this Parliament, when one considers the fact that our dearest wish is to be away from it as soon as we possibly can be. However, we have to serve our constituents to the very best of our abilities, and we of course want to see addressed anything that might constrain that or reduce that impact.
Michael Fabricant
The hon. Lady mentioned her colleague who could not be here; the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) is a superb example of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) asked about. She provides huge amounts of information and ideas to the Administration Committee. Regardless of whether she is SNP, Labour, Conservative or whatever, we all love her and wish she could be here today. That shows the degree of constructive co-operation that goes on among the parties in this place.
Deidre Brock
Well, I will certainly make sure that my hon. Friend hears that comment. I know she will be pleased that her efforts are appreciated. She is a very effective parliamentarian, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and would always be intent on making sure that services run as effectively as possible. I am sure she appreciates the admiration expressed by the hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, by other Committee members as well.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne spoke of the importance of holding this conversation about improving not just House services, but the quality of representation and, indeed, representatives for our constituents. He made the fair point that this place needs to be aware of the competition it faces from so many other sectors in today’s world. He spoke about the uncertainty of this role and the fact that that can prove unattractive, as well as about the skills needed for the role, from spinning lots of plates to diplomatic skills—for most of us, anyway. He also touched on security, which I agree is a vital issue, particularly in the light of the dreadful circumstances of the deaths of two Members of this House in recent years.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne mentioned the provision of better advice for Members. The information available to Members on how this place works has improved vastly, even since I was elected in 2015. I thank all the House staff for their long and hard work on that. I spent some time being interviewed by them and passing on my thoughts, and I know that many other Members have done so as well. I know that the staff are looking to make even further improvements to that information. The workings of this place can be really quite impenetrable at times, so the information is a really big help to anyone coming here for the first time, and I am pleased to see that that work will continue.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) about the need for more transparency around the decisions of the House’s Committees, including the suggestion that Members should be elected to posts. It will be interesting to see how that conversation develops and how that might actually work, especially when it comes to ensuring that we get sufficient numbers of Members interested in taking on those roles. As I know from the work of the Administration Committee, there is quite a lot of work involved. We need only look at the work in the report, and the reports from previous Committees, to see what is involved. She also talked about the need for greater scrutiny of the House of Commons Commission to increase insight into what happens behind closed doors.
I am on the Commission myself and wish to pay tribute to Mr Speaker and his team for the focus that they bring to the work. I know that he is intent on further professionalising the Commission and the work that it does, which is really starting to pay off—certainly from what I have seen in the short time that I have been on the Commission—especially on things such as the recent report from Lord Morse, the recommendations of which were accepted by the Commission.
Dame Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Member for referring to the comments that I made. May I draw her a little further on the role that House Committees could have in scrutinising the work of the Commission? Is that something that she feels that she might support?
Deidre Brock
I have only just heard about that from the right hon. Lady. Certainly I am sure the Commission would be prepared to consider it. We have a meeting coming up fairly shortly, so we might be able to put that into “any other business”.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned the duty of care to our teams. That is so important, because when a Member loses their seat for whatever reason, they are left scrambling to find work. I am really pleased that this has been raised. We all know how vital those members of staff are to our work, and how trusted and valued they are, and they deserve nothing less than the best that we can do for them.
I thank colleagues and predecessors on the House of Commons Commission who last year agreed the next House of Commons service strategy for the period 2023 to 2027, which, of course, we will continue to monitor. I have been in this position for only a relatively short period of time. I was a councillor in Edinburgh Council for some years. That is a large public body in itself, but sitting on the House of Commons Commission and seeing the work entailed in keeping this particular parliamentary duck swimming along, even while underneath the waterline we know the feet are pedalling furiously, has still been something of an eye-opener. I have been so impressed by the dedication of those who report to, or work for, the Commission. I must mention in particular Clerks Gosia McBride and Ed Potton, who have been immensely helpful in interpreting some of the more obscure points made in some of the papers put before us.
I wish to commend all the staff of both Houses and the Commission—from Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and their offices to In-House Services—who, across so many different areas, do an absolutely exceptional job of keeping this place running smoothly, very often in trying circumstances. That was especially evident during the pandemic, but also evident in the events around the late Queen’s passing and in the sudden efforts required for President Zelensky’s very successful visit yesterday.
I must also pay tribute to Sir John Benger, who has just announced that he will end his tenure as Clerk of the House in the autumn after four years, although after many years in total in this place. On behalf of the SNP, I wish him all the very best in his new role. However, his departure raises concerns about possible costly delays to the restoration and renewal programme as a result, so I look forward to hearing of a suitable replacement as soon as possible.
I gathered some views from colleagues and staff members before I prepared for this speech. One point raised with me, which I am sure is of paramount importance, is that Members be given assurances that the R and R project will take full account of the potential impact on the health and safety of staff. This is an iconic and historic building, a world heritage site, but we know it is decaying in key areas and often falls short of what is required in a modern workplace.
Wi-fi infrastructure can be unreliable—although I have nothing but high praise for those in the Parliamentary Digital Service, who are always remarkably responsive and incredibly patient with those of us who are not completely IT literate—many of the windows are single-glazed and do not open or close, which we know adds up to a giant carbon footprint, the lifts often break down and there are problems with the heating, to give just a few examples raised with me. We are told and we hope that the issues will be resolved once R and R is complete, but the urgency of addressing them should be emphasised on behalf of the many staff who spent so much of their lives here.
I also need to pass on views received from staff members that less maintenance and procurement work in the building should be contracted out. One member of staff I spoke to felt that, for example, electrical and plumbing services were not carried out quite as well or as cost-effectively as they might have been with more oversight from the House, and others have spoken to me with exasperation of overly complicated procurement systems.
Another issue raised with me, which is certainly dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, is accessibility. Some hon. Members have highlighted the problems of too few adapted offices for disabled folk. Due to the present system of allocating offices after an election, suitable rooms are often not available for those who really need them—and it is worth bearing in mind that anyone can become disabled at any time. I ask what the House can do to ensure adaptable offices can be kept in reserve for Members and staff who have or develop disabilities.
Dame Maria Miller
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady again; she is being gracious in giving way. She referred to issues some people with a disability have in getting into this building, a concern I share with her, which highlights the issue we have with a lack of read- across between the House’s Committees. The Procedure Committee considered whether we should have the ability to participate in proceedings in this place remotely. All those opportunities were cut as a result of a recommendation from that Committee, but it strikes me that if one of our number were to become unable to enter this building because of a disability, or had a member of staff or constituent who wished to visit, they would not be able to participate at all, simply because the Procedure Committee, for another set of reasons, had decided to stop all remote participation. It feels to me that we need more read-across between the House Committees, so that we are not making decisions in isolation.
Deidre Brock
I agree, and I am about to go on to make that very point. I know that proxy voting has been improved recently, and I really welcome that as an important development, but there are other ways we should look to adapt and modernise this place, particularly as a workplace. For example, we know that in summer 2021 the Commons Executive Board agreed that, as an employer, the House and Parliamentary Digital Service would positively promote flexible and remote working. I also note that in the Leader of the House’s speech to the Institute for Government last month, she acknowledged that the systems that were built during covid demonstrate the range of options available and stated that “slow and dull” would no longer do. I think that is a fair point. I look forward to hearing what more she might present to us today and what proposals might be brought forward.
I was interested to see the Administration Committee’s report on supporting MPs—and, indeed, their teams—at the point of departure from elected office. The report’s contribution to improving the accountability and preparedness of the House service and IPSA for future elections is an important one. I look forward to reflecting on it further.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow so many great contributions from across the House, including that of my SNP Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), and, before her, that of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). It shows me that there are points of agreement across all divides in this place when he and I can agree on such an important matter as appreciation for the Whips Offices and how well they organise us all.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) took us through her vision for improving many aspects of how we run this place. I particularly appreciated her example of the effort, time and perplexity that people went through to get the crèche set up. We now think, “How was it not a thing before?” It is extraordinary to think that it was once a bar, especially for those of us who have arrived recently—I know that the memories of some are long. I am glad that we have the crèche, but it is astonishing that it took so long. Many of the points she raised are worthy of further exploration.
I am grateful to my friend the Chair of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), for his—as always—thoughtful, witty and entertaining but provocative contributions on how we appreciate Members and why it matters. I look forward to discussing it with him further. I thank him and his Committee for their important report. It was published after this debate was secured, so I will focus on parliamentary services, but we have a lot of work to do in picking up on his comments.
I put on record my gratitude and that of the Labour party for the thousands of members of House staff who support our work across an enormous range of professions and services, from the Clerks to the cleaners. We need their quality services so that we can best serve our constituents in our constituencies and represent them here.
The country, and indeed the world, saw the very best of the House service throughout the pandemic, during the lying in state of Her late Majesty the Queen, and, I would add, just yesterday for the very sudden arrival of one of the most important Heads of State in the world. On all those occasions and more, House staff have done Parliament proud; they carry out their duties with great distinction. The public possibly never realise just how hard the Doorkeepers work to ensure we are going the right way and are in the right place, for instance, but we see all those people do those things every day, and I thank each and every one of them for it. I also challenge us all to show our appreciation and our respect. Yes, they are there to help us to serve our constituents, but they are not our servants; they are our colleagues. We are grateful to them all.
Whether we are scrutinising the Government, making laws or debating the issues of the day, everything we do is for the benefit of the people we represent. That is what this debate boils down to. I cannot speak to every parliamentary service—colleagues who have trains to catch may be glad to hear that I will not—but I will pick out a few of current relevance.
First, I congratulate the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on his appointment. He advises as well as adjudicates on the rules that govern us. I am glad that he has prioritised improving the quality of information in the guidance. I also think it important for the public to know that those rules are there. Given some of the high-profile cases, it is no wonder that the public sometimes think that there are no rules or that nobody is bothering to enforce them. Yes, there are rules; yes, they are being improved; and yes, there is a body of people, led by the commissioner, whose job it is to hold us to them. It is to the merit of the commissioner that he is engaging with so many of us.
I do not think that we have ever had a golden age when everybody thought politicians were completely trustworthy, but people should be able to trust that there is a system around us to hold us to account when we fail. That connects to the work of those in the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as well as to our Domestic Committees and the House services that support them, which I thank.
I also welcome the commitment of the commissioner and his team to work on improving everyone’s understanding, so let me ask the Leader of the House a quick question. Would she support me in ensuring that at least one physical copy of the rules is sent to every MP’s office, and that copies are made readily available in every Vote Office, clearly labelled to show when the code is coming into force and so on? Let us make it easier for everybody—the public, Members and staff—to know what the rules are.
I understand that the Parliamentary Digital Service is hard at work on a new platform to bring accessibility and transparency to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to make it easily searchable. Clearly we need that—it is long overdue, and I thank PDS for updating me recently on that, and I urge it to press ahead. I welcome the move to bring Members’ interests together in one searchable digital place. I would like some reassurance from the Leader of the House that there will be the opportunity to include gifts and hospitality that Ministers receive on the same register, or to have some method of linking between the two.
I put on record, slightly stretching the debate from parliamentary services, my appreciation for MPs’ staff. That gives me an opportunity to thank all those unsung heroes, and in a personal way, I thank my long-serving office manager, Arthur Girling, who will shortly be leaving my office, after seeing me through Brexit, covid and many more crises. He has served me and the people of Bristol West well, and I am very sad to see him go, but I wish him all the luck in the world in his new role. Thank you for indulging me on that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The wide range of skills that MPs’ staff use as part of a busy small team is impressive. While we are working here for our constituents on legislation, they are in our constituency offices providing direct assistance and being our frontline, often dealing with complex and heartbreaking situations. It is not on that they have to deal with the brunt of online and actual abuse. It may be directed actually at us, but they take the brunt of it. On that, I draw attention to another parliamentary service, the wellbeing service. I encourage all colleagues to make use of it and to look at how they use their wellbeing budgets to enhance the wellbeing of their staff.
I also thank the Library service and the Vote Office and Table Office staff, who are invaluable in helping us and our staff to serve our constituents. They are our primary service. They need support, and I thank the Members’ Services Team with their HR service, pastoral support and free training for staff and MPs. Again, I encourage colleagues to show our leadership and be proactive in taking up that help, searching out what is available for our staff and ourselves so that we can, as Speaker’s Conference is looking at, be the very best we can at being leaders of our teams.
We are elected to be leaders—and not just political leaders, but team leaders, community leaders and campaign leaders. In order to do that as well as we can, I encourage all colleagues to make use of what is there, but I would also like the Members’ Services Team and the Speaker’s Conference to consider what else the team might do proactively, such as they do when an MP sadly dies in service, where proactive contact is made with MPs’ staff after that tragic occasion. I would like the Members’ Services Team to be considered for other tasks. I know that the survey of the 2019 intake will be useful for informing that.
Several House services have a role in helping us and our staff to feel safe. The introduction of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme was a mark of great progress, and we are much better than we were when I came into this place, but there is room for improvement. Too many cases take too long, and I know the ICGS knows that, and I have spoken with the current director. I look forward to seeing the recruitment of more investigators helping to speed things up.
I also give a note of appreciation, as well as a challenge, for our magnificent security staff, who put themselves on the line every day to protect us and to allow us to come to work unimpeded by threat. We have lived through many threats over the past few years, including, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) has mentioned, the murder of two of our colleagues, but I will never forget the ultimate sacrifice made by PC Keith Palmer, killed in the line of duty protecting us on that terrible day in 2017. I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to remember him when we pass his memorial in Parliament Square. I support the police and security services on the screening and diligence work that they know they have to do and keep doing.
James Sunderland
The shadow Leader of the House is making an important speech, and I agree with everything she is saying about security. We are well looked after here as MPs; we have great security, great police and she rightly commended those who look after us. Does she agree, however, that there is work to do on security governance and how we look after MPs—our colleagues—off the estate?
Thangam Debbonaire
I do. It is interesting that there is such a degree of concord across the House on this subject. The security is not just for us but for our staff and it is so important, particularly in the light of several recent high-profile cases, whose names I will not mention because I do not want to dignify them. We have a challenge with officers who have served here, though only for a short time. We need to know the greater risk of their serving on the police force, and I think we have had that assurance that our security and police services are working on that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to do much more to make sure that we are doing that off the estate, too.
There are too many services to name them all, but I will try to rattle through them. I encourage everyone to show their appreciation for the staff who go above and beyond by using the STAR staff recognition scheme on the intranet—if any Members are puzzled, they should have a look. I have certainly used it, but probably I could do so more. We should use it to show our appreciation for the security staff, cleaners, Clerks and Doorkeepers. If someone has gone out of their way, please use that.
We have the Governance Office, the Finance team, Select Committee staff, the People and Culture team, the Research and Information team and the House of Commons Library, who I have already mentioned. I have used Speaker’s Counsel many times for advice on points of law. There is Hansard—I see them up there. There was a rueful grin earlier when the hon. Member for Lichfield asked whether anyone actually reads Hansard. Yes, actually. Even if it is just us, we need them to do that. If I want to hold Members and Ministers to account, I need to know what they said. If I am to learn how to improve my speeches, I need to read what I actually said rather than what I scribble down and cannot read.
Dame Maria Miller
Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), the shadow leader is an appointed member of the House of Commons Commission, so she is in charge of running the services that she has just been talking about. Will she join me in calling for House Committees to be given the opportunity to scrutinise the work of the Commission? I am sure that, as a member of that body, she would want to ensure as much transparency as possible and an ability to improve the decisions made there through the scrutiny process?
Thangam Debbonaire
I agree that commissioners should always strive to improve how we conduct our business. An interesting point of tension could arise because those domestic Committees advise us, so I will look at the right hon. Lady’s proposal in more detail. We might need to work out the lines of accountability. I thank her for that intervention.
Michael Fabricant
I will not be quite as philosophical or learned as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller). I will simply say that given this is a sort of Oscar ceremony where we are praising everyone—I already praised the Whips—we should also mention the Serjeant at Arms department, which looks after the work in the Chamber. People do not realise that it also looks after security within the boundaries of the Palace of Westminster.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. It might have been the In-House Services team that I had not yet mentioned, and I am happy to concur. As well as having a bit of a love-in today, some of us have offered challenges to one another and to those House services that we love and respect but also need sometimes to improve.
I want to finish by saying that we thank them all. We should all strive for improved services for Members because it is in the interests of the public, of democracy and of the constituents we serve. That may mean looking at how we support Members who are leaving or working out whether we are taking care of our cleaners properly. I ask all Members to think about what we could do better, so that we can serve our constituents and, most of all, democracy to the best of our ability, and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
Let me start by congratulating the Chair of the Administration Committee and member of the Commission, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I also thank the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this debate. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken. I would like to add my thanks to the staff of the House for their support and the services they provide, which allow all Members and our staff to go about the business of representing our constituents. If anyone is from a department that has not been mentioned by name this afternoon, we are thinking of them too.
As Leader of the House of Commons, while I am focused on getting our legislative agenda through Parliament, I also want to focus, in whatever time I have in this job, on how to make our legislature the best in the world. It is really important that we hold debates such as this, to give all Members the opportunity to raise issues and have confidence that their views will be heard. I say that in part because some members of the public will wonder why we are talking about ourselves today, but it is important. Although there is no job description for a Member of Parliament, one thing we can say is that we are all here to empower our constituents. If we ourselves have agency and are empowered to represent them, make good laws for the land and help sort out their issues, our constituents and the citizens of this country will become more empowered.
I thank all contributors to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne may take close management, and may indeed be difficult to manage, but he is also the voice of gumption and kindness and the champion of being effective and excellent. He spoke about a war for talent, as well as the career jeopardy and the opportunity cost that come with serving in this place, and he is right to point to that. We also need to place on record that we are all here because this is a fantastic job; we very much believe that. When I am asked to go to recruitment events to get more women involved in Parliament, I no longer give speeches; I just read out the list of the things we have been able to do and the very rewarding casework we do, sometimes saving lives and dealing with incredibly emotionally powerful situations.
It is a fantastic job, but there are unique stresses to it that affect Members of Parliament, including those who become Ministers. I am very pleased that we have been able to make some progress on setting up a proper HR function for Ministers in Whitehall. That is incredibly important. I shall not go into detail now, but I think it will make a massive difference to supporting Ministers. Sometimes we ask them to juggle chainsaws with little support. That needs to be rectified, and it will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne spoke about the Administration Committee’s report. He told me about some of the harrowing evidence that he and his Committee heard from ex-Members of Parliament who had been the victims of severe abuse when they were in this place. It is incredibly important for us to ensure that when Members leave this place, they are still supported by virtue of the job they did.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke is right about the need to ensure that this place is the best it can be. I thank her for her encouragement and for the insights she gave into the international dimension to this place. Although some Members may not belong to a particular body or all-party parliamentary group, they may want to network with those in other Parliaments, and we should look at the support we give them to do that. She is right that in all these things we need to get a blinking move on—it takes us a long time, several debates and a lot of pontificating, and sometimes we can learn as we go and stand up and improve these services.
It is incredibly important that there is accountability. I spent the Christmas recess reading the governance reports and restructures of the last 20 years in this place. Important though they are, we sometimes disappear down a rabbit hole of detail and committee structures, whereas we need to be focused on what we are trying to get done and the practical things that need to happen to enable us to do it.
Dame Maria Miller
I will chance my arm with yet another member of the House of Commons Commission —there are four members of the Commission in the Chamber today—as the Commission is responsible for the delivery of parliamentary services. Although I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must not disappear into navel gazing, it is important that any changes are part of a governance structure, which means they are bigger than the individual in post at the time. Will she, therefore, undertake at least to consider supporting my urging that a House Committee takes on direct scrutiny of the Commission? Even if we need to invent yet another body to take on the advisory role that the shadow Leader of the House mentioned, scrutinising the Commission would put some grit in the oyster and perhaps make the changes that the Leader of the House wants to see happen even faster?
Penny Mordaunt
I have a great deal of sympathy for what my right hon. Friend says. We need to look at the relationship between the three main Committees working on House services and the other things that enable us to do our job. We also need to look at the work of the Commission, and I am sure my colleagues on the Commission would say that we want the Commission to work better. That is what we need to focus on. Scrutiny is obviously key, with the caveat that there are sometimes sensitive issues that have to be kept confidential, but I am all for greater scrutiny.
The Speakers of both Houses, the noble Lord True and I are very keen to ensure that the House of Commons Commission and its equivalent in the other place are much more effective and that we have much more confidence in how this whole place is run, whether by parliamentary services or in the financial accountability running alongside them. I am happy to continue those discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke.
My right hon. Friend and other colleagues touched on standards, and I have urged the House to invite Sir Cary Cooper to come and look at our standards landscape—again, not disappearing down the rabbit hole but looking at the overall situation of the many standards bodies we now have—which is incredibly important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is a veteran of the Whips Office. He gave a very good speech and spoke kindly about staff. Of course, one of the unique pressures when we run for re-election is that we are not only concerned for our own future. If we lose our job, our staff do, too. Again, that brings unique stresses. During Operation Pitting, I remember that many Members and their staff were on the phone to people who were in the crowds outside Kabul airport and begging for a lifeline. These were incredibly dramatic things to go through. There are stresses on Members of Parliament, but there are stresses on our staff, too.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) also paid tribute to all House staff. I can assure her that one of the core principles of restoration and renewal it that health and safety and wellbeing are part not only of what we are creating but of how we create it. I thank her for putting on record her thanks to the Clerks of the House, which I am sure everyone echoes.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, paid tribute to many staff, and I echo her comments. I completely agree that the landscape of rules that people have to follow can be complicated, and that it is much easier to pick up a booklet containing everything we need to know. The Commissioner for Standards thinks so, too. Physical copies should be readily available; we should make these things as easy as possible for people to understand.
I gave the hon. Lady an update yesterday on the encouraging news about the database for ministerial gifts and hospitality. As of yesterday, we are on track to meet the deadlines I set when we debated the issue on the Floor of the House. If we meet those deadlines for establishing the database, we will obviously be able to link the House and Government databases, although it will take a little longer if we want a combined system. Certainly by the summer, however, anyone who wants to find out about the hon. Lady’s interests or my interests will find that much easier to do, and that will apply whether they are looking at Ministers or not.
I thank the hon. Lady for again reminding the House of the ultimate sacrifice made by PC Keith Palmer. It was a shocking day for everyone who was on the parliamentary estate, but we cannot begin to imagine what it was like for his colleagues. We should never forget the risks they take to keep us safe in here.
I want to tell the House about a couple of things that we are going to do to make some of this ambition a reality. The House delivers a range of support to Members so that they can carry out their responsibilities effectively, but I feel strongly that many Members will have ideas about additional services that they need. For example, many colleagues run mini-businesses from their offices—social enterprises and so forth—and the role of an MP has changed quite dramatically over recent years, so colleagues will clearly have ideas about how certain services can improve.
I am working with the House, through the House of Commons Commission, to bring forward a survey in the next few months to look at what additional support and services we can develop to enable right hon. and hon. Members to do their jobs better. The survey will build on the work the House has done in seeking Members’ views on how to improve services and in considering whether additional services need to be offered. I hope that that will ensure that the rebalancing of the House’s new strategy towards prioritising Members’ services becomes a reality. I encourage all Members to respond to the survey when it comes out, and I suggest that they fill it in alongside their staff. It will look at the issues raised today, including not only Members who are coming into the House but Members who will be leaving it.
In addition, and to make sure that we really are the best in the world, I am keen to benchmark ourselves against our equivalents—initially in the G7. I have been working with the House to look at the services that those other Parliaments provide to their Members, and I have commissioned a research briefing on the standard of services that MPs in those Parliaments receive.
To conclude, many of the matters we have discussed today are ultimately a matter for the House rather than the Government, but I am working closely with the House of Commons Commission, the Administration Committee and the other Committees of the House to ensure that we make good progress. Finally, I again echo all the thanks and gratitude that many Members on both sides of the House have expressed to staff for the excellent services they provide us with.
Sir Charles Walker
We have had an eclectic debate. We started by talking about the McCloud ruling, pensions and the fact that the respective chairs of the 1922 Committee and the parliamentary Labour party had written to IPSA asking for greater clarification, which shows that there is great cross-party support for action. I then talked about the Administration Committee report on how we can treat Members better when they leave this place.
We then had some fantastic speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) demonstrated her amazing intellect in demanding that the House demand greater accountability from House services and the Commission. We had fantastic oratory from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). It is so sad to think that his glory years in the Government were wasted as a Whip, when he could not speak, and we missed out on his fluid words and all the speeches he would have made if he had been on the Front Bench as a Minister during that time. I would like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), an ex-Army officer who served his country in the Army for 30 years and is now serving it in this place. I would also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for his kind words, which were very much appreciated.
I thank the respective Front Benchers. It is really nice that we have had the A team here. It would have been easy for the respective Front Benchers—the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the SNP spokesperson—to delegate responding to this debate to one of their more junior colleagues. I am sure each of those junior colleagues would have done brilliantly, but it is lovely to have the parties represented by the principles of my right hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), and I thank them for the effort they made in attending.
Finally, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; we have been doing a lot of thanking today. You were responsible for putting me through on to the candidates list about 25 years ago. Your predecessor in the Chair this afternoon gave me my first job here, and a few years later you put me on the candidates list, so if anybody watching the Parliament channel takes great offence at my presence in this place, they know who to blame. Anyway, thank you very much, and I wish all colleagues a happy constituency Friday.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I clearly have a great deal to answer for. I say to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) that I heard the tribute paid to him by Mr Deputy Speaker Evans, and I endorse his words wholeheartedly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of Parliamentary services for Members.
Accountability in Financial Regulation
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here for this last debate before recess to discuss such a crucial topic, and one that the House should find of the utmost interest. My background in finance comes from the self-regulatory age, but I have watched developments over the past 20 years with great interest.
The context is that the UK needs to raise its sights and raise its game to ensure a bright sovereign future. That necessitates taking significant and essential steps to make the UK competitive for the next generation as an independent country. For that, it must first complete Brexit by replacing the Northern Ireland protocol with sovereignty-compliant arrangements. That would reinstate the legal effects of the Good Friday agreement by removing the stain on the rights of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. We should not shy away from using the Parliament Act on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, if necessary, to do the job of protecting the EU’s border on behalf of a reluctant EU. Secondly, we must address the small boats issue to control our borders by taking surgical steps to remove the effect of the European convention on human rights in cases of illegal arrival. Thirdly, we must remove all unnecessary EU-inherited law and replace what remains with regulations drafted in the common-law style that are appropriate for UK conditions and best able to enhance our future.
However, the reversion to our common-law approach, which will be a huge competitive advantage in the long term, will not be complete unless we address a significant problem that has crept into our system over the last decades, including, most significantly, for the financial industry. This is the problem of our regulators lacking sufficient accountability under the law. Almost all of those who spoke in the Lords debate on the Financial Services and Markets Bill agreed that this is a problem. We must seize the opportunity to fix it as part of its passage.
The Bill devolves the inherited EU rulebook to the regulators to manage and adjust, so that they can rewrite it quickly in the common-law style and remove unnecessary provisions. A major problem, however, is that at present there are no mechanics for ensuring that regulators draft clear rules and apply them predictably and consistently. Parliament, through the Treasury Committee, oversees the regulators at a high level. That Committee should be capable of ensuring that the rules are appropriately calibrated. In the Lords, a proposal to expand the arrangements to comprise a Joint Committee of both Houses has much to commend it. However, parliamentary oversight alone cannot address the validity of individual decisions. For that, the only solution is our judiciary, since only the courts or tribunals provide an independent review of regulatory action, using accepted methods of analysis and reasoning. Lord Lilley has tabled a number of what seem to be excellent amendments, which would resolve the overall problem. I wish to speak in favour of those amendments, and ask that they be adopted by the Government.
First, I should say what these proposals are not. They are not, it seems, designed to introduce yet another administrative fix in an attempt to insulate our regulators from our courts, tribunals and lawyers. The reason is that such fixes will not work here. No administrative solution could ever address the need for firms and senior managers to be able to question individual decisions in an independent forum where their arguments are properly heard. No quango can be set up to achieve such sophisticated levels of justice. Only the courts and tribunals can provide the solution. If we shunt aside our courts and tribunals, we will be ignoring the grain and the lessons from our entire political and administrative system.
Our political life in Parliament involves debate and finality, where distinctions are made as a result of arguments, and put to a vote. Our approach to matters of law is similar. Facts and arguments are presented to our courts or tribunals, leading to a final reasoned judgment. The quality of the reasoning behind those judgments means that our system is commonly accepted as providing world-leading justice. What our current arrangements do not recognise is that regulation is a form of law. It is not some sui generis thing that is exempt from legal discipline. Over the past few decades, regulation has become a core part of our legal arrangements, whether we like it or not, and regulation needs to be stitched properly into those arrangements so that it operates at the necessary levels of sophistication.
Without the availability of courts or tribunals, firms and senior managers who are subject to regulation and supervision inevitably feel that they are subject to arbitrary decision making. Their arguments, when they arise, currently have no way of being properly heard. Unfortunately that is where we are now, but how did we get here? The current system evolved while we were in the European Union. The critical disciplines found elsewhere in our legal system have not been developed to match the growth of regulation. Instead, our system relies on our unquestionably excellent regulators acting at their best at all times. However, no system is perfect, and without independent checks and balances over individual decision making, the system as a whole is weaker than it should be.
Of course, we do not want a system where firms are constantly questioning the proper judgments of our regulators. The regulators’ judgements need to be respected when validly formed and within reasonable bounds. Neither do we want an overly expensive or time-consuming process invoked more than occasionally, which soaks up the time of our regulators in unnecessary disputes. However, it would be a mistake to accept that those imperatives mean that we cannot and should not tolerate the involvement of our courts or tribunals in any meaningful way. That is to give up on building a system with the necessary disciplines, and would instead involve placing inordinate trust in an institution that we are about to endow with huge new powers. No Government are given such trust, and neither should our regulators be given it.
A blind faith approach would not only be an objectionable deviation from our constitutional principles; it would doom our financial markets gradually to decline in competitiveness, and trend towards the competitiveness of those systems that operate on the continental code-based legal systems. In fact, we would most likely do worse than those systems, since our administrative machine is not tuned to run such processes to the level of quality of the code-based systems. The core magnet of competitiveness for the UK is our common-law approach to the rule of law and the trust and confidence that that engenders, and that I, when I was the Minister responsible for exports, was keen to ensure was front and centre of our global export offer.
Lord Lilley’s proposals would enhance the way in which the upper tribunal considers appeals from regulatory enforcement decisions. Indeed, they would improve the quality of those decisions before they even reach the tribunal. There are amendments to make the internal review bodies to the regulators—the Regulatory Decisions Committee and the Enforcement Decision Making Committee—fully independent to ensure that most decisions emanating from the regulators will have been made properly, in accordance with desired common-law disciplines. Those cases would never get to the upper tribunal. When cases do get there, because a firm or senior manager believes there has been a fundamental failure of analysis by the regulators in respect of their own rules, the assessment would not be whether the rules are valid or necessary; it would merely be whether the firm or senior manager could have adjusted their conduct in advance to avoid the breach.
The basic and essential discipline intrinsic to the rule of law may require our regulators to enhance their legal teams to some degree by placing a handful of high-end lawyers at the top, who can ensure these disciplines are followed. However, the cost will be small. When that is done, adverse decisions in the upper tribunal should be few and far between. The consequence should be that firms and senior managers can go about their business of innovating, being entrepreneurial again, and driving enterprise, the UK economy and global growth by matching capital in the most efficient way with those who need it, on appropriate terms negotiated and supervised here.
The armies of compliance staff can be reduced in number and replaced by a smaller number of people applying thoughtful judgment against clear, or vaguer, rules that are nevertheless clear in their application as a result of guidance or case law precedent, using accepted common-law methods of legal reasoning. That will be in stark contrast to the regimes elsewhere in the world, which are overly bureaucratic or controlling, or unnecessarily litigious, because challenges are too easy to make and the standards are less exacting than those that our system, at its best, can deliver. In fact, the proposed changes are slight but their effects will be significant. They will introduce a discipline that will ripple through the regulators’ behaviours, because the regulators will know that there is someone ready to mark their homework—someone who is managing the rulebook and supervising and enforcing against it. Obviously, regulatory judgment is essential and, in some areas, the regulators cannot be expected to set out in advance how they intend to act. However, in such areas, there can nevertheless be a level of predictability, which means people know what they are expected to do.
Firms can apply more legal judgment when seeking to apply the regulators’ rules, but this method is highly effective, as is demonstrated by areas of the law that are dependent on high-level principles, such as the law of negligence. In the more judgment-based areas of financial regulation, the regulators’ rules will be more open-textured, but the general mischiefs that the regulators seek to prevent can nevertheless be made known in broad terms, and the regulators can apply their discretion to remove or dampen behaviours that they believe to be damaging.
Lord Bridges has proposed an alternative to the courts, comprising an Office for Budget Responsibility-style arrangement for the oversight of the regulators. However, that would merely introduce another bureaucracy without the discipline necessary to ensure that the regulators operate their rulebooks properly. In fact, we already have such a solution on the points that really matter. The Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner already provides a vehicle for an examination of regulatory failings. The only shortcoming of the existing FRCC arrangements is that its recommendations are not binding. The FRCC investigated the London Capital & Finance debacle—a problem for many of our constituents—and made findings that were not criticised for their thoroughness, but were nevertheless ignored by the Financial Conduct Authority. There is no indication that the findings were incorrect or improperly reached. Lord Lilley’s amendments address the lack of a binding nature to the FRCC’s recommendations, and would allow the FRCC to play a more significant role in analysing regulatory failings, but direct supervision of regulatory action by our judiciary has its natural limits.
On average, only 10 such cases have been brought by firms against regulators annually over the past two decades. Almost all such cases occupy no more than a day of the upper tribunal’s time. Lord Lilley’s amendments would not turn that trickle into a torrent, but they would improve the quality of the resulting judgments, so that the market could follow the legal reasoning and reap the rewards of predictability sown there.
By far the greatest prize that will result from predictability for the market is a conversion of the many cases that smaller businesses and consumers bring before the Financial Ombudsman Service each year against firms. At present, the FOS is not required to apply legal reasoning in deciding its cases. That is a huge lost opportunity for firms and consumers, who would benefit from certainty in the application of regulatory rules. The Lilley amendments would harness that case flow by applying our common-law method to it, so that the beneficiary of a decision would be not just the individual claimant in a case, but the entire class of potential claimants. They would be able to follow the legal reasoning and decide whether they, too, had cause for redress.
Do not mistake me: I do not mean that the amendments would apply substantive common law to these disputes. Small businesses and consumers already benefit from statute, and from regulatory rules that require firms to treat their customers fairly, whatever the terms of a contract. It is essential that those substantive obligations of fairness remain fully in place for the protection of buyers of financial services.
The amendments would import an obligation to apply legal reasoning to what “fairness” means in the cases that come forward for decision. In that regard, the amendments take as their model our employment tribunals; since their introduction in the 1960s, they have, along with the obligation on employers to be fair at the point of dismissal, explained to employers what that means in practice. A settled body of employment practice has emerged from case law, and that is now essential to the orderly operation of labour markets. These amendments seek to emulate the success that employment tribunals have had in delivering inexpensive and illuminating justice to customers of financial services, and to ensure the orderly operation of financial markets. The amendments would achieve those goals in many ways.
The first-tier tribunal takes as its model the employment tribunals, which are a proven means of delivering, at low cost, the considered decision of a three-person panel—a lawyer and two market participants—as to what it means to treat a person fairly. They do so in a non-technical way, guiding the unrepresented person through the important points that go to make up fair treatment. Their decisions are properly reasoned, so other firms will have a clear guide to how they should treat their customers. No longer will firms be able to complain that it is impossible to build reliable compliance programmes around regulations as no one can agree on what they mean. In that critical respect, Lord Lilley’s amendments would implement to the full the Treasury Committee’s recommendation of October 2018.
The amendments appear to be modelled on three tried and tested, world-beating precedents: our common-law system, our employment tribunals and our construction adjudication. They deftly remove the unconstitutional unaccountability of our financial regulators by stitching them into their proper place in our legal system, without compromising the regulators’ autonomy. The regulators will be free to continue their important work, but they will do it to a higher standard. They will be more predictable and consistent in their actions. That will be a competitive advantage to us as we look to fulfil our new role in the world.
In conclusion, there is so much change coming to the financial world, including the digital tokenisation of assets, artificial intelligence and the advent of sovereign digital currencies, that it is essential that we make our regulatory structure as sure-footed and competitive as possible. These light-touch amendments present a huge opportunity, and I recommend them wholeheartedly to the Government.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) on securing this important debate. He has a distinguished background in finance, and clearly knows of what he speaks. I note his reference to the thoughtful amendments tabled to the Financial Services and Markets Bill by the noble Lord Lilley. I imagine that they draw on the work that Politeia has published by Barnabas Reynolds on the rules for regulators. This is an important topic, and one the Government and I take enormously seriously. We are going through the process of rewriting financial services legislation for a generation. My colleagues and I—the Chancellor and everyone in the Treasury—are very concerned that we get that right. The accountability of our financial services regulations, a sector that comprises over 10% of the entire GDP of our economy, is of the utmost importance. Unsurprisingly, a number of colleagues have raised this matter in both Houses.
The Government have a clear vision for the future: an open, sustainable and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens across all four nations of the United Kingdom. That was reiterated in the Edinburgh reforms late last year. Together with the Financial Services and Markets Bill, they amount to the most far-reaching reforms in a generation. I hope my hon. Friend would agree with me on that. The Bill contains a number of measures to address precisely the purposes and concerns my hon. Friend raises. It updates the regulators’ objectives to ensure that for the very first time they consider the sector’s critical role in supporting the UK economy. The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority will be given a new secondary objective to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy and its growth in the medium and long term. That is absolutely right, and the Government expect that to result in real change and in different outcomes.
My hon. Friend referred to the amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill tabled by Lord Lilley in Committee in the other place. They seek to enhance the role of the judiciary to provide additional checks and balances on the exercise of regulatory power. He is quite correct when he talks about the many benefits of common law—predictability and certainty among them—but that is not the only way. My hon. Friend is passionate about seizing the opportunities of Brexit for this country, and I reiterate to him that the Government, through the Bill as it relates to financial services, are repealing retained EU law. It will remove prescriptive provisions and hundreds of pieces of retained EU law entirely.
On judicial accountability, which we see in many domains, my hon. Friend raises a number of examples, including on employment tribunals. It will, of course, be up to the UK courts to determine how domestic legislation and rules are interpreted. All the corpus of financial services regulation will ultimately sit subject to that.
My hon. Friend raised the Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner and a case of which I was not aware of its findings, although voluntary, being ignored. Let me say from the Dispatch Box that were that to be a pattern of behaviour, that cannot be right. That is not a reasonable expectation from our regulators. It is something we should look at, were that be the case. There is an existing mechanism for redress and it is important for all of us that that is taken with the most significant gravity.
Parliament has a unique, special role and responsibility in relation to the scrutiny and oversight of our regulators. Select Committees—the Treasury Committee in particular but not exclusively—provide scrutiny of financial services policy through, for example, Select Committee inquiries and regular hearings on the work of regulators. The Treasury Committee has a dedicated Sub-Committee on financial services regulations, and it is currently conducting an inquiry into the PRA’s strong and simple framework. In addition, the Committee conducts pre-commencement hearings following the appointment of the chair and chief executive of the FCA and the chief executive of the PRA, and can subject them to ongoing scrutiny hearings. If the Committee does not wish to support the appointment of the FCA’s chief executive, it can recommend that it be put to a vote on the Floor of the House.
There are a number of mechanisms in the UK’s domestic framework that allow the Treasury to hold the regulators to account. For example, under section 1S of the Financial Services and Markets Act and section 7F of the Bank of England Act 1998, the Treasury
“may appoint an independent person to conduct a review of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness”
of the use of resources by the FCA and the PRA respectively. I am not aware of that mechanism having been used, but it strikes me as a particularly useful one. My hon. Friend and others may wish to make representations to the Treasury if in future they still consider that there are deficiencies in how regulation is carried out.
HM Treasury can direct the regulators to carry out an investigation into specific events if it is in the public interest. FSMA also provides the Treasury with the ability to make recommendations to the regulators in open letters on issues related to matters of economic policy. Finally, the Government use regular engagement with the regulators to hold them to account. As the Minister responsible for financial services regulation, I engage regularly with the FCA and PRA’s chief executives on a wide range of issues, including their performance. I hope that my hon. Friend will take it in good faith that they are suitably challenged about how we are getting the financial services we need in this country.
I accept that there is more to do. In the Financial Services and Markets Bill, at the behest of my hon. Friend and others, we have introduced a package of measures to strengthen the accountability to Parliament of the PRA, the FCA and the Payment Systems Regulator, to strengthen their relationship with the Treasury and, importantly, to enhance their engagement with the firms that they regulate. I am grateful for the positive engagement of colleagues in both Houses who have made a number of very sensible suggestions in Committee. I hope that our incorporation of some of those suggestions in Government amendments assures colleagues that we are taking the matter, and their concerns, very seriously.
I fully understand that many people in the industry are concerned about not just the volume of rules but the speed with which decisions on those rules are made. I was grateful, although disturbed, to read the recent TheCityUK report revealing that 90% of those surveyed about the FCA felt that the efficiency of authorisations was in some way detrimental to the attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business. That pains me, but I am content that my concern is shared by the leadership of the organisations; I have been assured that improving performance in that respect will be a priority. The Bill will require the FCA and the PRA to report on their performance, not only on operational measures but in the discharge of their new growth and competitiveness objective, as part of their annual report.
I thank my hon. Friend again for raising such important points and for kindly staying until the Adjournment for recess. I know that his concerns are shared by many colleagues in this House and will continue to be taken seriously. We have a great opportunity to get this right, and it is important that we do so. I will dedicate myself over the coming weeks and months to working with colleagues to ensure that we get the best outcomes and that we listen carefully to what he and other Members, in both Houses, have said about this important matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Government (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2023
(2 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2023.
I thank hon. Members, and you, Mr Vickers, for calling me. The draft instrument was laid before the House on 12 December 2022. If approved and made, it will complete the legislative requirements to implement the locally led proposals for unitarisation in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset. It will make certain provisions specific to the new unitary councils of Cumberland, Westmorland and Furness, North Yorkshire and Somerset so that there is a smooth transition from the predecessor councils to the successor councils to continue effective local government in those areas.
In March 2022, following approval from Parliament, we passed the necessary secondary legislation to implement locally led proposals for local government reorganisation in those areas. The new councils will go live on 1 April 2023. The draft order is intended to be the last statutory instrument implementing the reorganisation in those areas, and it will make all the final technical arrangements for the continuation of effective local government. I pay tribute to all the local leaders and their officers who have worked so hard to implement the restructuring in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset, which will have a number of benefits for local residents and communities. I wish the new councils all the best for a successful launch while they respond to the remaining challenges.
The draft order addresses a number of incidental, consequential, transitional and supplementary issues, which could not be addressed in the existing regulations of generic application that enable the effective implementation of all unitary authorities. These provisions need to be applied directly with respect to these particular authorities, so the order makes a number of changes. I assure the Committee that we worked closely on its drafting with local leaders and senior officers in the shadow authorities of Cumberland, Westmorland and Furness, North Yorkshire and Somerset. We looked carefully at the issues raised and agreed that the provisions of the order meet local requirements.
In conclusion, the provisions are necessary, consequential changes in the light of the establishment of the new councils. They ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements and continued effective local government in the areas. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I welcome the new Minister to her place; she has made a fine first outing. I look forward to working opposite her as we go on, although experience tells me that it will not always be as smooth sailing as it is today. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the draft order, as it draws on the excellent legislation put forward by the last Labour Government. Labour in national Government empowers local government: we designed the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to make the structures of local authorities clearer and more practical.
This Government, however, have caused chaos and confusion for local authorities by demanding that they enter bidding wars against each other for the few funding pots available—a process that has been likened to “The Hunger Games” many times, and that needs to stop. They have widened regional inequalities by forcing councils to bring in more funds by raising council tax, which creates vastly more revenue in wealthier areas than others. Local communities and residents across the country are feeling fed up with decisions made in Whitehall rather than their town hall, so it is no wonder that are calling out for Labour to return to power.
The draft order is a welcome improvement to the structures in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset. Wherever we can, we must simplify and strengthen the way that local governments serve their jurisdictions, so we will not oppose it.
The Chair
The question is that the Committee has considered—sorry, I am jumping the gun; I apologise to the Committee. Minister, do you wish to respond?
Rachel Maclean
Very briefly, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Luton North and look forward to many more exchanges with her. I am sure that not all of them will be as smooth sailing as today, but I am sure that they will all be conducted in the best traditions of this place, to which we are privileged to belong. I commend this order to the Committee and thank hon. Members for their consideration.
The Chair
I thank the Minister—we would not have wanted to miss out on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
(2 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Within that context, in this year’s local government report we have been able to increase core spending power overall by £5.1 billion, secure an additional £1.7 billion of additional grant funding, ensure additional support for adult and children’s social care, ensure a minimum 3% increase in core spending power for every local authority without the need for council tax increases, and ensure that the most deprived local authorities receive a 17% increase.
[Official Report, 8 February 2023, Vol. 727, c. 986.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate on local government finance.
The correct response should have been:
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Within that context, in this year’s local government report we have been able to increase core spending power overall by £5.1 billion, secure an additional £1.7 billion of additional grant funding, ensure additional support for adult and children’s social care, ensure a minimum 3% increase in core spending power for every local authority without the need for council tax increases, and ensure that the most deprived areas of England will receive 17% more per dwelling in available resource than the least deprived areas.
Defence
(2 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Wallace
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.
[Official Report, 16 January 2023, Vol. 726, c. 40.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace):
An error has been identified in my response to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).
The correct information should have been:
Mr Wallace
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 to investing £41 billion in Army equipment and support over the next 10 years.
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 9th February 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesProcurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 February 2023 - (9 Feb 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind you that Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Clause 80
Conflicts of interest: duty to identify
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 80, page 54, line 32, after “who” insert “directly or indirectly”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 117, in clause 80, page 55, line 2, at end insert—
“‘person who directly or indirectly influences’ includes but is not limited to—
(a) civil servants;
(b) government contractors or consultants and their employees;
(c) special advisers;
(d) parliamentarians; and
(e) political appointees.”
Clause stand part.
Clauses 81 and 82 stand part.
Florence Eshalomi
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Mundell.
Clauses 80 to 82 concern cases where a conflict of interest may arise during the procurement process. In particular, the clauses place obligations on contracting authorities to identify and mitigate against conflicts of interests where they may arise. The clauses are important, and it is correct, alongside the principle of non-discrimination, to ensure that suppliers that may be able to unduly influence the decisions of contracting authorities are excluded from the procurement process.
It is critical that taxpayers’ money is spent in the right way. We cannot and must not have a repeat of the back-room deals that we saw during the covid pandemic. The public expect their money to be spent in an open and transparent way, and they expect the value for money that comes with openness and transparency.
We know what happens when that is not the case. I have referred to this figure before, but it is important to keep stating it: the Government have written off £10 billion of public money spent on personal protective equipment that was unusable, unsellable, overpriced or undelivered. With £770,000 a day being spent to store unused gloves, goggles and gowns, that is not acceptable. The companies that got into the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract, and Ministers have now admitted that many did not go through the so-called eight-stage process of due diligence.
We know, therefore, that much more needs to be done to stand steadfast against conflicts of interests in procurements. We believe that clauses 80 to 82 may offer a step forward, but we also think that we could go even further to capture the wide range of influence on procurement decisions that may give rise to conflicts of interest.
Our amendments 116 and 117, taken together, would achieve that. They were suggested by Spotlight on Corruption in its written evidence to the Committee. We feel that they strike the right balance to increase scrutiny in the procurement system. In justifying the amendments, Spotlight on Corruption stated:
“As the Mone affair and the VIP lane as well as other COVID procurement scandals have shown, indirect influence over procurement decisions pose a real risk to public perceptions about the fairness and integrity of procurement. The fact that a minister, special adviser, or politician referred a company for emergency covid procurement appears to have been at least entertained as part of the decision-making process by procurement officials in awarding contracts. While this was an emergency procurement context, it has exposed the vulnerabilities in the UK procurement regime and the potential for those in political office to influence procurement decisions.
Sir Nigel Boardman’s reviews specifically recommended that conflicts of interest in procurement should be identified in relation to a broad range of actors, including: civil servants, special advisers, contractors, consultants and political appointees. The ‘VIP lane’, as well as the Owen Paterson affair, show that members of parliament, who may have private interests, can also seek to influence government procurement decisions in favour of those interests.
As it is not specified on the face of the Bill what the term ‘influences’ may include, it is not clear whether the term will be interpreted narrowly or more widely by contracting authorities. To ensure that it is interpreted widely, in our view, the Bill should contain specific language to reflect indirect influence (which might include lobbying or financial interests), and the wide range of people who may exert such influence.”
The Opposition agree with Spotlight on Corruption’s arguments and believe that it makes a strong case for the inclusion of such language in the Bill.
If we are asking the public to trust us with their money, we must never let the VIP lane scandal happen again. I hope the Minister will agree that the amendments would strengthen our defence against undue influence, and I urge him to support them.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chair-personship again, Mr Mundell. It is good to be back for the fourth day of deliberation in Committee.
Clause 80 is clear that a contracting authority must take all reasonable steps to identify conflicts or potential conflicts of interest on the part of those acting in relation to a procurement. Amendment 116 is impractically broad. The Bill already provides safeguards in clause 82(4), which could lead to the contracting authority taking steps in relation to a person with an indirect influence on a procurement, where the contracting authority believes that such a circumstance would be likely to cause a reasonable person to believe there to be a conflict.
Extending conflicts of interest to be identified in respect of any individual with only an indirect influence over the decisions of contracting authorities, as the amendment seeks to do, would go too far. It would add unnecessary administrative burdens on contracting authorities and potentially make it impossible for them to comply with the requirements of the Bill. It is not reasonable for a procurement officer to be expected to identify all individuals who may indirectly influence a procurement decision, let alone their potential conflicts of interest, in respect of every supplier tendering for every procurement. For example, it could lead to a school, when undertaking any public procurement, having to identify and consider the interests of all senior civil servants and Ministers in the Department for Education and the Treasury. That would be neither practical nor desirable.
Amendment 117 would add a list of certain individuals for contracting authorities to consider when identifying conflicts of interest. Such a list of individuals is better kept in guidance rather than legislation. All the persons listed in the amendment, where they have influence in respect of the relevant procurement decision, will already be caught by the current provision but may not be relevant in every single procurement by every single contracting authority. We therefore respectfully request that the amendments be withdrawn.
Clause 80 sets out the obligations on a contracting authority to take all reasonable steps to identify and keep under review potential or actual conflicts of interest. It is followed by clause 81, on duties to mitigate, and clause 82, on conflicts assessments. When conflicts of interest are not properly identified and mitigated, there can be far-reaching consequences, which can lead to accusations of fraud, bribery and corruption, legal challenges and the undermining of public confidence in the integrity of our public institutions.
Clause 80 details the individuals in respect of whom conflicts, or potential conflicts, should be identified. That includes people acting for, or on behalf of, the contracting authority in relation to the procurement; a person with influence on the decision making; and a Minister acting in relation to the procurement. The clause also defines what constitutes an interest, which can be a personal, professional or financial interest, either direct or indirect.
Clause 81 sets out obligations on a contracting authority to take all reasonable steps to mitigate conflicts of interest. As a rule, it is important that we treat all suppliers the same in our procurements. That is critical for us to ensure fair and open competition and deliver the best value for money. At the same time, a conflict of interest relating to a supplier should not automatically lead to their exclusion. We must therefore ensure that where conflicts of interest are identified, contracting authorities can first attempt to put mitigations in place to avoid a given supplier having an unfair advantage or disadvantage. A contracting authority must take all reasonable steps to do so and may require a supplier to take reasonable steps too. However, to ensure open competition and genuine fairness in the procurement, if a conflict of interest does lead to an unfair advantage that cannot be avoided, or the supplier refuses to take certain steps to avoid it, that supplier must be excluded.
Clause 82 places specific duties on contracting authorities in relation to conflicts assessments. In large part, those duties are to ensure compliance with clauses 80 and 81. A conflicts assessment is a document that includes the details of both the conflicts of interest identified and any steps taken to mitigate them. The structure or format of such a document will remain within the discretion of the contracting authority, and is likely to depend on the procurement. A contracting authority must prepare a conflicts assessment at the start of the procurement and keep it under review, revising it where necessary. When publishing a relevant procurement notice, the authority must confirm that those actions have been undertaken. This is a new duty on contracting authorities that strengthens the existing requirements relating to conflicts.
It is important to clarify that there is no duty to publish the conflicts assessment; rather, contracting authorities must publish confirmation that the assessment has been prepared or revised. Conflicts of interest can adversely impact procurements at any point of the commercial lifecycle, and the Committee will note that the definition of “relevant notice” in clause 82(8), which specifies when there should be confirmation that the conflicts assessment has been revised, reflects that fact.
I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn, and commend the clauses to the Committee.
Florence Eshalomi
I understand the Minister’s concern about additional bureaucracy, but we should aim to make sure that there is no interpretation regarding undue influence. There is a view that the Bill should contain specific language to reflect indirect influence. I hope the Minister agrees that the notion of transparency and making sure that no perceived conflicts arise should be fully addressed in order to ensure that we restore public trust, especially as it relates to Government money—taxpayers’ money—and large contracts. We need to stamp out some of the concerns that many people rightly highlighted about what happened during the covid-19 pandemic. Yes, there were some cases in which emergency contracts had to be procured, but as I have already mentioned, on numerous occasions, the proper procedure was not followed. I hope the Minister agrees that the Bill should contain specific language reflecting what is termed indirect influence.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
The rules on contracts that are valued below the thresholds set out in schedule 1 broadly represent a continuation of the position under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and have four main functions. They apply some basic procurement standards on transparency; they continue the ban on burdensome pre-qualification stages; they ensure that suppliers get paid promptly; and they ensure that small and medium-sized businesses are considered. These rules are justifiably simpler and less onerous for contracting authorities and suppliers, given the low value of the contracts concerned. Taken together with the new duty to have regard to SMEs in clause 85, the rules will help to make Government procurement more accessible to SMEs and voluntary organisations, charities or social enterprises.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for outlining the clauses, which, as he highlighted, deal with below-threshold contracts. While such contracts do not meet the threshold for inclusion in many parts of the Bill, they will still need to follow some bits of regulation in how they are processed. In particular, a contract details notice must be published for contracts above £12,000 or £30,000 —known as notifiable below-threshold contracts—after they are entered into. Below-threshold contracts must follow the procedures relating to the 30-day payment rules.
The clauses are almost identical to current regulations, and we support their inclusion in the Bill. We feel that the extra scrutiny is welcome for groups such as SMEs, which may find that these contracts are the right size for their enterprise to deal with. It is important to strike the right balance. In general, we are happy with the clauses and will not oppose them, but I would ask the Minister what protocol will be followed when the threshold figures are altered.
Alex Burghart
It will be in secondary legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Regulated below-threshold contracts: duty to consider small and medium-sized enterprises
Amendment proposed: 2, in clause 85, page 57, line 27, after “enterprises” insert “and co-operative societies”.—(Florence Eshalomi.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 89 stand part.
Government amendment 59.
Amendment 102, in clause 90, page 60, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown acting under subsection (1) must acquire the consent of Scottish Ministers.”
Government amendment 60.
Clause 90 stand part.
Government amendments 69, 77, 79 and 81 to 83.
Government new clause 11—Trade disputes.
Alex Burghart
Part 7 of the Bill is concerned with the implementation of the United Kingdom’s international obligations. The UK is currently party to 24 international agreements that contain procurement obligations, with each listed in schedule 9 to the Bill. They include trade agreements signed before our exit from the EU, such as the World Trade Organisation Government procurement agreement, and the recently signed Australia and New Zealand trade agreements.
Clause 88 uses the term “treaty state suppliers” to identify suppliers from countries that are entitled to benefit from one of the international agreements listed in schedule 9. The clause ensures that treaty state suppliers have the right to no less favourable treatment than domestic suppliers under the UK procurement regime to the extent covered by their relevant agreement, including the right to seek remedies. As the UK negotiates new international agreements or is required to amend existing agreements, delegated powers under subsection (3) will allow schedule 9 to be revised accordingly. In this way, schedule 9 will continue to reflect our updated international obligations and ensure that the UK remains compliant.
It is important for the Committee to understand that the delegated power in subsection (3) does not allow for substantive changes to the rules set out in the Bill regime, even where required by an international agreement. This is partly the reason why separate primary legislation is required to implement the UK-Australia free trade agreement. It is therefore not capable of being used to implement rule changes that might affect matters such as food standards, environmental standards or control over the health service. For that, the Government would need to return to Parliament with further primary legislation. Schedule 9 to the Bill is a list of international agreements that contain substantive procurement obligations and to which the UK is party.
Clause 89 sets out that a UK contracting authority may not discriminate against a treaty state supplier; that is to say that UK procuring entities may not treat the goods, services and works of treaty state suppliers less favourably than those of UK suppliers. Clause 89 is imperative in order to meet our international obligations. The principle of non-discrimination is firmly embedded in the WTO’s Government procurement agreement and other international agreements to which we are party. Being party to these agreements will ensure that UK goods, services, works and suppliers also receive the same fair treatment from our trading partners. In doing so, the UK will continue to enjoy the benefits of existing and future trade agreements, including guaranteed access to procurement opportunities in some of the world’s largest economies.
The power set out in clause 90 allows regulations to be made in relation to devolved procurement in Scotland to ensure that treaty suppliers are not discriminated against. The power is to be exercisable concurrently by a Minister of the Crown or Scottish Ministers, meaning that in the course of implementing international obligations under the Bill, a Minister of the Crown could also implement obligations for the whole of Scotland, in respect of both reserved and devolved procurement. This recognises both that the implementation and observation of international obligations is a devolved matter, but that the UK Government are ultimately responsible for compliance with our international obligations.
Amendments 59 and 60 seek to address a concern raised by the Scottish Government that the power in clause 90 is broader than is necessary, and in particular broader than the equivalent power that allows the updating of schedule 9 to the Bill to reflect new free trade agreements.
Although I can assure the House that it is not the Government’s intention to use the powers in clause 90 to interfere with Scottish procurement rules, we have listened and added a number of factors that would limit the exercise of the power. These amendments will ensure that either a Minister of the Crown or Scottish Ministers would only be able to make provision that is equivalent to provision in part 7 and only when it is necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement, such as by adding to or amending the list of international agreements in Scottish procurement legislation. It could not be used to amend Scottish procurement rules substantively. I thank colleagues in Scotland for working constructively on this point.
New clause 11 and the consequential amendments 69, 77, 79, 81, 82 and 83 are needed to give the UK the ability to take necessary retaliatory or compensatory action as a result of a procurement-related dispute under the World Trade Organisation’s Government procurement agreement, or with a country with which we have a free trade agreement on procurement.
Under the UK’s trade agreements, if a country does not comply with its international public procurement obligations, we must be able to implement practical retaliatory measures; otherwise, we may not receive the full benefits of the commitments under these agreements. These amendments would give the UK a power to amend its domestic procurement legislation to take such action, for example to remove market access to particular procurement markets for suppliers from a trading partner that is in breach. Similarly, if the UK is in breach, it may need to implement measures to bring itself back into line.
This power is clearly limited in scope to procurement-related disputes and can only be used to make provision relating to procurement. The power cannot be used to address disputes relating to other areas of the UK’s trade agreements. It will also be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that there is a sufficient level of scrutiny in Parliament when it is to be used.
Without these amendments, the UK would be at a disadvantage among its trading partners, because it would not be able to take retaliatory action to incentivise other countries to comply with their procurement commitments and, in the absence of the necessary domestic legislative mechanism to compensate its partners in case of non-compliance, the UK would not be viewed as a trusted international partner.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, on what is the fourth day of our deliberations in this Committee.
Mr Mundell, you, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and I are all members of the Celtic fringe, and we have all been accused in the past, somewhat unfairly, of speaking too fast. However, the Minister put us to shame just now, so I wonder whether he has Scottish or Welsh roots somewhere. [Laughter.]
As the Minister set out, part 7 of the Bill, which includes clauses 88, 89 and 90, sets out the implementation of international obligations in relation to procurement. These clauses have a strong theme of ensuring that no discrimination takes place between contracting authorities and treaty state suppliers, which are set out in schedule 9 to the Bill. Clause 90 also reaffirms this for procurements made by devolved Scottish authorities.
What is important about this part is our commitment to meeting our international obligations. I know from my role as a shadow Defence Minister how important it is to be an active member of the international community. It is important not only for the UK’s standing in the world; I have also found that when we meet these standards, we are also doing the best for this country here at home.
I think that we were all deeply moved yesterday by President Zelensky’s speech in Parliament. The war in Ukraine is a prime example of how important it is to meet our international obligations. By donating weaponry to Ukraine, we are aiding a member of our international community in their fight against an illegal invasion. However, if we are to continue to support the international community, we need to ensure that our procurement system can keep up.
As it stands, we will have a gap in our defence capabilities. In March 2021, the Defence Committee concluded that the Army would be “hopelessly under-equipped” in “obsolete armoured vehicles” and would be “very heavily outgunned” if it was called to fight an adversary, such as Russia, in eastern Europe in the next few years.
The war in Ukraine has shown us how dangerously close we are to this reality. We need to ensure that we are capable of defending ourselves first, so that we can then help others in need. I believe that a commitment to buy, sell and make more in Britain within our procurement system would help us to achieve that. Now, more than ever, we have to ensure we continue our commitment to a fairer world. I believe the way we conduct our procurement has a huge role to play in that.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I agree with the hon. Member for Islwyn that the Minister is giving us a run for our money today. I feel like I was speaking particularly slowly on Tuesday, as I was not feeling great and my brain was taking a while to catch up, but hopefully I can be a bit speedier today and get through with a higher level of coherence. Apologies if I said anything then that did not make much sense.
I will focus on clause 90, the Minister’s amendment 59 and our amendment 102. The Bill seeks to confer the power exercised concurrently by UK and Scottish Ministers to implement the Government procurement chapters of the agreements with Australia and New Zealand by secondary legislation. We agree with that and have no query about the fact that the negotiation of international agreements is a reserved matter but, as the Minister noted, the implementation in devolved areas, such as Government procurement, is a devolved matter. Procurement is devolved to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, and we make our own decisions about how best to implement that.
The correct constitutional and devolution-respecting solution would be to amend the Bill to grant implementation powers solely to Scottish Ministers in this regard. I agree that the Minister has put forward an amendment that changes what clause 90 says, but the amendment also says:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a Minister of the Crown considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, that the regulations are necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.”
The “or” is what I have a problem with, on the basis that it still allows the UK Government to act in devolved areas. I recognise the restrictions put in place by the rest of the amendment in terms of the breadth of the action that can be taken, and I recognise that the UK Government Minister has worked with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that we are getting a bit closer together; indeed, it is closer than in the Bill that originally came to us from the Lords. However, I still feel that amendment 102 is necessary to protect the devolution settlement, because we should not have UK Government Ministers acting in devolved competencies. They should not be able to take this decision wherever they feel it is necessary to do so.
We are not for a second suggesting that we would not act in concordance with our international agreements, because we would. I am sure the Minister would not suggest otherwise, as the Scottish Government do stick to their international agreements—regardless of whichever Government signed up to them, we do our very best to fulfil them. However, this is about the implementation of procurement rules and ensuring that that works in the best possible way for Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament is writing legislation on procurement for Scotland, which, as has been noted a number of times in this Committee, is distinct and separate in Scotland. We already have our own procurement system, which works on a different basis to the procurement system down here. We have already talked about the real living wage running through our procurement rules, where it is not in the rest of the UK. We already have a distinct situation. The UK Government are not elected to take this action in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is elected to take this action in Scotland and to implement it in the way that will work best for our procurement systems and for the people of Scotland, who elected the Scottish Parliament to do that.
Amendment 102 says:
“A Minister of the Crown acting under subsection (1) must acquire the consent of Scottish Ministers.”
I do not think that is too much to ask on the basis that this is a devolved area. Actually, if the UK Government are making new procurement rules that relate to Scotland’s implementation of its international agreements, ensuring the consent of Scottish Ministers means those rules will work within our procurement frameworks, systems and situations in order that those agreements can be properly implemented.
The Scottish Government want and intend to implement these international agreements properly. However, in order for that to happen as written, the UK Government will need a significant understanding of the Scottish procurement system, which is distinct from that of the rest of the UK. Our system will continue to be distinct in order to be able to write appropriate legislation that will apply in Scotland and work within our devolved legislation. It seems like a burden for UK Government Ministers to have to learn that, when actually, they could just say to Scotland, “How would you like this to be written?” and the Scottish Government could say, “This is how we would write it.” We could then have a discussion about whether or not that implements our international agreements. I am certain that it would, because the Scottish Government are good at acting in compliance.
Lastly, respect for the devolution settlement is an important tenet of our democracy. Devolution to Scotland is what the Scottish people voted for. We have the Scottish Parliament, which is significantly more popular than the Westminster Parliament in terms of the actions taken on behalf of the Scottish people. It is also significantly better regarded in terms of accessibility. I do not mean accessibility simply in terms of the building; I mean accessibility in terms of people being able to come and speak to Ministers and to have Ministers or civil servants listen and take action that improves their lives. It is much closer to people, and people feel that. Moving this process even further away seems like a real negative for people in Scotland.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Member very carefully. Given her assertion that only people who are elected to the Scottish Parliament should make these decisions, should not she and I, and indeed the Chairman of the Committee, get our coats and head home early today?
Kirsty Blackman
As I mentioned in previous speeches, we are taking decisions here for the entirety of the UK. Like it or not, I have been elected in the same way as the hon. Member has, as a UK member of Parliament. We therefore have the right in this place to take decisions on procurement in England and procurement in Wales. We do not have the right to take decisions on procurement across the UK, given the agreement that the implementation of procurement and how it works in Scotland is devolved.
In fact, this Bill does not confer any rights on Members of Parliament to make decisions for the people of Scotland. It confers the power on Ministers to make that decision, which is very different from conferring it on Parliament. I have spoken before about the Executive power creep of recent years, which continues to give more power to the Executive and less to parliamentarians and MPs in this place. It is therefore important that the Scottish Parliament gets to take these decisions. I do not think the UK Government should be allowed to override the devolution settlement whenever they feel it convenient to do so, as we saw recently when they used section 35 to stop legislation put through the Scottish Parliament on a cross-party basis.
Again, the Bill is a further overreach of the UK Government’s powers. We are not suggesting for a second that the UK does not have the right to sign up to international agreements. It absolutely does, but we have the right in Scotland, as part of the devolution settlement, to implement those rules in devolved areas. In that regard, I would like to push amendment 102 to a vote. I am not convinced that I will get terribly much support, but I will do my best anyway. Hopefully the Minister will move Government amendment 59, which is a step forward, as I have said, and I hope he will also agree to the inclusion of our amendment.
Alex Burghart
To address the most pressing issue in this group, I must confess to having a Celtic heritage. Indeed, my grandfather was from south Wales, and his grandfather was born in the workhouse, not terribly far from the constituency of the hon. Member for Islwyn, so he has found me out.
Alex Burghart
One family, one Wales.
I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman support NATO and the Government’s actions with regard to our allies in Ukraine. He will know that we have a trade agreement in place with Ukraine, and yesterday was a sign of the ongoing, very close relationships between President Zelensky’s Government and our own, and the necessary partnership in the face of tyranny.
Let me turn to amendment 102, in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. I must assure her at the outset that this is a power that the UK Government would only need in extremis. I completely understand that Holyrood and the Scottish Government—certainly under the SNP, I am sure—would always want to implement our international agreements. But what if another party that was not so upstanding was one day to be in power? What if another group of nationalists was to seize control from the SNP and wished to hold up our international agreements? There are other nationalist options—the former head of the hon. Lady’s party has formed a renegade bunch running under the name Alba—and perhaps they would not be as reasonable the hon. Lady’s party. Perhaps they would wish to prevent us from implementing our international trade agreements. That would not only prevent us from delivering the benefit of those agreements to the whole of the United Kingdom, but completely ruin our chances of signing future trade agreements. We understand her objections, but we believe that it is essential to ensure that in all circumstances the UK Government can make good on the promises that they sign with partners.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister is suggesting that clause 90 will be used only in extremis. Do I read that correctly, or is that not his suggestion?
Alex Burghart
Certainly, if there was an international agreement and the Scottish Government wished to legislate or regulate to implement it, that would be our preference. As I say, it is important that we put safeguards in the Bill. On the hon. Lady’s point about burdens being placed on officials by having to keep up with procurement regulations in Scotland, I can assure her that my officials welcome the burden, and that their understanding of such regulations is so strong that they would not notice the extra weight at all. I hope that she will not move her amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination in Scotland
Amendment made: 59, in clause 90, page 60, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may only include provision that is equivalent to provision in—
(a) subsection (1), (2), (5) or (6) of section 88 (treaty state suppliers),
(b) section 89 (treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination), or
(c) Schedule 9 (specified international agreements).
(1B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a Minister of the Crown considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, that the regulations are necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
(1C) In subsection (1B), the reference to being a signatory to an international agreement includes a reference to having—
(a) exchanged instruments, where the exchange constitutes the agreement;
(b) acceded to the agreement.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would mean that a Minister of the Crown or Scottish Ministers, in making regulations under clause 90, may only make provision equivalent to provision in Part 7 and if the Minister considers, or Scottish Ministers, consider it necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement.
Amendment proposed: 102, in clause 90, page 60, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown acting under subsection (1) must acquire the consent of Scottish Ministers.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
A contracting authority is required to publish a pipeline notice if it reasonably expects that, in the coming financial year, it will pay more than £100 million under relevant contracts. The pipeline notice in clause 91 is designed to set out details of public contracts that a contracting authority proposes to enter into in the forthcoming 18 months with an estimated value of more than £2 million. It provides potential suppliers with advance notice of upcoming opportunities and allows them to plan for future work. The notice must be published within 56 days of the first day of the relevant financial year. Private utilities and transferred Northern Irish contracting authorities are not required to publish pipeline notices.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause introduces pipeline notices, which mandate large contracting authorities to publish a pipeline of contracts worth over £2 million every year for the upcoming year. We question why it is £2 million when the Government have altered the other thresholds of that value to £5 million elsewhere in the Bill. Will the Minister clarify that for us? However, we do not oppose the lower number or the pipeline notices in general, so we are happy for the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The threshold of £2 million was set following the determination that that was the best balance of realising the benefits of transparency against the efforts made by contracting authorities in providing the information.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 91 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92
General exemptions from duties to publish or disclose information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 92 sets out when contracting authorities may withhold—for example, by way of redaction—information that they are otherwise required to publish or disclose under the Bill. The two exemptions are for national security and sensitive commercial information. “Sensitive commercial information” is defined as information that “constitutes a trade secret” or would be likely to prejudice commercial interests if published or disclosed. The exemptions are modelled on their equivalents in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and are intended to be understood and interpreted in the same way.
However, the FOIA is a scheme for responding to requests for information, whereas the Bill is about proactive publication by contracting authorities. The sensitive commercial information exemption is subject to an overriding public interest test, while the national security exemption is absolute. If the contracting authority relies on either of the exemptions to withhold or redact information, it must notify anyone to whom the information would have been provided that information is being withheld or redacted and why. The latter requirement is suspended if it would be contrary to the interests of national security to make such a notification.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause relates to a small number of reasons why information may not be published where it would otherwise be required under the Bill. Of course, we agree that some information is particularly sensitive and should not be disclosed to the public. I welcome the Minister’s assurance on ensuring that national home security is absolute. The reasons for non-publication in the clause are proportionate and sensible. We do not feel that this is controversial, and we will not oppose its addition to the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Notices, documents and information: regulations and online system
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
In support of the Government’s drive towards ensuring greater transparency in procurement, there are many provisions in the Bill that place requirements on contracting authorities to publish information. Clause 93 confers a power to set out the form and content of the information to be published or provided as well as the place it is to be sent. That is a broad but necessary power. The World Trade Organisation GPA sets out the core of the detail of many of the notices that we have described in the Bill, which will give hon. Members a clear indication about the sorts of information that will be required to be published using these powers.
However, the Government wish to push further and create additional transparency to that required by the GPA. For that reason, we have created new transparency obligations and proposed the power to set out the detail in clause 93. The flexibility inherent in taking that power allows us to tailor the transparency regime over time to ensure that we can benefit from greater transparency across the procurement landscape. The power allows us to set different requirements for different types of contract or different industries, depending on the needs and benefits of different areas.
Clause 93 also puts an obligation on the Government to establish and operate an online system for the purpose of publishing notices, documents and other information under the legislation. The online system must make notices, documents and other information published under the legislation available free of charge and accessible for people with disabilities.
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 93 is perhaps the most referenced throughout the Bill; it has been mentioned about 24 times. We did not expect the legislation to be all-encompassing, but we are now at clause 93 and we are seeing a little more deflection and can kicking. We support the implementation of a new digital system, but the reality is that we do not have any idea what it will look like based on the clause.
We have high hopes for the system, and it has the potential to be transformative for procurement, which we will get to during the debate on new clause 14. We believe it can be taken even further, as was the case in Ukraine. We can take inspiration from what is happening in Ukraine, and their heroic fight against Putin’s barbarism, as we heard during President Zelensky’s address yesterday. We must also take inspiration from their procurement system, even in the midst of what is going on.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say on Second Reading that he was pleased to let the House know that Ukraine was on our advisory panel and has informed the work on our single digital platform, which takes a lot from what Ukraine has done with ProZorro. The platform will enable everyone to have better access to public procurement data. Citizens will be able to scrutinise spending decisions, suppliers will be able to identify new opportunities to bid and collaborate, and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others on spending with SMEs, for example. That will provide better transparency, which will be better for taxpayers. Those are welcome words from the Minister, but at this stage, they are just words.
On Second Reading, the Minister also said:
“The platform is based on a system that we already have. We are confident that we will be able to introduce it in line with bringing this Bill into force. Obviously, we have to pass the legislation and get Royal Assent, and then there will be a settling-in period. But it is going to be functional very soon.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 383.]
How soon will that be? When is that target? We all agree the system has huge potential, but, as we have already seen in the promised version of the Bill and the version before us today, we cannot be certain about anything until it is in the statute book. Will the Minister commit today to introduce the regulations under the clause as soon as possible? I hope that he will deliver on the promises he made on Second Reading.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have already heard in our debates in Committee, on Second Reading and in Westminster Hall the huge range of areas in which we are bringing in additional transparency. The online digital platform will be the repository of sunlight that she is understandably so interested in. It is necessary at this stage for us to keep the primary legislation broad, so that there will be flexibility for Governments over time.
We intend to bring forward the online digital platform in 2024, bringing the Bill into force and allowing us to see the benefits. It will be a major step change in how we see evidence of public procurement. I hope the Opposition will welcome that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 94
Electronic communications
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 94, page 62, line 37, after first “a” insert “covered”.
This amendment would restrict the requirements in respect of electronic communications systems to covered procurements.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 62 to 64.
Clause stand part.
Alex Burghart
We are introducing amendments 61 to 64 to clarify the use of electronic communication systems and the application of other systems in various commercial circumstances. Clause 94 currently requires that electronic communication systems must be
“free of charge and readily accessible”.
Our intention is to allow businesses, particularly SMEs, to easily access the necessary documents and systems to bid for contracts, ensuring that access is open to all. However, the term “electronic communication systems” is broad, and concerns have been raised with us that it could inhibit certain practices that are currently commonplace, thereby making the Bill overly burdensome. For example, it could constrict the ability of utilities dynamic markets to charge for membership, and of the Ministry of Defence to make use of systems that charge to preserve secure payments.
Amendment 62 therefore limits the free-of-charge obligation beyond the point when the public contract is entered into and disapplies it to utilities dynamic markets. We have also tabled amendments 61, 63 and 64, which ensure that the clause only applies to covered procurement, and that the security exception in clause 94(3) extends to the whole clause.
Clause 94 sets out how communications relating to a procurement should be undertaken. Electronic communications can help reduce procurement process costs for suppliers and contracting authorities; reduce procurement timescales; encourage access to opportunities for suppliers; facilitate compliance with the rules; and promote traceability and auditability in the procurement process. As such, for covered procurements, we want contracting authorities to, so far as practicable, communicate with suppliers electronically and ensure suppliers do likewise. Electronic communication systems must be free of charge and readily accessible to suppliers, generally available and interoperable with other systems, and accessible to people with disabilities. There is an exemption from the requirement to communicate electronically if doing so would pose a particular security risk.
Florence Eshalomi
These amendments tidy up this part of the Bill by limiting requirements that relate to covered procurement, limiting the obligations on information after the awards of contract or in dynamic markets, and ensuring that all parts of the clause are excluded in the case of security risks. I am pleased to say that we do not feel the amendments are controversial, and that they sensibly fix a gap that could otherwise have caused problems, so we will not oppose them.
Clause 94 concerns electronic communications. In today’s modern world, electronic and digital communication is the norm, and we should expect all suppliers to have access to electronic communication methods. Such methods are the norm in wider society. It is right that information is freely available. We must ensure that it is accessible to everybody, so we welcome subsection (2), which puts some principles of communication in the Bill. We are happy for the clause stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 61 agreed to.
Amendments made: 62, in clause 94, page 62, line 42, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply in relation to an electronic communications system used, or required to be used—
(a) after the award of the public contract, or
(b) in relation to a utilities dynamic market.”
This amendment would create an exception to the requirement for electronic communications systems to be free of charge and readily accessible to suppliers where those systems are used after award of a public contract or in relation to a utilities dynamic market.
Amendment 63, in clause 94, page 63, line 1, leave out “Subsection (1)” and insert “This section”.
This amendment and Amendment 64 would extend the exception in subsection (3) to any requirement in clause 94 the contracting authority considers poses a security risk.
Amendment 64, in clause 94, page 63, line 2, after “communication” insert “, or the use of an electronic communication system meeting the requirements of subsection (2),”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment and Amendment 63 would extend the exception in subsection (3) to any requirement in clause 94 the contracting authority considers poses a security risk.
Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Information relating to a procurement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 95 provides that regulations may be made requiring certain information to be shared in a particular way. The power will be used to specify that contracting authorities and suppliers must use the central online platform, to be established under clause 93, and to provide detail on the proposed register of suppliers.
As part of the central digital platform, the register of suppliers will allow suppliers to submit the common data needed for procurements, such as their full name and registered office address, date of registration, VAT number and so on, in an evidence locker, so that they can “tell us once” across the public sector. All contracting authorities will be required to use data from the register of suppliers in their procurements.
Clause 95 also requires contracting authorities to keep records of any communication between the authority and a supplier in relation to a covered procurement. All data published on the central digital platform will be aligned to the open contracting data standard, or OCDS. Adoption of the standard will significantly improve data quality and sharing.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause puts in place similar provisions to clause 93, and has huge potential to make our procurement system more efficient—for example, by standardising how information is shared. That would simplify the procurement system for SMEs, which would not have to navigate the surprising number of ways in which the information in the Bill could be presented.
I will not reiterate my points on clause 93, but I have similar concerns that these provisions are just words, before we have seen the regulations laid, but I hope the Minister will make good use of them as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Data protection
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 96 sets out that the Bill does not authorise or require a disclosure of information that would contravene the data protection legislation. It defines the data protection legislation as being the same as the meaning set out in the Data Protection Act 2018. The effect of the provision is that there is no requirement to publish information that would otherwise be prohibited from disclosure under the Data Protection Act 2018.
Florence Eshalomi
This clause, as the Minister outlined, considers data protection and ensures that the Bill does not work contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018. It is entirely correct, and we do not object to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Duties under this Act enforceable in civil proceedings
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 97, page 64, line 6, at end insert—
“(6A) A supplier may not bring proceedings under this Part on the grounds that one or more of the following decisions of a Minister of the Crown was unlawful—
(a) a decision to enter a supplier’s name on the debarment list;
(b) a decision relating to the information included in an entry on the debarment list;
(c) a decision not to remove an entry from the debarment list, or revise information included in such an entry,
(see section 64 (debarment decisions: appeals)).”
This amendment would ensure that challenges to debarment decisions are all dealt with under clause 64 (debarment decisions: appeals).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 98 to 103 stand part.
Government new clause 12—Part 9 proceedings and closed material procedure.
Alex Burghart
Clause 97 provides that, where a UK or treaty state supplier has suffered, or risks, loss or damage in consequence of a contracting authority’s failure to comply with certain parts of the Bill, that supplier can hold the contracting authority to account through civil proceedings for breach of statutory duty.
The relevant parts of the Bill govern the award, entering into and management of public contracts—namely, parts 1 to 5, 7 and 8. Clause 97(5) lists the few exceptions, however, where any compliance failure is best challenged through judicial review. Those are a failure to have regard to barriers facing SMEs, which is required by clause 12(4), and a failure to have regard to the procurement policy statements in clauses 13(9) or 14(8). Suppliers can also raise concerns with the procurement review unit, which may engage with the contracting authority on a non-statutory basis to resolve any issues.
Further, proposed new subsection (6A), courtesy of Government amendment 65, will ensure that, where a claim is on grounds that can be challenged through the debarment appeals process—under clause 64—the supplier cannot also bring a claim under part 9 on those grounds. Debarment decisions are taken by a Minister of the Crown, and not a contracting authority, thus it is appropriate for the Minister to respond to that claim. I invite hon. Members to accept the amendment.
Clause 98 says that if a contracting authority has been notified during a standstill period that a claim has commenced in relation to the procurement, the contracting authority is prevented from proceeding with the public contract until the claim is resolved. That is called automatic suspension. However, it is important that the court has a discretion to lift the automatic suspension on application by the contracting authority, and permit the contract or modification to be entered into, where that is necessary, despite a legal challenge. The factors for the court’s consideration when deciding whether it is appropriate to lift the suspension are laid out in clause 99 on interim remedies.
Interim remedies are, by their nature, applicable before the determination of any legal claim, at whichever point it is raised in the procurement—pre or post contract signature. Types of interim remedy under clause 99 may therefore include suspending the procurement process or performance of the contract.
An important aspect of clause 99 is the new test for lifting the automatic suspension. Unlike the current test derived from the 1975 American Cyanamid patent case, the test on the face of the Bill is specific to public procurement disputes, and enables the court to consider the merits of the case with reference to factors that ensure that the interests of the contracting authority, the claimant, the successful supplier and the public are considered in a fair and balanced way. The test will also apply to injunctions made to prevent the contracting authority from entering into the public contract where there is no automatic suspension.
Clause 100 deals with pre-contractual remedies. Suppliers bringing claims to the court at this time are most often seeking a fair opportunity to bid for the public contract. Accordingly, clause 100 includes remedies such as reversing a decision made by the contracting authority, or requiring an action such as the re-evaluation of tenders. The court may also award damages or make any other order it deems appropriate in the circumstances.
Clause 101 sets out the post-contractual remedies—that is, those that apply once the contract or modification has been entered into. For the most egregious breaches, such as failing to honour a mandatory standstill period, where the supply has been denied the opportunity to seek pre-contractual remedies the contract may be set aside by the court. This is currently known as the remedy of ineffectiveness, and an order of this kind makes the contract or modification invalid. Where a set aside ground applies per clause 102, the court must set aside the contract or modification unless there is an overriding public interest in maintaining the contract, in which case the court may instead reduce the scope or duration of the contract, and award damages.
In common with the existing regime, the award of damages to a supplier following a breach of statutory duty is discretionary, and judges can continue to make an appropriate assessment on the award of damages, including quantum, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the breach and its consequences. As I mentioned, clause 102 sets out the conditions that, if met, may result in the contract or modification being set aside, where the supplier has been denied the opportunity to seek pre-contractual remedies.
Clause 103 sets out the timescales in which a supplier must raise a claim under the Bill for breach of statutory duty. For all claims except some for set aside under clause 102, this will be within 30 days from when the supplier knew—or ought to have known—about the breach. For set aside claims, after the contract has been entered into, the time limit is 30 days from the date of actual or deemed knowledge, unless a contract details notice was not published, in which case the 30 days applies up to a long stop date of six months from contract signature. The six month cut-off also applies to claims for set aside of contract modifications. The court may extend the 30 days up to three months, but may not extend the six month cut-off. The timescales aim to give suppliers adequate time to raise legal challenges to the procurement, while also enabling contracting authorities to manage the risk of delay and disruption to their public procurements.
The Government have proposed new clause 12 to be inserted after clause 103 to allow the Minister for the Cabinet Office to apply for a declaration permitting closed material procedure applications in procurement challenge proceedings, as we discussed the other day. Closed material procedure involves the non-Government parties leaving the courtroom while sensitive material is heard.
Florence Eshalomi
Amendment 65 shifts the responsibility for the debarment list remedy to clause 64, rather than being under this part of the Bill. New clause 12 is a simple amendment that extends the power to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, rather than just the Secretary of State. Both amendments make sense and we do not oppose them.
Clauses 97 to 103 relate to remedy against contracting authorities when duties under parts of the Bill are breached. It is right that suppliers have remedy when contracting authorities do not follow due process while carrying out procurement. I listened to the Minister’s explanatory remarks about having a fair and balanced remedy for tenders and contractors, about discretionary damages, and about legal challenges and timescales, but has he given thought as to whether employees or contracted workers, or subcontracted organisations involved in delivering public contracts, can seek a remedy if the employment terms and conditions agreed as part of a contract are not delivered?
At the point of tender or contract, a supplier may commit to providing certain employment conditions—for example, the living wage. However, if the supplier in that example, having won the contract, does not implement an annual increase in the living wage, I hope the Minister agrees that there is little recourse for workers employed under the contract. There is no clear, robust mechanism for workers or parties such as trade unions to complain, or for workers affected to receive remedy if there is a failure to comply. There may be a redress mechanism or a point of contact for them in the contracting authority, but there is no certainty that complaints will be investigated, let alone remedied. We are concerned about that, as workers may miss out on long-term remedies. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point, either now or later in writing.
Alex Burghart
I am happy to respond to the hon. Lady with more detail in writing. I think her example relates to where a contracting authority had written in certain terms and conditions for the employees of a supplier, which then receives the procurement deal. In those circumstances, the supplier would obviously be in breach of the contract. That would be as serious as other breaches of contract. I will check the detail and get back to the hon. Lady, but it will obviously be within the supplier’s employees’ rights to contact the contracting authority and let it know that they believe the supplier is in breach.
Amendment 65 agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 98 to 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104
Procurement investigations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 104 enables the appropriate authority—a Minister of the Crown, a Welsh Minister or a Northern Irish Department—to investigate relevant contracting authorities’ compliance with the requirements of the Bill. It also obliges the relevant contracting authorities to provide reasonable assistance to the investigation within notified time periods, and allows the findings of investigations to be published.
Although the legislative definition of a relevant contracting authority in clause 104(5) excludes Departments, they may be subject to investigation; it is simply that Ministers do not require statutory powers to do this. Ministers already have the authority to investigate the procurement activities of Departments and ensure that any recommendations resulting from an investigation are duly taken into consideration. The Cabinet Office has established routes for co-operation with such investigations within Government. The new procurement review unit will utilise the statutory powers afforded by clauses 104 to 106, as well as non-statutory powers, on behalf of Ministers of the Crown.
Clause 105 allows the appropriate authority to make statutory recommendations as a result of an investigation under clause 104, where the investigation has identified that a contracting authority is engaging in action giving rise, or likely to give rise, to a breach of any requirement of the Bill. Clause 106 allows the appropriate authority to issue statutory guidance to contracting authorities, following an investigation under clause 104. This guidance will share the lessons of matters considered in the procurement investigation where those lessons are relevant to a larger number of, or indeed all, contracting authorities, including Departments, not just those that were the subject of the investigation. Contracting authorities are required by clause 106 to have regard to the published guidance when carrying out their public procurements and considering how to comply with the requirements of this Bill. It is left to the discretion of the appropriate authority to determine which contracting authorities would benefit from having regard to the guidance.
Subsection (3) highlights clauses 107 to 109, which restrict a relevant authority’s ability to issue guidance to particular contracting authorities. A Minister of the Crown can, with express consent from the devolved Administrations, issue guidance to all authorities, including devolved and transferred contracting authorities.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 104 to 106 concern oversight of procurement. Compliance with such is critical and it runs through the Bill.
As stated previously, the success of things such as the 30-day payment will ultimately come down to compliance with the Bill at all levels. We do not oppose these clauses, but we are concerned about the lack of ambition compared with what was outlined in the Green Paper. To take the Minister back to those proposals, the Green Paper states that the Government propose
“establishing a new unit, supported by an independent panel of experts, to oversee public procurement with powers to review and, if necessary, intervene to improve the commercial capability of contracting authorities. This unit would aim to improve capability and practices for the benefit of all contracting authorities and suppliers rather than provide remedies for an individual supplier on a specific procurement. This will be facilitated through greater information about purchasing and supply markets and behaviour, allowing targeted interventions to be implemented, optimising policy delivery and driving improvements in capability, behaviour and practice.”
We understand that proposals change between Green Papers and Bills—the Minister has touched on that before—but will he explain the reason for this reduction in ambition? What is proposed now?
There is a genuine question about to who will oversee compliance, especially as, despite the promises in the Green Paper, nothing has been done to reform the remedies system. The Bill contains little information on how the system will be overseen. It does not mention a procurement review unit, and refers only to an “appropriate authority”. Worryingly, the remit of the unit does not extend to central Government, Welsh Ministers or Northern Irish Departments, among other things. That seems like a large and inexplicable gap, which means that the unit will not be able to investigate compliance by any central Government Departments.
The “appropriate authority” has power to carry out an investigation of compliance by an authority under the Bill, and to make a recommendation; but it cannot make recommendations on compliance with a multitude of matters, including compliance with the national procurement policy statement, the national objectives in clause 12, or a specific procurement. On the face of it, that is relatively toothless, leaving the unit with limited remit and no enforcement powers. It also does not seem to be independent. That replicates the existing position, which we have discussed.
The Bill offers an opportunity to go further and to deliver better procurement systems across the country. Clearly, the Government do not wish to make the PRU into an appellate body, but the court system is an expensive and random way of enforcing compliance, tilted against challengers and small and medium-sized enterprises. While reforms of the court system belong outside the Bill, there is no evidence that any such reforms are being brought forward. We will not reject clauses 104 to 106, nor have we proposed amending them, but I hope that the Minister will address my concerns. I will welcome any feedback he can offer.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have heard me refer a number of times to the procurement review unit. We considered making the PRU an independent arm’s length body, but on consideration we felt that to do so risked creating unnecessary bureaucracy and cost and would lead to confused and overlapping responsibilities, with duplications of interactions with contracting authorities. Positioning it within the Cabinet Office best aligns it with other related functions to improve commercial standards among contracting authorities that are covered by the Government’s chief commercial officer.
We did not feel the need to put the PRU in the Bill, because it will not be a non-departmental body established in statute. The approach we are using here is similar to how the current public procurement review service utilises statutory powers under section 40 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, but is not specifically mentioned in that Act.
There are great opportunities for the PRU to assist in procurement processes across the country, which have been outlined during the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 104 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 105 and 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 9th February 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesProcurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 February 2023 - (9 Feb 2023)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 107, page 70, line 3, leave out “only” and insert “wholly or mainly”.
This amendment would mean that a public undertaking or private utility that operates “wholly or mainly in relation to Wales” will be treated as a devolved Welsh authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 67.
Clause stand part.
Clause 108 stand part.
Government amendment 68.
Clauses 109 and 110 stand part.
Government amendments 70 to 73.
Clause 111 stand part.
Alex Burghart
It is a pleasure to open this afternoon’s proceedings with this substantial grouping. I will begin with amendments 66 and 67. The Bill provides Welsh Ministers with various powers, and clause 107 sets out the parameters for their exercise by specifying the bodies that Welsh Ministers may regulate. Welsh Ministers may exercise powers under the Bill only in relation to devolved Welsh authorities and procurements covered
“under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.”
The Bill adopts the definition of a “devolved Welsh authority” found in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and extends it, for the purposes of the Bill, to include certain public undertakings and private utilities, and other contracting authorities that ought reasonably to be regulated by Welsh Ministers for pragmatic reasons.
As the Bill was introduced, we recognised that the competence was ill-defined with respect to Welsh contracting authorities, and that it would have the effect of requiring devolved contracting authorities that operate principally in Wales but have some operations in England to follow two sets of rules. We have been working closely with the Welsh Government to include a pragmatic approach to the definition in the Bill. As such, we have agreed with the Welsh Government to include in their competence, for the purposes of the Bill, any contracting authority that is a private entity or utility that operates
“wholly or mainly in relation to Wales”
and whose activities
“do not relate to reserved matters”.
For example, Welsh Water, a not-for-profit private company providing water services in Wales, would fall into that category.
Finally, we have also agreed to extend Welsh Ministers’ competence in relation to a contracting authority that is not a devolved body for the purposes of the 2006 Act, but the functions of which are exercisable “wholly or mainly” in Wales and, wholly or mainly,
“do not relate to reserved matters”.
I am pleased to introduce the amendments and recognise that this is a pragmatic solution for many public bodies who operate, for example, in Herefordshire and across the border in Powys.
Turning to amendment 68, clause 109, which we will cover in a moment, establishes that
“A Minister of the Crown may exercise a power under this Act for the purpose of regulating a contracting authority that is a devolved Welsh authority only in relation”
to certain areas. The Welsh Government raised concerns that, as drafted, clause 121 would give an appropriate authority—in this instance defined as a Minister of the Crown—the power to
“by regulations make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in connection with any provision of this Act.”
The provision set out in clause 121 is used to amend other legislation, where necessary, to ensure the functioning of the Bill, and it is right that Welsh Ministers should be able to agree to any subsequent amendment to legislation within their competence. I am pleased to change this so that any power for Ministers of the Crown to make consequential provision requires consent. That respects the devolved competence of procurement and makes practical sense for the Bill. I thank Welsh Government officials and Ministers for working closely to agree these important amendments.
As we have discussed, clause 107 sets out the parameters for the exercise of powers provided to Welsh Ministers by specifying the bodies that they may regulate. The Bill provides a Northern Ireland Department with various powers, and clause 108 sets out the parameters for their exercise by specifying the bodies that a Northern Ireland Department may regulate. A Northern Ireland Department may exercise powers under the Bill only in relation to “transferred Northern Ireland authorities”, as defined in the Bill, and any
“procurement under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement.”
For example, the Northern Ireland Department sets up a framework for services that could be used by UK or Welsh contracting authorities.
The starting point of the competence of Northern Ireland Departments is that conferred on them by the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is that they are competent in respect of a public authority whose functions are exercisable only
“in or as regards Northern Ireland”
and are wholly or mainly transferred functions—that is, neither reserved nor excepted.
In addition, we have agreed with the Northern Irish Government to include within their competence, for the purposes of the Bill, any public or private utility that operates only in, or as regards, Northern Ireland and whose activities do not relate to reserved matters. For example, Northern Ireland Water Ltd, a company providing water services in Northern Ireland, would fall within that category.
Clause 109 sets out certain restrictions on how a Minister of the Crown may exercise powers created by the Bill, taking into account that public procurement is largely a devolved matter in Wales and Northern Ireland and that, as such, certain functions fall within the regulatory ambit of Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland Department. The clause sets out how, where two bodies can both exercise powers, those concurrent powers are to be exercised.
The clause establishes that a Minister of the Crown may exercise a power under the Bill for the purpose of regulating a devolved Welsh authority only in relation to procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement or transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement. In respect of Wales, this means that if a Welsh devolved authority uses a framework or dynamic market established by a reserved body such as the Crown Commercial Service, it must do so in accordance with reserved rules. That means, for example, that they must have regard to any national procurement policy statement issued by a Minister of the Crown, rather than a policy statement issued by Welsh Ministers.
That restriction, however, does not extend to clause 66 on electronic invoicing or to clause 106 on the issuing of guidance following a procurement investigation. Instead, these powers, and the powers in clause 121 on consequential provision, can be exercised in respect of devolved Welsh procurement only with the consent of Welsh Ministers. No such consent is required if the regulations or guidance relate to a devolved Welsh authority’s participation in a reserved or a Northern Ireland procurement arrangement.
Clause 109 also establishes that a Minister of the Crown may exercise a power under the Bill for the purpose of regulating a transferred Northern Ireland authority only with the consent of a Northern Ireland Department, unless the regulations relate to procurement under a reserved or a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement authority. As in the Welsh example, this means that, if a transferred Northern Ireland authority procures via a reserved framework or dynamic market, for example, it must follow regulations made by a Minister of the Crown. Similarly to the position on devolved Welsh procurement, a Minister of the Crown may not publish guidance under clause 106 that would regulate a Northern Ireland Department without consent, unless the guidance relates to reserved procurement or devolved Welsh procurement.
Finally, clause 109 provides that the restrictions on the powers of a Minister of the Crown in respect of devolved Welsh procurement and transferred Northern Ireland procurement do not apply in relation to certain named powers, including the powers to update schedule 9 to the Bill to ensure the application of new or amended free trade agreements and to ensure their implementation in respect of devolved Scottish procurement, and the power to make provision to allow the UK to respond to trade disputes.
Clause 110 defines the different types of “procurement arrangement” referred to in the Bill. The term is used primarily in clause 111, which provides powers to ensure that all UK bodies, devolved and reserved, can continue to work with one another and across the UK’s internal borders when undertaking procurements under one another’s procurement arrangements.
I turn to amendments 70 to 73. As the Committee is aware, procurement is a devolved matter, and Scotland already has its own procurement rules. Hon. Members may not be aware that Scottish devolved bodies are presently able to access commercial deals set up in the rest of the UK, and vice versa. Therefore, to enable devolved Scottish bodies to continue to use commercial tools such as frameworks established under the new regime, and to provide access for reserved contracting authorities to Scottish frameworks, the Scottish procurement regulations will need to be amended. As the Bill is drafted, a Minister of the Crown, as well as Scottish Ministers, can amend Scottish regulations for that purpose.
For context, having the power for a Minister of the Crown to amend Scottish regulation was a contingency power, should we be unable to agree with the Scottish Government on how the Bill would be implemented. I am pleased to say that we have an agreement in principle on how to proceed, subject to the normal parliamentary arrangements in both Parliaments, and there is therefore no requirement for the UK Government to be able to amend the Scottish procurement regulations. We are therefore amending the Bill to remove that power for Ministers of the Crown.
At the same time, the UK Government will lay regulations to ensure that devolved Scottish contracting authorities can access frameworks and other commercial tools established under the new regime. When that happens, it will be necessary for Scottish Ministers to disapply their regulations, as they have agreed to do. We propose amending clause 111 to ensure that they can do so and expanding it slightly to ensure that the power covers all Scottish procurement rules.
Clause 111 therefore sets out a series of regulation-making powers that will be used to ensure that procurement bodies across the UK can continue to work with one another and across the UK’s internal borders when undertaking procurements. First, the clause provides powers for a Minister of the Crown to regulate procurements by devolved Scottish authorities under purchasing arrangements set up by reserved authorities or by devolved Welsh or Northern Ireland authorities. That will ensure that devolved Scottish authorities can make use of frameworks and dynamic markets established by other UK authorities, benefit from procurements undertaken by centralised procurement authorities, and jointly procure with other UK authorities acting as the lead authority. In those circumstances, devolved Scottish authorities will be required to follow certain rules in the Bill, details of which will be set out in secondary legislation.
The clause also provides powers for a Minister of the Crown to disapply the Bill’s provisions for reserved authorities, devolved Welsh authorities and devolved Northern Ireland authorities when they are procuring under purchasing arrangements established by devolved Scottish authorities. That will allow those authorities to benefit from arrangements put in place under the Scottish regulations and to undertake joint procurement with devolved Scottish authorities acting as the lead authority.
The clause also creates new powers giving Scottish Ministers the competence to amend Scottish procurement legislation to apply it to reserved authorities subject to the Bill when procuring under purchasing arrangements established by devolved Scottish authorities. Scottish Ministers are also given a power to disapply devolved procurement regulations where a devolved Scottish contracting authority procures using commercial tools set up under the Bill. That arrangement was reached after lengthy consultation with the Scottish Government, and I am delighted to say that they are pleased with the results.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for outlining the discussions with Scottish and Welsh colleagues. As he said, clauses 107 to 110 set out the devolutionary roles and responsibilities of the Welsh, Northern Irish and UK Ministers. Although Wales and Northern Ireland have opted to be part of this procurement system, they will still keep the appropriate regulatory powers within the Bill.
I will not repeat the excellent speech from my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn, on clause 14—it is fair to say that he has had more exposure to Welsh procurement than I have. However, we Labour Members are very proud of our colleagues in Wales and their strong record on procurement.
We are pleased that the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments are adopting the Bill. As my hon. Friend mentioned on clause 14, this is about respect for devolution and for the will of the people of Wales and Northern Ireland. These clauses are about enshrining that respect into law, ensuring that all authorities under the Bill discharge their powers in the right and appropriate manner, and giving everyone involved the flexibility to set the system that their people want. As such, and following the Minister’s remarks, we do not find the clauses disagreeable and will not oppose them.
Lastly, amendments 66 to 68 and 70 to 73 make minor tweaks to the balance of this part of the Bill. Again, we feel that the amendments are fine and are not disagreeable, so we will not oppose them.
Amendment 66 agreed to.
Amendment made: 67, in clause 107, page 70, line 12, leave out paragraph (b)—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would mean that a contracting authority whose functions are exercisable “wholly or mainly in relation to Wales” will be treated as a devolved Welsh authority regardless of the subject-matter of a particular procurement.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 107, page 70, line 14, after “section” insert “and section 123 (commencement)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 115.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 115, on commencement powers, will amend clause 123 and require consequential amendments to clause 107. The amendment will make the commencement of devolved Welsh aspects of the Bill subject to the consent of the Welsh Ministers, and allow UK Ministers to amend the Act resulting from the Bill so that it no longer applies in respect of devolved Welsh procurement and could be commenced without consent in respect of procurement in England and Northern Ireland, and all reserved procurement, including that in Wales.
Amendments 113 and 114 are consequential amendments that amend clause 107, which we have discussed already.
Florence Eshalomi
It is reassuring to hear the Minister’s additional update from the Welsh Government and that they support the arrangements. The amendments mandate the consent of Welsh Ministers while making procurement, and allow for the exclusion of Welsh procurement from the provisions of the Act. In essence, they mean that Welsh Ministers have to consent to the Act, but that UK Ministers can exclude Welsh procurement from the regime. In practice, I assume that the proposals will ensure that Wales consents to the Act but that, should it not, a UK Minister can remove it from the system and then commence the Act without the consent of Welsh Ministers.
This is a sensible amendment that underlines the respect for the Welsh Government, and we are right to expect that from the Bill. As the Minister outlined, it is good that there is support. We are content with the amendments and will not oppose them.
Amendment 113 agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 109
Minister of the Crown: restrictions on the exercise of powers
Amendments made: 68, in clause 109, page 71, line 12, after “section 66” insert “or section 121”.
This amendment would mean that a Minister of the Crown could not make consequential provision for the purpose of regulating a devolved Welsh authority without the consent of Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 69, in clause 109, page 71, line 32, at end insert—
“(ba) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would allow a Minister of the Crown to exercise the trade dispute power under NC11 in relation to devolved Welsh authorities and transferred Northern Ireland authorities.
Clause 109, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 111
Powers relating to procurement arrangements
Amendments made: 70, in clause 111, page 73, line 4, leave out—
“A Minister of the Crown or”.
This amendment would remove the power of a Minister of the Crown to amend Scottish procurement legislation to apply it to procurement under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements by contracting authorities.
Amendment 71, in clause 111, page 73, line 5, leave out from “of” to end of line 7 and insert—
“(a) applying it in relation to procurement carried out by contracting authorities under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements;
(a) disapplying it in relation to procurement carried out by devolved Scottish authorities under—
(i) reserved procurement arrangements,
(ii) devolved Welsh procurement arrangements, or
(iii) transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangements.”
This amendment would give the Scottish Ministers power to amend Scottish procurement legislation to disapply that legislation where procurement by devolved Scottish authorities may be regulated by provision made by a Minister of the Crown under subsection (1).
Amendment 72, in clause 111, page 73, line 8, at end insert—
“(za) the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (asp 12),”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “Scottish procurement legislation” to include the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.
Amendment 73, in clause 111, page 73, line 13, leave out “those regulations” and insert “that legislation”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 72.
Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112
Disapplication of duty in section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause ensures that authorities to which section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 applies are not prevented by that section from complying with their obligations under the Procurement Bill. It also enables a Minister of the Crown or Welsh Ministers to make regulations to disapply, when required, a duty under section 17 of the Act.
The clause ensures that authorities covered by the 1988 Act can take advantage of domestic procurement policies. As stated in the other place, we intend to use clause 112 for the first time, once enacted, to make regulations so that local authorities may take advantage of the policy of December 2020 so that below-threshold procurements may be reserved to UK suppliers only, or to UK small and medium-sized enterprises or voluntary, community and social enterprises in a particular region or county of the UK.
As section 17 of the Act precludes local authorities from awarding public supply or works contracts by supplier location, tabling regulations under the clause will ensure that local authorities can take advantage of that permitted flexibility, already available to central Government Departments, in respect of lower value contracts.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause interacts with section 17 of the Local Government Act, which placed a duty on certain authorities not to consider non-commercial elements when awarding or managing certain contracts. The amendment to the section is necessary for the new procurement regime, in particular given the move from most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender. The clause will also give Ministers the power to disapply the Act via regulations. That could be used, to give an example from the explanatory notes, to allow relevant authorities to reserve below-threshold procurements by location and/or small and medium business size status. We support and welcome the measures and will not oppose clause stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113
Single source defence contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause introduces schedule 10, which amends the Defence Reform Act 2014 to enable reforms to the Single Source Contract Regulations 2014. The regulations continue to work well to deliver their objectives of ensuring value for money for the taxpayer and a fair price for industry. However, delivering the defence and security industrial strategy and building on experience since 2014 means some reforms are needed. They will ensure that the single source procurement regime can continue to deliver in traditional defence contracts and be applied effectively across the breadth of single source defence work in the future.
In paragraph 2(2) and 2(4) of schedule 10, we are taking a power to clarify that some cross-Government single source contracts with a substantial defence element will come under the Defence Reform Act regime. That will provide assurance on value for money on a greater proportion of single source defence expenditure.
We are increasing the flexibility of the regime by taking a power in paragraphs 3(2) and 3(8) of schedule 10 to enable contracts to be considered in distinct components with different profit rates being applied to different parts of a contract, where that makes sense. Further flexibility in the regime will be provided by a power in paragraph 3(3) to specify circumstances under which a fair price for all or part of a contract can be demonstrated in ways other than by reference to the pricing formula in the Defence Reform Act. Circumstances for using such an approach will be set out in regulations and will include, for example when an item has previously been sold in an open market or where a price is regulated by another regime.
We are simplifying the contract negotiation process by amendments in paragraph 9(3)(a) of schedule 10, which will ensure that the contract better reflects the financial risks involved, and in paragraph 8(3)(e), by taking a power that will clarify how the incentive adjustment should be applied. We are also removing two steps from the current six-step profit setting process. The amendment in paragraph 9(3)(b) will abolish the funding adjustment for the Single Source Regulations Office or SSRO. The same paragraph will also remove the adjustment that ensures that profit can be taken on a contract only once. That issue is dealt with through allowable costs by virtue of paragraph 12(3) of schedule 10.
We are simplifying some reporting requirements by way of amendments in paragraph 13 of schedule 10 to reflect concerns expressed by suppliers and to make compliance with the regulations more straightforward. We are making better use of the expertise of the SSRO by way of the amendments in paragraphs 18 and 19 by enhancing its power to issue guidance, and clarifying and expanding the range of issues on which it can adjudicate. That will empower the SSRO to play a greater role in speeding up the contract negotiation process.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the clause, which is related to the Defence Reform Act 2014, which created the Single Source Regulations Office. I have only a question or two about the clause: is there any effect on that office? How does he envisage the regulations he mentioned developing over time? He has already said the regulations will be laid in due course, but can he give the Committee any idea of what they will look like in the new regime proposed in the clause?
Alex Burghart
With reference to the SSCR, where we procure in the absence of competition it remains vital that we strike the right balance between, on the one hand, paying contractors fair prices for the goods and services we buy and, on the other, providing assurance that the taxpayer is getting value for money. Experience from before 2014 showed that a non-legislative approach was insufficient to achieve that balance. The amendment in schedule 10 will apply only to contracts that are substantially for defence purposes. The criteria for including a contract will be set out in secondary legislation. To the hon. Gentleman’s point, that is necessary because it is not generally possible to price the defence elements of such contracts separately in primary legislation, so we need the flexibility in secondary legislation.
Chris Evans
I hear what the Minister says about regulations. Will that have any effect on the profit margins set by the SSRO?
Alex Burghart
That will depend on what the regulations were, which is for discussion at a future point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 114
Concurrent powers and the Government of Wales Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause makes it clear that certain restrictions on the legislative competence of the Senedd do not apply in relation to powers granted to Welsh Ministers under the Bill. That ensures that Welsh Ministers can exercise the legislative powers granted to them under the Bill, and amendments to the Government of Wales Act 2006 are not uncommon in Westminster legislation that grants powers to Welsh Ministers.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister said, the clause contains provisions about the Welsh Government and actions that they can and cannot take on procurement. The clause makes a short and technical amendment that removes the prohibitions on the Senedd to legislate on qualified devolved functions in this area. We see no reason to oppose the removal of the prohibition, so we are happy for the clause to stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 114 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
Repeals etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause and schedule 11 between them set out the legislation that will be repealed, revoked and disapplied once the Bill comes into effect. That includes the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, which make up the existing procurement regime for England and Wales, and for Northern Ireland.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause repeals a number of pieces of primary and secondary legislation, as outlined in schedule 11. In practice, the clause and schedule will repeal the current procurement system under the likes of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
It is a little unusual that, under schedule 11, we will repeal part of a Bill that is matching this Bill stage for stage in its passage through this House. In fact, I believe that the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill had its Second Reading in the other place just hours before we had Second Reading of this Bill. I know from the Minister’s references that he is fond of boxing, and I wonder which one of those two titanic pieces of legislation will win the bout against the rigmarole of getting a Bill through Parliament? We need to get the Bill through, but perhaps the trade Bill will be one of the fastest enacted pieces of legislation to pass through the House. Labour Members understand why the measure is necessary, however, to ensure that there are no gaps should this Bill take longer to pass through Parliament.
We also understand why we cannot have two procurement systems in place at the same time. As previously stated, we feel that the Bill is a step forward in addressing some of the issues in our procurement system that were introduced by the likes of the public contracts regulations. Many provisions that are part of those regulations have been brought into the Bill, and others have been improved on. We feel that the Bill could have gone further in many ways, and we will continue to argue for amendments in those areas for the rest of our proceedings in Committee and on Report, but we share the view that it will bring benefits to our procurement system as a whole. We will therefore not oppose the repeals alongside the enactment of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 116 disagreed to.
Clause 117
Power to amend this Act in relation to private utilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause provides a power for an appropriate authority to make regulations to reduce the regulation of private utilities under the Bill. That power may be used, for example, to disapply particular provisions or to modify them to reduce the regulatory burden, such as to reduce financial costs or administrative burdens.
In the UK, regulators such as Ofgem and Ofwat have promoted competition in many utility markets and provided a proxy for competition, with protection of consumers’ interests at its heart where that is not feasible. That oversight of private utilities justifies minimising the regulatory burden on them to avoid passing costs to customers.
As the Bill provides in clauses 89 and 97 that contracting authorities owe a duty to “treaty state suppliers”—that is, suppliers entitled to the benefit of international trade agreements—to comply with a substantial part of the Bill, the power can be exercised to make amendments only where they do not put the UK in breach of its obligations to those suppliers. The Bill already includes a number of measures that reduce the regulatory burden for private utilities, such as the transparency requirements being pared back to the minimum required by international trade agreements.
Parliament and interested parties will have ample opportunity to scrutinise any amendments proposed to be made under the power, as clause 117 requires consultation prior to making regulations. Parliament will rightly be able to scrutinise the regulations under the affirmative procedure.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause pertains to the ability to reduce regulations in relation to private utilities. It is important that the Bill does not create regulatory burdens where they are not necessary. The clause gives powers to ensure that the Bill can be amended to disapply parts of it in relation to private utilities.
Several exceptions for private utilities already exist throughout the Bill: for example, on the policy statements, the publication of certain information and assessing contract performance. Of course, that does not mean that private utilities do not go unregulated. It is important that groups such as Ofgem regulate the gas and electricity market, but it would be burdensome to have several different frameworks of regulation applying to bodies where they are not needed. That can end up duplicating regulation and creating unnecessary bureaucracy, and simplifying frameworks is one of the main reasons that the Bill is before us.
We believe that our private utilities should be regulated, particularly at a time when we see so many people up and down the country feeling the pain of skyrocketing energy bills this winter, but it must be done via the appropriate channels. For that reason, we are minded not to oppose the clause. However, I hope the Minister can briefly justify when the clause will be necessary and say that the powers will not be used overzealously.
In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said:
“The Committee considered that there was inadequate justification for taking a power to make regulations for the deregulation of private utilities under the Bill. They considered that Ministers should explain more fully the proposed use of the power and unless the Government can fully justify it, the breadth of the power should be narrowed.”
In their response, the Government said:
“The power is limited by our international obligations. This means that we must retain some regulation of private utilities in order to comply with our trade agreements such as notice requirements and rules on conditions for participation and award criteria.”
How does that limitation play out in practice? What parts of regulation will be hard-locked into the system by it, and what parts will be open to amendment by the clause? In addition, does a mechanism exist to reapply regulation where it has been disapplied by the clause? It seems wrong for it to be the case that we could disapply bits of the Bill quickly but, should we realise that it was a mistake or maybe want to disapply the provisions only temporarily, the bar to reapply an existing regulation under the Bill would be a lot higher. Can the Minister inform me how that can be done, and what can be done in those cases?
As I mentioned, we are minded not to oppose the clause, but I would be grateful if the Minister could address some of those points.
Alex Burghart
Under the Bill, we have already reduced the regulatory burden for all types of contracting authorities, not just private utilities. Because the four sets of regulations will be streamlined into a single regime, it will be clearer for public authorities, which may currently need to use two or three of these sets of regulations, what rules they need to follow. All contracting authorities will benefit from a simpler, more flexible and commercial system that better meets our country’s needs while remaining compliant with our international obligations. We think it is right to go further for private utilities, as they operate in markets that are regulated in other ways—for example, by regulators such as Ofgem—and are more competitive and commercial.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, the UK is party to trade agreements—for example, the UK-Switzerland trade agreement and the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement—that require us to ensure that private utilities allow suppliers from those countries to participate in procurements covered by the relevant agreement. Under those agreements, suppliers from those countries have access to procurements by private utilities operating in sectors such as gas and heat, electricity, water, transport services and ports and airports. It is right that we are deregulating utilities, because they operate in different markets and we must have a pragmatic approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Regulations
Amendments made: 75, in clause 118, page 75, line 21, at end insert—
“(da) section 52 (key performance indicators);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by a Minister of the Crown under clause 52.
Amendment 76, in clause 118, page 75, line 23, leave out paragraph (f).
This amendment is consequential on the Government‘s intention to replace the power in clause 64 with the substantive provision in NC15.
Amendment 77, in clause 118, page 75, line 29, at end insert—
“(la) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by a Minister of the Crown under the new trade disputes clause in NC11.
Amendment 114, in clause 118, page 75, line 39, at end insert—
“(ua) section 123(6) (exclusion of devolved Welsh authorities);”.
This amendment would subject the power added by Amendment 115 to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 78, in clause 118, page 76, line 21, at end insert—
“(ca) section 52 (key performance indicators);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by the Welsh Ministers under clause 52.
Amendment 79, in clause 118, page 76, line 26, at end insert—
“(ha) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by the Welsh Ministers under the new trade disputes clause in NC11.
Amendment 80, in clause 118, page 76, line 47, at end insert—
“(ca) section 52 (key performance indicators);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by a Northern Ireland department under clause 52.
Amendment 81, in clause 118, page 77, line 1, at end insert—
“(da) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by a Northern Ireland department under the new trade disputes clause in NC11.
Amendment 82, in clause 118, page 77, line 15, leave out from “under” to end of line 16 and insert “any of the following provisions”.
This amendment is preliminary to Amendment 83.
Amendment 83, in clause 118, page 77, line 18, at end insert—
“(a) section 90 (treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination);
(b) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);
(c) section 111 (powers relating to procurement arrangements).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by Scottish Ministers under the new trade disputes clause in NC11.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 118 sets out the relevant procedures associated with the making of regulations under the Bill. They must be exercised by statutory instrument or equivalent powers in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Where a power is exercised by a Minister of the Crown, the powers listed in subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative procedure, those made under clause 42 are subject to the made affirmative procedure and, with the exception of commencement regulations, the rest are subject to the negative procedure.
Where powers are exercised by Welsh Ministers, those set out in clause 118(10) are subject to the affirmative procedure and all other powers are subject to the negative procedure. Similarly, where powers are exercised by a Northern Ireland Department, those set out in subsection (12) are subject to the affirmative procedure, and all others to the negative. Regulations made by Scottish Ministers under clauses 90 and 111 are subject to the affirmative procedure applicable in proceedings of the Scottish Parliament.
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 118 outlines the powers and restrictions related to regulations that can be passed under the Bill. We all understand the point of secondary legislation. We do not oppose its use in this Bill, nor do we oppose the clause. However, we share the concern of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the scale of the use of delegated powers. Its report states:
“This report identifies multiple failures in the Memorandum to adequately explain and justify very broad delegations of power which enable implementation of significant policy change by delegated legislation. This would give us cause for concern at any time but is particularly disappointing as it comes so soon after the publication of our report, Democracy Denied? The urgent need to rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive, in November 2021, and of revised guidance for departments on the role and requirements of this Committee.”
The DPRRC’s concern was shared by Chris Smith, e-procurement and procurement consultant at CA Procurement Consulting Ltd. In his written evidence to this Committee, he said:
“The latest version of the Bill relies heavily on secondary legislation, which has not yet been published, and I am concerned that the level of compliance of Contracting Authorities with transparency regulations and policies will not be improved by this Bill as it is currently worded.
Currently, there remains a significant gap in transparency and the data captured in the existing online systems that not only undermine accountability and scrutiny of the use of public funds but also means that the government cannot rely on obtaining accurate data from these systems, for example, on SME participation. The same goes for the private sector.”
I think it is fair to say that I have made my feelings clear to the Minister throughout the Committee’s proceedings about the use of secondary legislation. I will not go through all those points again—I am sure he can refer back to them—but I still have concerns about how heavily the Bill relies on secondary legislation.
It is not that we object to the use of secondary legislation, nor do object strongly to an instance of its use throughout the Bill. At the end of the day, it is an option that the Government can use to legislate. However, as the Minister knows, it was well within the Government’s gift to set out more information in the Bill so that we could scrutinise further what some of the powers will mean in practice. They could have either set out the scope of what regulations should do, or scrapped the need for regulations entirely and spelled out the provisions in the Bill. Instead, we have had hypothetical debates—some powers may be granted, and some may not; they may transform our procurement system, or they may go unused. It is a bit frustrating to produce legislation in that way.
Alex Burghart
Well, Mr Mundell, I reassure the Committee that my batteries are, if not at 100%, still perfectly green; I have many Duracell hours left in me.
We have consulted with the DPRRC. The hon. Lady will know from earlier discussions that we require a very high degree of flexibility in a lot of areas of the Bill, and that requires secondary legislation, but she can rest assured that a lot of the secondary legislation will see public consultation before it is formulated. She will also have heard me refer to the affirmative procedure, which we intend to use for a lot of the secondary legislation. That means that it will be considered in Parliament, which will give it a good level of public scrutiny. I hope that she will take that as reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 118, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 119 defines words and phrases of general application in the Bill that are not listed elsewhere—for example, “appropriate authority” is defined as a Minister of the Crown, Welsh Minister or Northern Ireland Department. Importantly, the clause also sets out the definition of “small and medium-sized enterprises”, and provides that an appropriate authority may amend by legislation the definition of an SME. The clause includes some concepts of wider application in the Bill, setting out, for example, that value of money thresholds are inclusive of VAT.
Clause 120 sets out where in the Bill the definitions of certain concepts of wider application can be found.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 119 and 120 relate to interpretation and definitions. Clause 119 defines terms, such as SME, that are common in the Bill but are not defined in individual clauses where they are mentioned; clause 120 contains a useful index of defined terms and where their definition appears in the Bill. We believe that the clauses are necessary and useful for navigating the many different terms that appear in the Bill, and we do not intend to oppose them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 119 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Power to make consequential, etc, provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 122 and 123 stand part.
Government amendment 84.
Clause 124 stand part.
Alex Burghart
Clause 121 provides a power to make regulations that make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision. It is a standard clause that means that the Government can make regulations that ensure that the Procurement Act—as it will be—works effectively with the rest of the statute book. It includes the power to amend primary legislation.
Clause 122 explains the extent of the Bill—that is to say, the jurisdictions in which it will form part of the law. The Bill’s provisions extend to each of the jurisdictions of the UK. The majority of provisions apply to all procurement by contracting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, including matters that we agree are within the scope of devolved competence. The Bill also extends to Scotland and applies, in limited respects, to procurement by devolved Scottish contracting authorities.
Clause 123 is a standard clause setting out when the Bill’s provisions will have effect as law. Some provisions will commence when the Bill is passed and some will commence upon regulations being made by a Minister of the Crown. As we have discussed, however, and following agreement with the Welsh Government, that power can be exercised in relation to devolved Welsh procurements only with the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
We have committed to provide six months’ notice of the new regime coming into force from when the Bill is passed. We expect that to be spring 2024 at the earliest. The existing legislation will apply until the new regime goes live, and it will also continue to apply to procurements started under the old rules. Frameworks, dynamic purchasing systems and qualification systems let under the old rules can remain live for their planned lifespan.
Clause 124 is mainly for citation purposes, and does not necessarily cover all aspects of the Bill. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will be cited as the Procurement Act 2022. Amendment 84 will remove the amendment made in the other place in respect of the financial privilege of the House of Commons.
Florence Eshalomi
Amendment 84 is a privilege amendment. It is added to Bills by convention to avoid the violation of the privilege that the House of Commons rightly enjoys over the ability to charge people and public funds. The amendment is a quirk of our constitution for Bills beginning in the Lords, and we are, of course, happy to affirm the privilege of this House.
Clauses 121 to 124 are standard parts of Bills in this House. Although there can sometimes be contention about when Bills should commence, it is welcome that, on this occasion, there is no such controversy and the Bill will commence on the day it passes. Of course, we do not object to that, or to the other provisions of the clauses. We are happy for them to stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for supporting the clauses. As we are nearing the end of our debate today, I will come back on a couple of points that the hon. Lady made so that we have covered everything off.
Before the lunch break, the hon. Lady kindly supported the clauses in part 9 of the Bill. As mentioned, if suppliers are breaching contractual terms, that will be a matter to be resolved pursuant to those contractual terms. The contracting authority will actively monitor compliance of these types of matters under its usual contract management and monitoring procedures, which will be strengthened by the Bill. I hope that adequately answers the hon. Lady’s question such that there is no longer any need to confirm in writing.
Similarly, in the closing stages of Tuesday’s sittings, the hon. Lady asked whether contracts already entered into following a procurement process will be terminated automatically if a contractor subsequently becomes an excluded supplier. Termination of contracts is often covered by contractual terms, but clause 77 gives contracting authorities an implied right to terminate a contract should a contractor become an excluded or excludable supplier. Although it is not automatic, authorities are able to terminate in the circumstances set out in clause 77.
Given the range and variety of contracts that contracting authorities will enter into, they need to be able to consider individual circumstances and the fulfilment of contract deliverables. Automatic termination of contracts when a supplier becomes excluded or excludable takes no account of other contractual obligations and would have serious implications for the delivery of the essential goods, services and works on which the public rely.
There is no need to mandate automatic termination. Contracting authorities should be trusted to exercise discretion appropriately, including in relation to national security. As with excluding a supplier prior to contract award under the national security ground, a contracting authority will be required to seek approval from a Minister to terminate a contract on this ground. I hope that gives the further detail the hon. Lady was looking for.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
If I can crave your indulgence, Mr Mundell, I will not be present at the Committee’s next sitting, so I want to say thank you very much to the Clerks, to Hansard and, in particular, to two staff members, Josh Simmonds-Upton and Sarah Callaghan, who have been excellent in providing me with valuable support.
The Chair
Thank you for putting that on the record.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 123
Commencement
Amendment made: 115, in clause 123, page 81, line 14, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) A Minister of the Crown may not make specified regulations under subsection (2) without the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
(4) In this section, “specified regulations” means regulations to bring into force provisions regulating procurement by a devolved Welsh authority other than procurement under—
(a) a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(b) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement,
but ‘specified regulations’ does not include regulations to bring into force provisions in Part 7 (implementation of international obligations).
(5) In this section, ‘devolved Welsh authority’ has the meaning given in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
(6) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that—
(a) Parts 1 to 6 and 8 to 13, or particular provisions in those Parts, so far as not already brought into force under subsection (2) do not regulate procurement by a devolved Welsh authority other than procurement under—
(i) a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(ii) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement;
(b) existing legislation continues to regulate procurement by devolved Welsh authorities and procurement under devolved Welsh procurement arrangements.
(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may modify this Act.
(8) In this section—
“existing legislation” means any enactment, other than this Act or regulations made under this Act, that is passed or made before section 11 (covered procurement only in accordance with this Act) comes into force;
a reference to a provision regulating procurement includes a reference to a provision conferring a function exercisable in relation to procurement.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would make commencement of devolved Welsh aspects of the Bill subject to the consent of the Welsh Ministers, and would allow UK Ministers to amend the Act resulting from this Bill so that the Act no longer applies in respect of devolved Welsh procurement and could be commenced without consent.
Clause 123, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 124
Short Title
Amendment made: 84, in clause 124, page 81, line 18, leave out subsection (2).—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would remove the technical amendment made by the House of Lords in respect of the financial privileges of the House of Commons.
Clause 124, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brownfield Development and Green Belt
(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
May I remind members of the public not to interrupt the debate? If you wish to speak to Members or the Minister, please make an appointment in the usual way.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of brownfield development and protecting the green belt.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members, from both sides of the House, for being here today to support my debate. I appreciate that this is a Thursday afternoon just before a recess, and by-elections are going on across the country. I am sure that Members have many pressing commitments in their diary, so I am impressed by the number of colleagues here to support me today. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her recent appointment to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; I am pretty certain that she knows a little bit about the topic that I will be speaking to today.
It gives me great pleasure to open this debate on our green belt. The national planning policy framework states:
“The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts.”
I very much hope that that is the case. The recent new clause 21 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—so ably put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who is with us today in Westminster Hall, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), who is unable to be with us today, to strengthen the green belt’s protection against speculative development—would certainly help the Government with that stated objective.
However, CPRE, the countryside charity, rightly identifies that
“the Green Belt has never before faced such serious threat as large sections of land disappear under new developments.”
It is worth remembering the purpose of the green belt in our communities. It serves five purposes: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Despite the fact that we have those protections in place, however, they too often count for very little with developers who seek to drive a coach and horses through planning policies to take what is the easy answer for them but the unpalatable option for so many of our constituents.
In my own constituency in the west midlands, we were previously part of a consortium with three neighbouring local authorities to produce our local plan, known as the “Black Country Plan”. It proposed, across the borough of Walsall, a staggering 7,100 homes, of which 5,500 were proposed for my constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills, primarily on green-belt sites. Nearly every one of the proposed sites broke the central link of one of the five purposes of our green belt—that is, to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. Indeed, one of the central themes throughout the consultation process, which came up time and again from my constituents, was their objection to having our community subsumed to become a suburb of a Greater Birmingham. After the first round of consultation on the proposed plan, which more than 7,000 households from my constituency opposed, the answer, at stage 2 of the process, was not to take on board the comments of constituents such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills; it was to come back with more proposals for yet more housing on even more green-belt sites.
However, now that the Black Country consortium has been dissolved, new clause 21 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would help Walsall Council and the leadership, under Conservative Councillor Mike Bird, to forge a new local plan, which I believe could have a primary focus on “brownfield first”—brownfield development being prioritised over green-belt development.
I emphasise that those of us who argue for greater protection of our precious green belt are not and should not be simply labelled as nimbys. We are not. Nor is it the case that somehow I simply want to push the proposed housing into someone else’s constituency. I do not. What I want is for us to be ambitious and to be a regeneration generation.
We all recognise that we desperately need to see more homes come on stream faster and in larger numbers, but what types of homes do we as a nation need? I argue that they must include starter homes to allow younger people the same opportunity that my husband and I had in our 20s—I remember the joy of getting the keys to our first home. All too often, however, those are not the homes that developers want to build, particularly in proposals for the green belt. Indeed, speculative developer plans in a development brief for one green-belt site in Aldridge-Brownhills proposed to build four and five-bedroom houses in a location where average house prices are between 51% and 110% higher than the national average spend of a first-time buyer, which stands at just over £200,000.
The race to ensure that the next generation have the same opportunities will not be solved by concreting over Britain’s green and pleasant land. If we simply accept the argument that supply shortage is the principal reason for advocating green-belt development, we will walk into the developers’ trap. Building on inappropriate sites, with no infrastructure plan to support development in areas where there is all too often a shortage of school places and GP provision already, does not add to the existing community cohesion; in fact, it risks creating greater community tensions.
Given that we now have the capacity to build 1.2 million new homes on brownfield sites in England, surely they should be the first port of call for any house building programme. The Government are to be congratulated on continued initiatives such as the brownfield land release fund, which will help us to introduce a realistic house building programme on brownfield sites. The fund has allowed regions such as mine, under the stewardship of Mayor Andy Street, to ensure that we are remediating brownfield sites and operating a “brownfield first” approach across the west midlands and the Black Country. I place on record my thanks to the Minister’s predecessor in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for successfully overseeing a further round of that important funding, and I now look to the Minister to pick up the baton and lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ahead of the Budget on 15 March, for further resources to advance the opportunities for more local authorities to apply for, and take advantage of, the scheme. She knows the west midlands very well, so she knows that we can and do deliver, and we want to do more.
However, in addition to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and initiatives such as the brownfield land release fund, the imminent changes to the national planning policy framework need to be used as an opportunity to strengthen protections for our green belt. I hope that we will institute the prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield land in the changes that are due to be brought forward to the NPPF. Like CPRE, I hope that they will include a firm presumption against giving planning permission for development on additional greenfield sites, compared with those already in the plan. Greenfield sites should be allocated in local plans only where sites are primarily affordable homes for local needs, or where it can be shown that as much as possible is already being made of brownfield land, particularly by providing more housing in towns and city centres.
The NPPF also needs to change to require that all developments have diverse housing tenures and types. As I mentioned previously, a proposed development in my constituency has exclusively focused on large four and five-bedroom properties, offering no hope or opportunity to young families and young people. The infrastructure levy should be subject to change, too, to reflect the high cost of greenfield development to local communities and its impact on them, although brownfield redevelopment should still be required to make a contribution to affordable housing targets. We also need to provide local communities with stronger mechanisms to bring forward brownfield land as a source of land supply, such as increased compulsory purchase powers.
There will always be naysayers who tell us that brownfield land will not provide sufficient land to meet housing need and that the loss of brownfield sites for housing purposes will lead to the loss of land that could be used for employment purposes. However, we need to recognise that areas such as the Black Country and the west midlands—land on which heavy industry once stood—are unlikely to be returned to widespread employment use. If we are to be the regeneration generation, we need developers and our wider construction professionals to pioneer new communities that will offer a mix of employment and housing. In fact, a large part of any revival of our town centres and high streets surely can be achieved only if we accept the need for more designated housing in them to provide new and in-built footfall.
There is no doubt that when the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill went to the other place, it did so in a far better state. However, I fear that the concessions that were won through the acceptance of new clause 21 can be easily undermined if powers under the NPPF are not strengthened. We need to see an end to the five-year land supply obligation and an end to the scandal of land banking. We need further Government support with the cost of land remediation through the brownfield fund and the brownfield land release fund, and that needs to be adequately resourced.
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will agree that the best developments are those that work with, not against, local communities. The right type of planning regulation that unlocks the power of local communities and economic growth should not be seen as incompatible with protecting our environment and precious green belt. In the same way, our whole debate about the green belt should not be seen through the lens of “green belt good” and “house building bad” —or vice versa.
To conclude, we need to draw on our resources to solve the failure of house building. That means seeking to use our resources to build 1.2 million homes on brownfield sites first. “Brownfield first” should be our development watchwords. Get this wrong, and our green belt will be lost forever, which would be a travesty for future generations, but get this right, and we can truly be the regeneration generation.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I think it is the second time this week that you have guided us through a Westminster Hall debate that I have attended, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate and on her comments, which resonated with some of the problems we face in my area.
Obviously the country has a housing problem as our population increases and household size falls, but it seems to me that, as the right hon. Lady just said, a large amount of brownfield land in the country remains undeveloped. There are also large numbers of planning consents in land banks held by developers that are sitting on their assets and allowing them to grow while seeking further planning consents, on which they will probably sit as well.
It is time to think carefully about our green belt. I represent a rural community of 23 separate villages. It is important for Members who represent urban communities to understand the importance of the independence of a local community, its local identity and local culture. Ribbon development, which gradually takes one field, then another and then another, results in the bringing together of communities that historically were often rivals, or certainly have different identities that they want to retain.
Take the village that I live in, which is a Quaker village in a mining community. We are now two fields away from Pontefract. If we go back far enough—back to the civil war—we stood for Parliament and Pontefract stood for the Crown. That is some time in the past now, but we get the point. I can look from the top of our village down into Pontefract; it is creeping closer and closer, and there are plans to develop more of those fields. The village I live in is a rural community, with its own identity. We do not want to be part of Pontefract, and the same applies to all the other 22 villages that I represent.
At the present time, we have three developments, all in the green belt and all for housing. I want to say two things about that: first, it is lazy for planners to simply draw lines on maps that look tidy without first having thought about the social, economic and environmental consequences. Secondly, to some extent, it is greedy of developers to want green-belt land, which is often easier to develop than brownfield land, particularly in a mining community such as mine where much of the brownfield land has been polluted and needs to be cleaned up. There are three sites in my constituency, all in the green belt; a lot of people want to speak, so I am not going to go into detail, but Springvale Rise, Highfield Road and Huntwick Grange are all under threat of development at the moment.
The first thing to say about my constituency is that these villages were mining communities. The coal was taken out by rail, so roads that would carry large amounts of traffic were never built, because people lived in the village where they worked, and they went to the local pub, club, football club or whatever social activity, and to the local school. Our roads are not built to carry the amount of traffic that is being generated by increasing numbers of vehicles, particularly now that there is no work in our communities either, but the highways engineers seem prepared to approve almost anything as long as it is going to deliver housing targets that have been imposed from above.
I was so pleased to hear our leader, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), say that he is going to bring back control for local communities, and I think some rhetoric about the same principle has been heard from the Government as well. If we are going to develop villages that need development, that should be done from the bottom up, not from the top down—that is my central point. Green-belt incursions should be a last resort, not the easy resort. I am asking for a presumption against green-belt land and in favour of brownfield land, and I think the Government have said that there will be one.
Does the Minister have time to reply, or else to write to us, about the following point? The Government, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made statements about preferring brownfield development, and a “Dear colleague” letter has come from the Secretary of State that indicates—it uses the present tense, rather than the future tense—that he has issued orders about preferring to move away from green-belt development. Now, an inspector is looking at our local authority’s plans, and I have spoken at those hearings. That inspector started her inspection prior to the new legislation that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has referred to, and prior to the issuing of that “Dear colleague” letter and, apparently, some changes to the way in which the planning frameworks operate. She is unclear whether she will be applying the new rules as they come into place, or whether she is now obliged to work according to rules that are no longer extant, or will no longer be very shortly. Some guidance on that question would be helpful.
The green belt is very important. I want to focus on one single aspect of it, or maybe two, because other Members will develop other arguments in favour of it. First, I represent many old miners. If a person lives in poverty and perhaps has a bad chest, as many of those old men do, they should not be deprived of access to the countryside, but the more we build up, the fewer amenities will be available. That is what is happening throughout all the villages I represent, every one of which was a mining village. The loss of amenities matters a lot: they should be not for just the middle classes, but for everybody, and yet we are seeing incursions that I think are a disgrace.
The main point that I want to finish on—it will take me one or two seconds—is that there is no obligation on planners, developers, councils or anybody else to do an analysis of the ecological impact of a development before it has been approved. In my view, that is completely wrong.
We have one development that could be 4,000 or 5,000 houses, if they get away with it. I commissioned, because nobody else did, an ecological survey by the reputable West Yorkshire Ecological Service. That survey discovered on the site to be developed 26 or 28 separate species of birds, mammals or other forms of life that are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or birds that are on the Red List. Nobody had done that work, yet all of these species are protected, as far as I can see. There ought to be no development that destroys their habitats, yet that is what is being threatened.
It is a curious situation, because there is legal protection, but no attempt was made to identify which species were threatened by the development. It seems to me that the Minister could helpfully go away to the Department and discuss that point. Every time we build on green belt, rare species of flora and fauna are threatened. The land in our case has never been developed; it is ancient woodland that has never been touched, ever, but is is now under threat from the development at Huntwick Grange in Featherstone. Will the Minister reflect on the ecological impact?
Only a couple of weeks ago, when the United Nations discussed biodiversity, the Secretary-General, in a very striking phase, said that humanity is in danger of becoming
“a weapon of mass extinction.”
What are we doing? We are building on sites where there are species that are under threat, and that may well become extinct in due course. Some species now have a very fragile hold on existence. Can we really say that our planning policies should just ignore threats to our biodiversity? I think not.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate. It is an honour to follow the powerful speech from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett).
I am delighted to be taking part in this debate as the Member of Parliament for a constituency that contains substantial amounts of green belt land. I know how hugely my Chipping Barnet constituents value the breathing space that green belt gives them. It has kept urban sprawl at bay for more than 70 years, but excessive housebuilding targets have been making it harder and harder for councils to turn down bad development proposals. In a number of areas, that is leading to loss of greenfield and green belt land around the country, and to increasing pressure to urbanise the suburbs.
I was very struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Hemsworth on the progressive blurring of the gaps between different communities and communities being merged together, and the crucial importance of giving people access to the countryside on their doorstop. For all those reasons, green belt protections are crucial.
Even where councils refuse planning applications, there is a risk that a planning inspector will overturn the decision on the basis that the development is needed to meet the centrally set, top-down housebuilding target. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, that is why I tabled new clause 21 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which was signed by 60 Members of the House. In response, the Secretary of State brought forward significant concessions to rebalance the planning system to give local communities greater control over what is built in their neighbourhood. That is very welcome. It is being taken forward in the consultation now under way on the new national planning policy framework, but the battle is by no means over because the extent to which the compromise delivers real change depends on how it is implemented. It depends on that consultation.
Let me give an example. I very much welcome the new NPPF footnote 30, which promises that brownfield development will be prioritised over greenfield, but even on brownfield sites, it is crucial to respect factors like local character and density. "Brownfield first” must not mean brownfield free-for-all. We need more detail on how the “brownfield first” approach will be delivered in practice, including how the new developer levy will be used to promote it.
I very much welcome the proposal that councils will no longer be required to review green belt boundaries, even where doing so would be the only way to meet the centrally determined target. I also welcome the crucial concession that if meeting a top-down target would involve building at densities significantly out of character with the area, a lower target can be set in the local plan. Wording needs to be added to the new NPPF to make it clear that a substantial proportion of councils are likely to be able to benefit from that new flexibility and to depart from the target determined by the standard method. We also need additional wording in the NPPF to give more strength and clarity to what will be considered sufficiently “significantly out of character” to justify lowering the target, and how councils will be able to satisfy the test for establishing it.
As the Better Planning Coalition says, the whole target- setting process should focus on housing need, rather than housing demand. They are not the same things, and should be properly distinguished. The consultation also proposes removing the test that local plans have to be “justified”, which would be a welcome way to reduce the evidential burden councils face in establishing the exceptional circumstances that justify reducing their target. However, if that measure is to deliver the outcome promised by the Secretary of State, firm and clear instructions must be given to the Planning Inspectorate to accept local plans from councils that are based on reasonable evidence.
Scrapping the duty to co-operate was a key part of the compromise, too. The duty has created great pressure to build on green belt and greenfield areas outside our major towns and cities. Although the consultation proposes abolition, which is welcome, it envisages that the duty will be replaced by what is called an alignment policy. It would be good to hear from the Minister about this, as we need to know what that policy is if we are to be confident that the duty to co-operate is being scrapped and not simply relabelled.
Giving councils new powers to set design codes is also welcome, but design standards need to be additional to, not a substitute for, existing planning protections on matters such as green belt and greenfield density, height and character. A project that is an overdevelopment cannot be cured with high-quality design.
I would also highlight continuing concerns over national development management policies. Local development management policies provide a bulwark of defence against bad development, protecting greenfield sites and open space, constraining height or preventing loss of family homes to blocks of flats. Central control over all those policies could be deeply problematic and undermine the primacy of the local plan. Ministers say that that is not intended and that the NPPF consultation delivers on the Secretary of State’s promise to consult on NDMPs and their scope, which is welcome. However, NDMPs could still be used to rewrite the entire planning system and significantly restrict local decision making. I therefore urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to look again at this issue in debates in the other place and consider amendments that restore the primacy of the local plan in the event of a conflict with an NDMP.
Finally, I want to say a brief word about London. I welcome the indication by Ministers that the new flexibilities contained in the compromise proposals in the consultation will apply in London, but there is still an urgent need to curb the power of the Mayor of London to impose targets on the boroughs. We are the party that promised to scrap regional targets, yet they are alive and kicking in our capital city. The Mayor has used the London plan to try to load additional housing delivery obligations on to the suburbs, especially boroughs such as Barnet, which have already delivered thousands of new homes in recent years.
Crucial progress has been made as a result of the discussions between Ministers and Back Benchers on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and my new clause 21, but my long-running battle to safeguard the local environment of Chipping Barnet, which it is my honour to represent, must continue. Know this: I will fight with diligence, determination and perhaps even a little obstinacy.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate.
It is vital that we protect the green belt because it brings huge benefits to people’s health and wellbeing, and has a major role in supporting wildlife habitats, allowing nature to flourish and mitigating the effects of climate change. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) in pointing out that that is important for everybody, regardless of how much wealth they enjoy.
It is vital that we build the houses that people so desperately need on brownfield sites. We need to build truly affordable homes on brownfield sites that have high insulation values, and heat pumps and solar panels as standard, so that people can enjoy the benefits of moving into a high-quality home that is cheap to heat. Who would not want to do that?
The last “State of brownfield” report by CPRE, the countryside charity, published in November last year, found that the number of new homes that could be built on brownfield land has reached record levels, with more than half a million homes with planning permission waiting to be built. It revealed that
“over 1.2 million homes could be built on 23,000 sites covering more than 27,000 hectares of previously developed land.”
However, it also highlighted that despite that,
“development of the highest quality farmland has soared 1,000-fold in 10 years”.
As Tom Fyans, the interim chief executive of CPRE, said:
“You know the system is broken when hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people and families are on social housing waiting lists, many in rural areas. Meanwhile, across the country, tens of thousands of hectares of prime brownfield sites are sitting there waiting to be redeveloped.”
There is work to be done to ensure that the development that can take place on brownfield sites does indeed take place there.
The Secretary of State has said that as part of a “brownfield first” approach, Homes England, the Government’s housing and delivery arm, is spending millions on acquiring sites in urban areas to regenerate new housing, but it is no good acquiring the land if it then sits unused. It has been noted that there are often barriers to developing brownfield sites, one of which is the need for remediating works. Will the Minister outline whether she thinks the Government are doing enough to help local authorities to ensure that brownfield sites in their areas are viable for homes to be built on? Have the Government made any assessment of the amount of brownfield sites in the country that could be suitable for housing, but where significant remediation is necessary before development can take place?
Another CPRE report from 2021 pointed out that 793 applications were submitted for building on green belt land between 2009-10 and 2019-20, of which 337—just over 42%—were approved. That resulted in the building of more than 50,000 housing units on the green belt in that time, so for all the Government’s talk about protecting the green belt, it is clear much stronger protections are needed. The Government know that people care passionately about this. We need action now to make it easier for development to take place on brownfield sites and we need much stronger protection for the green belt. Without that, developers will simply carry on pushing to build on green belt sites.
With the absence of such protections, it is perhaps no wonder that developers feel emboldened when it comes to submitting applications for housing on green belt land. In my constituency, Wirral West, 61.9% of the land is green belt. It is a very beautiful part of the world and is clearly attractive to developers, given that in recent months we have seen four planning applications from Leverhulme Estates for homes on land in Barnston, Irby and Pensby. All were refused by Wirral Council last autumn, following a determined campaign against the proposals by local residents. I attended and addressed two public meetings—one at Greasby Community Centre and one outdoors in the village—in support of the many people in my constituency who oppose the destruction of the green belt. People will not forgive politicians who destroy the things that they love.
People in Wirral West value the green belt extremely highly, and they have made it very clear that they do not want to see it built on. I fully support them in this. Leverhulme Estates has appealed against Wirral Council’s decision to refuse these applications, and the appeals are now in progress. There is to be a public inquiry, which is distressing for local people, who want the local green belt to be preserved. A further application from Leverhulme Estates, for up to 240 homes in Greasby, is due to be decided by Wirral Council this evening, and the officer recommendation is to refuse that application as well. It was reported in the Wirral Globe last week that 6,000 people have signed petitions against the application, further demonstrating the strength of feeling in Wirral West, and wider Wirral, against development on the green belt. I have previously called on Leverhulme Estates to abandon its plans to build homes on the green belt in Wirral West, and I do so again.
Wirral’s local plan is currently going through its inspection process, but the plan, which was submitted to the Secretary of State in October last year, states:
“Sufficient brownfield land and opportunities exist within the urban areas of the Borough to ensure that objectively assessed housing and employment needs can be met over the plan period. The Council has therefore concluded that the exceptional circumstances to justify alterations to the Green Belt boundaries...do not exist in Wirral.”
Local people are extremely concerned about the actions of Leverhulme Estates and a series of other developers that are actively challenging that position.
Jon Trickett
Has my hon. Friend had a similar experience to ours, where the houses built on the green belt are often not accessible financially to local people? It adds insult to the injury of losing green belt land when their children or grandchildren cannot afford to live in the houses that are being built.
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend points to a serious problem that we see in constituencies up and down the country. Developers want to build homes on Wirral West’s precious green belt, while local residents want to preserve it for the benefits its brings to health and wellbeing, as well as for environmental reasons. I stand with local residents in their fight to protect the green belt.
Brownfield land is not a static resource. Over time, some brownfield land leaves local authority registers as it is reused and new brownfield land enters the register as it becomes available. It continues to be a renewable resource, and every effort should be made to ensure that it is used to the greatest possible effect.
The Government should bring forward much stronger protection for the green belt as a matter of urgency. We need to see policy that drives the development of brownfield sites to build the truly affordable, zero-carbon homes the country so desperately needs.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing an incredibly important debate, as the other place continues its deliberations over the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. I worked alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on many amendments. We will start to see some big wins in protecting the countryside from development on green belt, open countryside and greenfield sites, which will push the Government much more towards their stated aim of brownfield development.
I will start by trying to define what we are talking about. It is not just the green belt. That is a technical term. The green belt is vital to many constituencies, but in mine, we have very little technical green belt. What we have is 335 square miles of open countryside. Ninety per cent of the land in the constituency that I am fortunate enough to represent in this place is agricultural.
I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet when I say that it is important to remember when we debate these matters that there is a point to the countryside. It is not just there to be pretty and beautiful, although it is both of those things. It is not just there for people to enjoy for leisure: to walk, camp and do all of the things we enjoy the countryside for. It has specific purposes. First, obviously, to produce the food and drink that we all enjoy eating and drinking. It is part of the vital backbone to our national economy. It is also important to things such as water management, allowing drainage to run, rivers to flow and chalk streams to be vibrant and active. The more we build over open countryside, green belt and agricultural land, the greater the risk there is to those things.
I will give a couple of examples from my own constituency. When the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill was in Committee, I used the village of Ickford as an example when speaking to some of the amendments on flooding. The village is small and close to the Oxfordshire border with Buckinghamshire. Deanfield Homes has almost finished building nearly 90 homes on a site there —a site that has always been known to flood. It is on the flood plain of the River Thame.
Throughout the planning process, every excuse under the sun was accepted. Every clever scheme that was introduced for clever drainage solutions, or whatever it might be, was proposed and ultimately accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. Of course there are no surprises in the fact that that land continues to flood to this day, to the extent that the developers have even raised the level at which they are building the houses, with the fancy graphics used on the marketing materials even showing enormous slopes in the back gardens to allow water to run off, which of course goes into the existing and older properties in that village.
Only this week, I heard from a concerned constituent in the village of Haddenham, which has seen considerable development over recent decades, who reported a development at the back of their house on The Clays, off Churchway. The drainage pond that was put in as the developers started to dig foundations has been way above its natural level for some time. The amount of concrete that is going into those foundations is forcing the water towards their cul-de-sac, which is surrounded by walls made out of a cob unique to Buckinghamshire called wychert that, if it gets wet, quickly falls down.
We therefore have to ensure that we encourage the development of the houses and commercial properties that we need on brownfield and regeneration sites; I very much appreciate the soundbite that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills came up with, namely “the regeneration generation”. It is important that we are cautious about the impact that development on the countryside has on flooding.
The big issue, of course, is food security. The more we build over our countryside—our farmland and prime agricultural land—the lower our self-sufficiency in food will drop. We are already down to about 60%. Of course we will never hit 100%, because there are lots of things that we like to eat and drink that cannot be grown in this country. Nevertheless, the more we build over our agricultural land, the more reliance we will have on imports, which is crazy.
I was pleased when, off the back of an amendment that I tabled to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the Government and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities agreed to put into the consultation on the new NPPF a reference that food production can be “considered” in the planning process for the first time. That is important and I urge the Minister to ensure that that change makes it through to the final NPPF. More than that, however, I urge her to ensure that planning authorities up and down the land are given a clear instruction that that is now available to them and they can use it.
A big flaw in the current NPPF—the previous NPPF, if we can call it that—is that the best and most versatile agricultural land was often walked all over and ignored by planning authorities and indeed the Planning Inspectorate. It would therefore be much appreciated by my constituents if the Minister could give some assurances in her response about the pressure that the Government will apply to planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate on the provisions that will hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, be in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the new NPPF.
My last point is about consistency within the Planning Inspectorate, because if we are to achieve the ambition of the homes, commercial properties and solar panels that we need being on brownfield sites, or on rooftops in the latter case, rather than across our fields, we will need consistency in the planning process. I have a perverse case that has come to light regarding land—open countryside —that was always believed to be protected as a buffer zone next to the town of Princes Risborough in my constituency. Despite two previous decisions by the Planning Inspectorate saying that the land should be protected, a third planning inspector has now granted retrospective permission to a number of plots that have been developed on the site, so the residents of the hamlet of Ascot and the nearby hamlet of Meadle are up in arms. We need consistency from the Planning Inspectorate when it considers such matters and—if it can be achieved through the Minister’s good offices—we need that clarity to be pushed down, not only to planning authorities but to the Planning Inspectorate.
The facts speak for themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and others have mentioned, the plots are out there on brownfield land. The CPRE’s data is pretty clear: there is space for 1.2 million homes. The Government’s manifesto talked of an ambition to build 300,000 houses, whereas brownfield development can deliver 1.2 million without touching a blade of grass on the green belt—precious agricultural land, open countryside, nature reserves and so much more. I urge the Government to be bold in their ambition to move towards brownfield development.
Margaret Greenwood
The hon. Member has made the case very clearly. Does he agree that we need a much more positive way to talk about brownfield development? Wirral Council’s plans for the Wirral, which is a peninsula, involve the development of the east side of the borough, which has brownfield sites with fantastic views of the Liverpool city skyline. Brownfield sites can be incredibly exciting urban developments that people will want to live in, but we need the political drive to make sure that they happen. The design of many brownfield sites can be very attractive for people.
Greg Smith
I fundamentally agree with that proposition. Lots of brownfield sites offer spectacular views—whether of a skyline or out towards the countryside. The big challenge is political ambition, but we also need recognition within the tax system through the infrastructure levy to ensure that prospective developers do not look at a brownfield site and a comparator in the green belt or open countryside and say, “It is far cheaper for us to develop the countryside.” If we had a sliding scale to make it cost-neutral to the developer, so that they paid far less in the infrastructure levy or another form of taxation to develop a brownfield site, that would be a quick political win to get us to the brownfield development that I think all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate want to see.
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that I want to start the wind-ups at 14.38.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank you for calling me, Ms Fovargue, and I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for setting the scene. I supported her request to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. We are discussing English planning rules, so I cannot share any knowledge from that perspective, but I wish to sow a Northern Ireland perspective into the debate, as I always do, because what we have in Northern Ireland is mirrored in England. I will also reflect on the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members.
I congratulate the Minister on her new role. I know that she will put her energy and commitment into her position, and I look forward both to her response and to her contributions in her role in the future.
The NPPF states:
“Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land…in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.”
It goes on to instruct local planning authorities to
“give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land…and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land”.
That is the thrust of where I am coming from, because my constituency has utilised brownfield opportunities over the years, but there is still opportunity there. It took a long process to convince the planning authorities— I understand that the planning system in Northern Ireland is different from that on the mainland.
I represent an area that has a lot of land that is not under permitted development. Although our planning system is different, the problems are the same. It is incredibly costly for a developer to develop a brownfield site, with remedial costs on top of the cost to build, which is more expensive in Northern Ireland due to the Northern Ireland protocol. My goodness, I have to mention the Northern Ireland protocol in every debate I attend, because it affects us. It affects us in planning and in everything in life—it affects the very air I breathe—so its impact cannot be ignored.
New housing developments have to do a number of things. There is a delicate balance to strike between meeting the need for houses and protecting our natural environment, and I am not sure that the balance is being struck; what hon. Members have said today indicates that it is not. As the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, new housing developments must deliver affordable housing for people to buy and they must develop infrastructure, whether that be for storm water, sewerage, roads, footpaths or street lighting. In Northern Ireland, a great deal of that development is not put in the hands of the Departments but in the hands, and indeed the moneys, of the developer.
I have lived in the Ards area and peninsula for all but four years of my life. I am pleased that the Minister—and, I think, her husband—came over to my constituency last summer. I was pleased to have her come and see what she told me was the beauty of my constituency, including Strangford lough. I know that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for some time, also had an opportunity to go there on regular occasions, including to Mount Stewart and down the Ards peninsula where I live. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty and of special scientific interest, so there are broad controls over what can happen there. Over the years, we have been able to develop brownfield sites down the Ards peninsula. Whether it be Ballyhalbert, Portavogie or Carrowdore, where there was land available, or Ards town—the main town—Comber, Ballynahinch or Saintfield, all that brownfield land has probably been taken.
It is important to have the infrastructure. For 26 years, I was a councillor for Ards and North Down Borough Council, and I had a particular interest in planning. I recognised early on that there was an opportunity to move towards brownfield sites, and we moved that way and relaxed planning rules to ensure that brownfield sites could be used. Let us be honest: factories—in the linen sector, for example—had closed down, and they were never coming back, so that land was going to lie there for ages. It seemed logical to move in that way, so we did over time, but it took the planning laws to change.
The Library briefing succinctly sums up the issue when it says that:
“CPRE (formerly the Campaign to Protect Rural England) has argued there is sufficient brownfield land to meet England’s housing needs, noting that ‘there is space for at least one million homes on suitable brownfield land’.”
It continues:
“The planning consultancy Lichfields has argued that brownfield land ‘can only be a part of the solution to the housing crisis’”,
which we have to recognise. It then says that Lichfields
“noted that suitable brownfield land is often not available in places where there is more need for new homes.”
For example, in Belfast, some of the land along the River Lagan lay derelict for ages, but all of a sudden, it is a lovely housing development. A lot of work was done around the River Lagan, so the properties on that land became very attractive, as they did in Belfast harbour and across other parts. Land may look derelict and as though nothing can be done with it, but we have to recognise that it can be.
I will conclude, because I understand that the timescale for speeches is about seven minutes, Ms Fovargue. We have to make sure that the community is always involved and that we bring people with us. What I want to say is: “You don’t go agin them—if you go agin them, you get nowhere.” That is important and it is what we try to do back home. I do have concerns and issues about planning in my area, so I urge the Government and the Minister to continue the process that they have started and to ascertain the best way forward to ensure that we make use of brownfield sites, yet do not leave that as the only financially possible solution.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate and welcome the Minister to her place. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for all the work that has been done to progress the housing agenda in the right way—in particular through new clause 21, of which I am a huge fan. I also thank everyone for their speeches today; I agree with most of what has been said.
Ultimately, we are talking about the balance between brownfield land and the green belt; it is important that we focus redevelopment on brownfield, not the green belt. We have an acute housing crisis in the UK—we need more housing—because the population is getting older, people are separating, and immigration is on the increase. We have to ensure that we have enough houses for people to live in, so there is no question but that we must build more housing. The issue is where and how we build it.
I am a fan of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. In effect, I am speaking in support of it. It will drive local growth and empower local leaders to regenerate their areas. It will regenerate the high street in town centres and give new powers for rental auctions and permanent pavement licensing. It will introduce compulsory design codes to ensure redevelopment reflects community preferences. We are giving powers back to the community, and that is really important. It will also introduce a new infrastructure levy to fund affordable housing.
On housing targets, I was never a fan of the terrible Lichfield formula, so I give the Government full credit for listening and overturning it. We now have advisory targets, which are the right thing to do. I am dead against mandatory targets, but if anything, I want to see the end of advisory targets too, because councils are best placed to decide what housing they need locally.
I commend the Government on their brownfield development programme. Some £1.8 billion was allocated in the 2021 spending review, including £300 million of locally led grant funding to unlock smaller brownfield sites and £1.5 billion to regenerate underused land, which is expected to unlock up to 160,000 homes. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), who spoke about permissions. We could build 1.2 million houses right now if there was the will to do so. Again, there is no need to go anywhere near the green belt.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
That 1.2 million figure keeps being thrown around, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that that represents the total existing capacity? It is not an annual figure. The Government’s target remains, I think, 300,000 new homes each and every year.
James Sunderland
My understanding is that 1.2 million is the overall figure. It is important to say that. That is what Government sources have told me, so I am inclined to believe it.
Bracknell is pioneering the nationwide move to use brownfield sites. Some £2.3 million has been allocated to Bracknell Forest Council to assist with three major projects: £1.6 million will go to redeveloping Market Street; £570,000 will go to redeveloping the depot site off Old Bracknell Lane West—importantly, 25% and 35% of those sites are for affordable homes—and £119,000 of public money will go to creating an access road to unlock a piece of tarmacked land that will be redeveloped into four single-person homes and two wheelchair-accessible homes. So Bracknell Forest Council is doing its bit, in line with the national agenda.
In Bracknell Forest in 2019 and 2020, a total of 1,688 homes were added, of which 1,200 were built. That is a 128% increase on the previous year, so I commend Bracknell Forest Council and Wokingham Borough Council for meeting their local plans. Those Conservative-run councils have a proud record of meeting local plans and delivering homes.
I will make a slightly negative point about residual land, however, which is important because my constituency area is deemed to be 41% built up—it is mainly an urban, built-up area. Surrey Heath, next door, is 31% built up, Wokingham is 23%, Windsor is 23% and Maidenhead is 18%, so Bracknell is already one of the most built-up areas in the south of England. That is important because we have to ensure that we are giving due consideration to the quality of life of the people who already live there. My loyalty as an MP is to those who live in the constituency, not necessarily to those who want to move into it. It is really important that we preserve constituents’ quality of life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said—this is important—that we should not be building on farming or agricultural land, golf courses, school playing fields or any other leisure areas. The people we represent have to have access to those open spaces. .
Far from encouraging building on farming land, we should be holding developers and councils to account, and issuing them punitive fines if they are doing so. We have to protect what we have; we have to feed our population. I also want to see recognition of the residual land formula in the Bill. If a constituency has only a small amount of land left, let us value that land; let us look after it and make sure that we do not build on it, even if councils quite clearly have targets to meet—thankfully, now advisory—and as we know, section 106 money is quite attractive.
I will conclude to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills time at the end. My point is that building is fine in the right areas. Yes, we need more housing, but we must not build on agricultural or green-belt land. Our green and pleasant lands are very important; we must not cover them with dark satanic mills. Once they are gone, they are gone.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate on a subject close to my heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made an excellent point early on in his speech about the true definition of “green belt”, and the difference between that and agricultural land, but I reassure him that my examples today are about the green belt. Really, though, my message is more about “brownfield first”, because that is what we need to ensure.
I first became involved in politics because of a community campaign to protect huge swathes of the green belt. I set up that campaign, and although it took eight years, I protected that swathe of green belt and stopped a motorway service station from being built. A number of years on, I am back here, once again talking about protecting the green belt. My message is that I will never give up.
All colleagues have spoken passionately about the need to build on brownfield sites first. Like others, I understand that there is a need to build more houses in this country, including in Erewash, and to support those, such as our younger generations, who want to become homeowners, but that should not come at the expense of the green belt. I welcome the Government’s initial steps in pursuing the “brownfield first” policy; I am also pleased that they will end the so-called duty to co-operate, which made it easier for urban authorities to impose their housing on suburban and rural communities. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said, I am wary of the watering-down of that commitment. The Government need to do more, but I emphasise that green-belt land should only ever be built on as a last resort.
I am concerned that local authorities such as Erewash Borough Council are coming under increasing pressure to include green-belt land in their core strategy, partly due to unfair housing targets being imposed on them. Despite expressing my views to Erewash Borough Council, there are still plans to build 6,000 houses in the borough, the majority of them on the green belt, including around Kirk Hallam and Cotmanhay. I campaigned tirelessly to prevent those proposals from going ahead, but sadly without success. The description that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) gave of the impact on his community mirrors the impact that such building would have on my communities.
We do have brownfield sites available across Erewash, as well as a considerable number of empty properties, mainly above retail sites in the town centres of Long Eaton and Ilkeston. Erewash has a proud industrial heritage, and there should be a planned approach to access those empty and derelict properties, with the option of converting them to residential properties. There are already some examples of that happening in Erewash, but not enough: the Poplar pub on Bath Street, which is the high street in Ilkeston, has now been replaced by housing and retail units. While it is always sad to see the demise of our pubs, that development will play its part in the redevelopment of Bath Street—so important for a thriving community—as well as taking pressure off our green belt. Maximising those kinds of opportunities first surely must be the strategy moving forward.
On 21 March last year, I wrote to the Secretary of State requesting a meeting, along with the leader and chief executive of Erewash Borough Council, to discuss the specific situation in Erewash. That request was passed to the then Housing Minister—that was a few Ministers ago—but I am still waiting for that meeting. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) to her place today; hopefully, she will be in post for a sufficient length of time for that meeting to take place.
Today’s debate has provided a welcome opportunity to raise awareness of why the “brownfield first” policy is the right path to choose. It is clear that building on brownfield land plays an important role in regenerating our communities across the country. I welcome the Government’s initial steps to pursue the “brownfield first” policy. Nevertheless, they need to fully commit to it and do more.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I also welcome the new Minister to her place and express a genuine hope that she improves on the 87-day average tenure of her four predecessors, not least because I have to meet the new Ministers once they are in post to decide how we might work together, which I certainly hope we can.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate and thank all other Members who have participated. In her thoughtful opening remarks, the right hon. Lady made an impassioned case for protecting the green belt and for prioritising brownfield development, and that point has been echoed by many other Members this afternoon. I doubt any right hon. or hon. Member would disagree with the notion that the Government should be doing everything possible to incentivise and encourage good development on brownfield sites, and to prioritise such development over that on urban green space and greenfield, wherever possible. Of course, “brownfield first” is far from a new policy concept.
As far back as 1995, the Major Government outlined proposals in their “Our Future Homes” White Paper to use the planning system and public investment to encourage more development in existing urban areas and less on greenfield sites, with an aspirational target of 60% of new homes on brownfield land. The 1998 planning for the communities of the future policy statement, published by the Blair Government, set out a general preference for building on previously developed sites first; the 2000 planning policy guidance note 3 specified a brownfield target of 60%, with the aim of promoting regeneration and minimising the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. That 60% brownfield target remained in place throughout the life of the Blair and Brown Governments and was carried forward by the Conservative-led coalition Government into the 2012 national planning policy framework.
In short, while the precise weight accorded to brownfield over greenfield has certainly fluctuated, every Government over recent decades, of whatever political persuasion, has ostensibly sought in one way or another to maximise the development potential of brownfield land. The succession of Conservative Administrations since 2015 are no exception in that regard.
All manner of initiatives have been announced over recent years to promote brownfield development, including the use of brownfield registers, the allocation of funding to unlock and accelerate development on suitable and available brownfield sites, and minor changes to the planning system to fast-track brownfield regeneration. The problem is that these recent initiatives have been and continue to be undermined by other decisions the Conservative Administrations have taken—or, in many cases, have failed to take. Let me give three examples.
First, there is the Government’s reluctance to reform biased spending rules. Leaving aside the issue of whether this Government are actually going to be able to spend the £1.5 billion brownfield fund, or whether the Treasury might claw some of that funding back, one need only examine the distribution of allocations from the Government’s brownfield land release fund over recent years to see that a disproportionate share of brownfield land remediation funding flows to local authorities in the south of England for no other reason than the fact that they are already relatively prosperous and have higher house prices.
If the Government were serious about delivering a more overt brownfield-focused policy, they could choose to direct more already allocated funding towards brownfield regeneration in those parts of England where urban brownfield land is relatively low value and the cost of remediating sites often prohibitively high, rather than channelling those funds into high-value housing markets where that further stokes land-price inflation.
Secondly, there is the Government’s general unwillingness to intervene to enable brownfield development. In those parts of the country where land values are relatively high, the existing incentives for brownfield land, including subsidy, are often sufficient. Instead, barriers to development in those locations more often than not relate to delivery, whether that be problems relating to fragmented land ownership or difficulties associated with site assembly.
Again, if the Government were serious about delivering a more overt “brownfield first” policy, they could act to ensure that brownfield development takes place in areas where local planning authorities either cannot or will not build out deliverable brownfield sites themselves, whether that be, as one hon. Member mentioned, by legislating for further reform of compulsory purchase powers or by overhauling Homes England to give it a greater role in driving brownfield regeneration and supporting local authorities with land assembly, master planning, infrastructure delivery and the brokering of local delivery partnerships.
The third example is the Government’s refusal to confront many of the underlying reasons why greenfield development is so much more attractive for private developers than is brownfield land. That applies in both high and low-value land areas. In many ways, the proliferation of low-quality, car-dependent development on greenfield sites that more often than not fails to meet local housing need is a direct consequence of the Government’s over-reliance on private house builders building homes for market sale to meet housing need. Again, if they were serious about delivering a more overt brownfield-focused policy and reducing greenfield market sale sprawl, the Government could take steps to ramp up social housing-led development on those brownfield sites with genuine viability challenges and limited prospects for market development, not least by more effective use of grant funding.
However—here we come to what is the nub of the issue in many ways—even if the Government did act in those and other ways to increase the overall quantum of brownfield development, the fact remains that brownfield development alone will almost certainly never be enough to meet the country’s housing need. The evidence on that fact is perfectly clear. There are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs each year, let alone enough that are viable, in the right location and able to provide the type of homes required to meet local housing needs and aspirations.
The CPRE figure is correct, but it is existing total permissions over a very long period. Analysis published by Lichfields last year makes it clear that even if every brownfield site that has been identified to date were indeed deliverable and were built out to full capacity, including by means of intensified density, the resulting development would equate to 1.4 million net dwellings over 15 years. That is just under a third of the 4.5 million homes that estimates suggest are needed in that period.
Put simply, even if the Government manage to boost rates of development on identified brownfield sites significantly, that will only ever be, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) argued in his contribution, part of the solution to the housing crisis, which is why previous “brownfield first” approaches ultimately had to incorporate requirements to ensure that local planning authorities maintained a sufficient supply of housing on deliverable sites, irrespective of whether that supply could be met in full by development on identified brownfield sites alone.
Wendy Morton
I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, which I welcome. On that specific point about brownfield, does he agree that unless sufficient protections are in place around the green belt and really push the “brownfield first” approach, all that happens is that brownfield sites remain undeveloped, developers continue developing on the green belt and we achieve absolutely nothing?
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with the right hon. Member. As I hope I have conveyed to the House, I think the Government could be doing much more to ensure that brownfield sites are built out and that we do not get speculative fringe development of the type that she refers to. They could do so by, for example, putting in place effective regional frameworks, and sub-regional frameworks, for managing housing growth. There is nothing there at the moment, and a series of Members just applauded the removal of the duty to co-operate, which, as flawed as it is, is the only mechanism in place to provide for that sub-regional housing growth. We will end up in a situation where we have no strategic planning mechanisms to go for growth, and I fear that, even with the changes in place, we will still get speculative development of the kind that the right hon. Member refers to.
I would like to make some progress, because I am conscious of the time. It is the requirement to maintain a deliverable supply of land for housing in order that objectively assessed housing need can be met that the Government, in their weakness, have fatally weakened through the proposed revisions to the NPPF. As I have argued on previous occasions, the Government clearly hope that England’s largest cities and urban centres will do the heavy lifting, when it comes to housing supply, as a result of the entirely arbitrary 35% uplift to urban centres being made policy, but we already know that most of the cities that that uplift applies to almost certainly will be unable to accommodate the output that it entails.
Therefore we are left with a situation where, despite a rhetorical commitment to “brownfield first”, the Government are seemingly not prepared to do what is necessary to maximise the supply of new homes on brownfield sites. Neither are the Government prepared to explore other ways in which brownfield-constrained local areas might meet local housing need, while avoiding development on urban green space and greenfield, for example by throwing the full weight of Government behind serious efforts to boost infill development in suburbs. And the Government are certainly not prepared—despite, as a series of hon. Members have mentioned, presiding over the progressive loss of large amounts of high-quality greenfield land over the past decade, often to haphazard and speculative fringe development—to consider how we might instead ensure that more of the right bits of the greenbelt are released by local authorities for development, that land value capture is maximised on those sites so that the communities in question can benefit from first-class infrastructure and more affordable housing, or that greenbelt land with the highest environmental and amenity value is properly protected, enhanced and made more accessible.
Instead, Ministers have taken the easy option, namely to amend national planning policy in a way that will ensure that fewer houses are built in England over the coming years. In the midst of a housing crisis, the fact that meeting objectively assessed housing need is seemingly no longer a Government priority is, I would argue, a woeful abdication of responsibility. As we will continue to argue, it is high time that we had a general election, so that the present Government can make way for one that not only is committed to fully exploiting the potential of brownfield sites, but serious about building the homes the British people need.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate, and for the interest it has generated from colleagues from across the House and across our United Kingdom—it would not be the same without our friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
I also thank colleagues for their kind words about my role, and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his words of welcome. I very much look forward to having many exchanges with him, and I stress the word “many”. I am sure they will all be polite and constructive, yet probing and robust when they need to be. He has definitely eased me in very well today, and in a very kind way, although no doubt that will not continue. However, we have enjoyed today.
Let me start by saying that there is so much that we all agree on in this debate. We all agree that brownfield regeneration is absolutely vital. I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for her tireless championing of this cause and her constructive engagement with the Government ahead of the Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. In her customary way, which we all know well, she raises so many practical points that her communities and residents have raised with her. That is a reflection of how she champions her constituents and the Black Country values that she represents so well in this House, and we all benefit from that.
We all know that redeveloping brownfield sites is not just better for the environment, but also holds the key to regenerating communities. The Government share my right hon. Friend’s view that, as I think every colleague has highlighted, we should do everything we can to protect our precious green-belt, greenfield, open-space and countryside land, while also making the best possible use of land that has already been developed—land that usually already benefits from mains drainage, power and road access.
That is exactly why the Government have pursued an unambiguous “brownfield first” approach to development. Indeed, I am sure my right hon. Friend will have seen that we have announced £60 million to help councils to free up their brownfield sites for regeneration and new homes. That is part of a much bigger pot of money—catchily entitled the brownfield land release fund 2—that is worth £180 million overall. This £180 million-worth of grant funding will help to accelerate the release of land for roughly 17,600 new homes by 2020. The brownfield housing fund has already had a transformative effect on communities. Let me answer the challenge that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich posed about how the funding is allocated across our country. In November ’22, we announced that 57% of brownfield land release funding was allocated outside London and the south-east, which is of course consistent with the Government’s levelling-up aspirations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will know about the incredible work done by our friend Andy Street, Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority. She also highlighted the work of Councillor Mike Bird, with whom she has worked closely. The West Midlands Combined Authority has been a trailblazer for brownfield redevelopment, using £153 million from the fund to unlock over 10,000 new homes on brownfield sites.
She will know about projects such as the Lockside scheme, which will see 252 well-designed, high-quality homes built at the old Caparo Engineering site, and the transformation of the Harvestime bread factory, which has already delivered 88 much-needed new homes and a thriving community. An added benefit of that development is that it has tackled some of the crime and antisocial behaviour that used to be seen at the site.
Colleagues raised a huge number of points; I will try to respond to them in turn, using the time I have available. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) gave us a fascinating insight into the civil war history of his constituency, and highlighted the similarity of the challenges facing us all, no matter which parts of our nation we represent. He asked about biodiversity and rare species on sites where development is proposed. He will know that we are putting the protection of habitats at the heart of the planning system, through the introduction of biodiversity net gain from November 2023; developers will need to assess the condition of the land they propose to develop and ensure there is better biodiversity value after development.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for all the work she has done throughout the passage of the Bill, under my predecessor, particularly with reference to new clause 21. She is working to rebalance the planning system and I listened carefully to all her comments. We should have a meeting to discuss the issues in a huge amount of detail, with the kind assistance of my officials, who have been working on this for a lot longer than the 48 hours I have had to do a massive reading sprint of all the comments and debates; we will do better justice to the issue by having a meeting. Although she said she would be obstinate, she was also incredibly polite, so I look forward to many future discussions with her.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) talked a lot about the brownfield remediation that is needed. The Government are reviewing the brownfield land planning system, and I am happy to write to her with more detail in response to some of her questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) referred to the importance of food production—the food and drink that is produced in his constituency, and across the country—which is considered in the national planning policy framework. Again, I listened to his comments. He will know that the consultation is under way, and I invite him to join the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, or on another occasion when we can discuss the issues in more detail. I understand the frustration of some of his constituents.
The hon. Member for Strangford reminded me of a very happy trip I made to the Mourne mountains and the beautiful scenery of Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] I do not want to interrupt his conversation, but he reminded me of the wonderful time I had. I went through his constituency to another part of beautiful Northern Ireland, so I have seen it for myself. Although the system in Northern Ireland is devolved, we have many similar challenges and we can all learn from working with each other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) talked in favour of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill; I was grateful to hear his support. He talked about how it will regenerate high streets and communities, which we can all welcome. He highlights the importance of local plans to the quality of life of the people who already live there.
Last but not least, I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup). I well remember her long record of campaigning and how she started her journey to this House. I have no doubt that she will never give up, as she set out in her motto. I hope I can assist her campaign by promising to set up a meeting with her as soon as I can; I am looking to my very helpful officials, who no doubt are scrutinising the debate closely.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing this useful and constructive debate. Having been in the job for two days, it is an honour to be here discussing these issues that touch all our constituents, in every single community, no matter where we live. The Government have a mission to level up the United Kingdom and build beautiful homes in the places where people want to live. We all want homes to be available for our children—or in my case, my granddaughter. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend; she talked about the excitement of first getting the keys to her new home, and that is the balance we seek to achieve in our work. We are thoroughly committed to working with all hon. Members across the House in that endeavour, and we will continue to build the right homes in the right places for the people who need them most.
Wendy Morton
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her speech, and Members from across the House who joined the debate. We have had a really good debate, representing many constituencies up and down the country, and showing that “brownfield first” and protecting the green belt is not just a southern or northern issue, but an issue right across the country that can play a really important part in the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
I gently say to the Minister that she should take a clear but strong message back to her Department, after 48 hours in the job. I am sure she is under no illusion that the clear message, as right hon. and hon. Members will agree, is that we are looking for a meaningful, stronger commitment from the Government when it comes to protecting the green belt, demonstrating the commitment to deliver on brownfield regeneration, and clarity on some details of the policy. There is real interest, passion and energy for this on the Back Benches.
We won some concessions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, but the battle is not over. I will not be giving up; neither, I am sure, will many others. We know that we need housing, but it needs to be the right housing and in the right place, and regeneration generation is a key part of that. Let us get on and deliver it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of brownfield development and protecting the green belt.
Sunscreen Products: VAT
(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of VAT on sunscreen products.
We should be united across this House in our efforts to beat cancer, and that means all cancers—not just the ones it is politically expedient to target. Melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, killing 2,300 people each year. It receives only a fraction of the political attention it deserves, especially when we consider that 90% of cases are preventable with adequate skin protection—that is more than 2,000 lives we could save each year.
In recent years, both melanoma and non-melanoma cancers have been on the rise across the UK, with around 16,000 new cases of melanoma diagnosed each year— 90% of which, as I said, could be prevented by staying safe in the sun. With Cancer Research UK finding that getting sunburnt just once every two years can triple a person’s risk of melanoma, which sunscreen plays a vital role in preventing, it is just common sense that we should work together to make sunscreen products that bit more affordable for our constituents.
With the support of several organisations and Members across the House, my VAT Burn campaign seeks to reform the value added tax charged on sunscreen products of SPF 30 and above—products deemed by the NHS to provide significant enough coverage to our skin if applied correctly. Removing VAT from sunscreen is not a radical idea; in fact, when asked, most people are surprised, if not shocked, that VAT is charged on sunscreen. It is not a novel idea; both the US and Australia have made sunscreen exempt from VAT-style taxes. But removing VAT is a necessary idea—one that should, can and must be done to promote sun safety measures and reduce cases of skin cancer. It would be an important step to demonstrate the UK Parliament’s commitment to sun safety and send a clear message to the public about the importance of sunscreen.
We should not stop there. As in Australia, removing VAT from sunscreen should go hand in hand with an awareness campaign. The Australian Slip, Slop, Slap campaign was a huge success, and there is no reason why something similar could not be replicated in the UK. This is not hard. As Australia and the US have shown, any barriers to implementing this policy change are surmountable. That is why there are two folds to my VAT Burn campaign: first, to reform the value added tax charged on sunscreen products; secondly, education and awareness around skin protection from the sun. I encourage colleagues present today and others to sign early-day motion 839, in my name, which calls on the Government to launch an Australia-style awareness campaign around skin protection in the sun and the risks of prolonged sun exposure.
Sunscreen products are currently treated and defined as cosmetics or luxury goods for VAT purposes, which, given their clear health benefit, is unacceptable and unjust, particularly with temperatures rising—although, I must say that sunscreen should not be worn only when we perceive it to be hot outside. It should be worn all year round, which is why I launched this campaign in February, on World Cancer Day, and not at a sunnier time.
I am incredibly passionate about this issue, and I will put front and centre the reasons why. People like me, whether because of background, class or opportunities, do not tend to end up in this place. For those who do, we end up in politics, I hope, to create positive change for us and for our communities, but most importantly, for our constituents. Not many 30-year-olds—nor Members of Parliament, for that matter—can speak from a position of experience of having survived melanoma twice. It would be a dereliction of duty to my fellow cancer survivors, my surgeon and my family if I did not use that experience to speak up for those who cannot.
I will clarify that VAT Burn seeks a VAT exemption for sunscreen products of factor 30 and above, with a four-star UVA rating and marketed exclusively as sun protection. I will be crystal clear that this exemption will not encompass products from the cosmetics industry, such as foundations including SPF, as those products provide little or—I argue—no protection from the sun.
The anomaly of sunscreen products being exempt from VAT is longstanding, and seems perfectly reason to question, given we are in a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis. Also, given the VAT relief provided to drugs, medicines, medicinal products and aids for the disabled, it seems logical that preventive healthcare measures should be exempt too. Many of my constituents will find it hard to believe that the like of Calpol and paracetamol are exempt from VAT, but not sunscreen products.
The Government line that sunscreen products are exempt from VAT when dispensed by a pharmacist simply does not hold up to scrutiny. First, only a tiny amount of the population receive sunscreen on prescription. Secondly, prescriptions are already free in Scotland, meaning that our constituents do not receive any benefit from that. The Government, I assume, will also argue that this policy will cost the Treasury too much money. But given that it is estimated to cost somewhere in the region of £40 million, which is only 0.03% of the total amount of VAT the Government receive, it is a tiny amount of money in the context. This is clearly not about the money; it is about the Government’s unwillingness to act.
We should not be talking about money, especially the money it will cost the Government. Instead, let us think of the lives that can be saved—those 2,030 lives per year that I mentioned earlier. Let us think of the effort saved by our NHS diagnosing and treating less skin cancers. The money saved within this vital public health service cannot be ignored. At the risk of pre-empting the Minister’s response, why does she recognise the merits of zero-rating some products, but not sunscreen? Do the Government value the protection of our skin from the sun? Do they see merit in an Australian-style awareness campaign? Will the Minister take the proposal to the Prime Minister, and share his views on whether sunscreen products should be more affordable to our constituents?
I understand that there are some reservations about VAT exemptions, because previous zero ratings have not produced savings for consumers. That is exactly why, as part of VAT Burn, I have a pledge for retailers and producers to sign up to. I can confirm today that Morrisons has agreed to sign up to it, and, given that Tesco already absorbs the VAT on sunscreen products, I feel confident that our constituents will see a saving when it comes to sunscreen, should the Government choose to back VAT Burn.
VAT Burn is the product of months of work. To be honest, I never wanted to get to this stage. When I submitted a written question pointing out the anomaly of VAT charged on sunscreen, I had hoped that the Minister would respond positively, and the UK Government would intervene to remove the VAT and quickly bring sunscreen into line with all other healthcare products. But that was not the case. I was told people should wear hats, cover up and sit in the shade, while the Minister curiously ignored sunscreen. Those are important measures to keep safe in the sun, but only alongside wearing sunscreen.
I organised a cross-party letter to the Chancellor, and 40 MPs from every major political party signed the letter. The Chancellor, at the time the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), reiterated the UK Government’s opposition to removing the VAT, citing the same arguments as before: sunscreen alone does not mean someone is safe in the sun. But no one ever said that it does; it is clearly just one part of the solution. When the Chancellor changed, and we had a former Health Secretary in post, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), I re-sent the letter. I hoped that someone with experience in health policy would see the sense in this simple change, but I received another stock rejection.
Whether it was parliamentary questions or meetings with Ministers, none of it has got us anywhere. That is why we are here today, and why the campaign is being covered in the media. It is why six charities are backing the campaign, and why I will keep pushing until we see movement on the issue—specifically, with a ten-minute rule Bill on VAT Burn on 23 February.
I touched very briefly on the organisations supporting VAT Burn. I place on record my thanks to each and every one of them for the great work they do to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of cancer and its impact. I thank the Teenage Cancer Trust, Skcin, Melanoma UK, Young Lives vs Cancer, Melanoma Focus, and, last but not least, Melanoma Action and Support Scotland—Scotland’s only skin cancer specific charity, based in my constituency of East Dunbartonshire.
It is also a workers’ issue. Too many workers spend prolonged periods of time exposed to the sun without adequate, or any, protection. I note that Police Scotland provide their officers with sunscreen if they spend prolonged periods of their shift exposed to the sun. If sunscreen were more affordable, more employers would step up and provide sunscreen products for their staff. This Government proposed to provide free sunscreen to all emergency workers. It would be useful to get an update on that from the Minister. No worker should be put at unnecessary risk of skin cancer due to a lack of sunscreen being provided by their employer.
This common-sense approach to zero rating sunscreen can help everyone. It almost feels daft that I have to stand here today and make a case for it. Let us agree to work together to make this simple change for the benefit of all our skin.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
“It won’t happen to me”—that is what we all think. But then it does. It happened to me. Back in 2019, I noticed a blemish on my left arm. Knowing that both my parents had benign skin cancer, I decided to get it checked out. After a biopsy, my blemish was diagnosed as melanoma and I underwent surgery to remove the cancer. I was one of the lucky ones. The melanoma had not spread. I was not ill. I was discharged from the cancer specialist in 2020, free from melanoma. While I am left with an impressive scar on my left arm, the outcome could have been so different had I not been aware of the signs to look for and caught the cancer early.
One in 36 men and one in 47 women in the UK will be diagnosed with melanoma in their lifetime. Tragically, 2,300 people die from the disease each year. That number has included a business acquaintance of mine, who very sadly passed away in his early 40s, and BBC Radio Derby presenter Colin Bloomfield, who passed away at the age of just 33 in April 2015 after his melanoma metastasised to his lungs.
These deaths do not need to happen—86% of melanomas are preventable by adopting simple sun protection. That is why I back the call for sun protection of SPF 30 and above to be available VAT-free. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) on securing today’s debate and on all the work she has done on this issue.
The Government can do a lot, but they cannot stop people going out in the sun; they can do a lot, but they cannot change the weather. But they can remove VAT from sunscreen. We need to remove every possible barrier that could stand in the way of people buying a life-saving product. At the same time, such a measure sends out the message that the Government are serious about tackling all types of cancer. From an economic perspective, a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. The cost to the NHS of not taking action against a preventable cancer must be huge. We need to break down the silos in the NHS, between the NHS and the Treasury, and between all Government Departments, and look at the cost of not removing VAT on such a product.
As is often the case, each and every one of us needs to take some personal responsibility. They say that only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun. We should be taking the same preventive measures during the hot summer months here that we would if we were on holiday abroad. That includes seeking shade, wearing a hat and loose clothing, and keeping out of the sun when it is most prevalent. Through a combination of these actions, we will see a noticeable decline in cases of melanoma, which at the moment takes far too many lives, far too early, but the Government have a part to play as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is pleasure to be called to speak in this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) for bringing the issue forward. She and I have been friends for a long time in this House, and I am really pleased to see her in her role here. We share APPG roles and I deputise for her—not very well; she does it much better than I do. What a pleasure it is to be here.
I want to add a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate, as I always do. I fully support the hon. Lady’s request to reduce VAT on sunscreen products. Melanoma is a growing health problem in Northern Ireland. My office has six staff members, and three of them—50%—told me that they have immediate family members who had melanoma. One of the younger girls, who is in her early 20s, admitted that she used sunbeds until her father had third-stage melanoma. This is not a disease of the tropics. Perhaps because of our skin and where we are from, we take the sun a wee bit more aggressively than they do in the Mediterranean, for instance. We usually go boiled red to start with, and then when the pain is too much we move to the sunscreen, which we should have done at the very beginning.
It has been found that 86% of cases of melanoma can be prevented by adopting simple sun protection measures, including wearing factor 30-plus sunscreen. That is a very small thing to do, but the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire and for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and I are asking the Government to do something to incentivise that. We are not asking for a lot; we are just asking for a wee nudge in the right direction. The United States of America and Australia have already done that.
The incidence is increasing, and there are now more than 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the UK. The problem is growing, and therefore the need is greater than it ever was. Of course, that does not take into account repeat diagnoses of melanoma—the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said that she got it twice.
In the 15-to-44 age group, melanoma skin cancer is the second most common cancer in males and the third most common in females. I find it difficult to comprehend why that is the case when all those people were taught the dangers of the sun in school. We were told to be careful when we go out—mum and dad told us that as well, but more often than not we ignored it.
Amy Callaghan
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, despite people believing they do not need to wear sunscreen in Scotland, Northern Ireland and other places across the UK, it is essential that they do? They are more likely to contract melanoma if they are pale and fair haired, or have red hair, which is common in our isles.
Jim Shannon
I’ve got a wee bit round the sides. I used to have a whole lot of hair. The hon. Lady makes a fantastic point, and it is true: we are of a fair skin, and that right away puts us in the target area.
We have the information, but for some reason the message just is not getting across. One in 36 males and one in 47 females will be diagnosed with the deadliest form of skin cancer in their lives, so we need to stop seeing sunscreen as a luxury, like a nice moisturiser. We should instead see it as an essential, like good nutrition or drinking water. If it is put in that category, the seriousness of what we are trying to achieve will be clear.
One way of getting the message across is to make it cheaper to purchase sunscreen. My speechwriter—a very busy girl—loves her holidays abroad. I think it is because it means she does not have to answer my calls for two weeks. She has no speeches to prepare, and of course she has no internet access due to overseas roaming charges. She never buys sunscreen before she goes because it is half the price in Florida—that is where they go for their holiday every year. She waits until she gets to Florida and buys enough to bring home and do the whole year back here, because the savings are significant. Hon. Members might say that is an Ulsterman or Ulsterwoman thing, but we do look for a bargain. If it is a bargain that helps our skin and protects us, that is why we do it.
In the US, sunscreen products have been exempt from VAT-style taxes since 2012. In Australia, they are exempt provided they are principally marketed for use as a sunscreen and have an SPF rating of 15 or more. The reason for that is that in Australia and America, sunscreen is seen as an essential daily living product. That is how they categorise it. Some of us have been conditioned to see it as a holiday item, but they see it as something they need to have all the time. Many people who have never gone abroad have melanoma. It is not a holiday problem; it is a lifetime problem.
Public polling indicates that many people find the cost of sunscreen too high, and with the current cost of living crisis deepening, that cost is likely to deter increasing numbers of people from buying sunscreen. The major retailers Tesco and Asda have recognised cost as a prohibitive barrier for people buying sunscreen, and Tesco reduced the price of its own-brand sunscreen by 20% in 2021 to offset VAT. In a consumer poll—such polls are good barometers of what people are thinking—some 57% of respondents said that the product was too expensive, and 29% claimed that they would wear it daily if it were a little bit cheaper. Incentivise it, make it happen and address the issue.
The call for VAT to be removed from sunscreen was part of a sun safety campaign in 2013. That is why I support removing VAT from sunscreens that are factor 30 or more: as Melanoma Focus has said, doing so will make sunscreen more affordable and send a powerful message from the Government about the importance of skin protection. We only have one chance for our skin: it will last us our lifetime, but if we have constant cases of melanoma, then unfortunately it might not last us for the right time. I further support the recommendation that that measure be coupled with a Government-backed cross-media awareness campaign akin to the Australian Government’s successful Slip, Slop, Slap campaign, which the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire referred to. It reminds me of one of those catchy 1960s tunes from when I was a wee boy—I am aging myself by saying that —but a campaign is significant.
With increasing temperatures in the United Kingdom from climate change, such a measure is becoming increasingly urgent. The hon. Member deserves great gratitude for bringing this debate forward, because—as others have said, and as those who follow my speech will say as well—this is an urgent subject. Removing VAT from sunscreen would not have been possible under EU rules, but it is now; there is nothing to restrict us, except those of us who live in Northern Ireland. I hate to say it, but in every debate I have, I have to temper everything with the Northern Ireland protocol. In Northern Ireland, we would not be able to take advantage of leaving the EU in this way, due to the protocol. However, that is a different issue for another day.
Melanoma Focus believes that if this policy were implemented, the reduction in VAT revenue would be offset by reduced melanoma skin cancer cases and therefore reduced costs to the NHS. That is a crucial factor: if we take action to ensure that people can protect themselves more by being able to buy sunscreen that wee bit cheaper, we can ensure that those people do not need ongoing healthcare, with its associated costs. That seems logical to me.
Amy Callaghan
The hon. Gentleman is making a great speech, and I welcome his support for VAT Burn. On his point about the EU, there are little to no advantages of Scotland being outwith the EU, but while we are tied to this place and also outwith the EU, we can reform the VAT on products such as sunscreen. We will take that tiny little benefit that we can, and we appreciate it.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We certainly encourage the Government to take advantage of opportunities to promote better health as a result of leaving the EU.
The “Getting It Right First Time” NHS review of dermatology highlights high and increasing demand for skin cancer treatment, with 200,000 surgical operations for suspected skin cancer carried out every year, and skin cancer rates doubling every 14 to 15 years. That is the main factor driving the request being made today. When it comes to health, those are the stark figures, and I believe they highlight the need for additional workforce to meet current and future pressures, and also suggest that we need to raise sun and skin awareness to reduce pressures on dermatology services.
In conclusion, I support the call to remove VAT from sunscreen. I say to the Minister, who knows that I respect her greatly, that we make that call today because we believe it is worth supporting. The Government have taken other steps when it comes to VAT—the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire referred to sanitary products. Removing VAT from those products was something that the Government should have done; they did so, and I welcome that. Today, we make another request.
It is not just a matter of listening; it is also about taking action to protect our people and our NHS, and the future of its services. Here is a figure for everyone— 85% of cancer is preventable. This is preventable, if we take some steps in the right direction. Let us take the steps in this place to prevent it right across all of this great nation, this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) on her excellent work in securing this debate and on her powerful speech. I also commend colleagues from all parties in the House for their speeches.
I want to make three brief points, first about the obvious importance of sun protection, secondly about the context of the cost of living crisis, and thirdly about the importance of investment in public health.
First, on sun protection, we have heard a persuasive argument today about the importance of protecting ourselves from skin cancer. Quite clearly, it is a threat that can be managed and that we can protect ourselves from, and the hon. Member is absolutely right to point that out. However, those 2,000 preventable deaths surely prompts a question for the Government: what is the state of their current public health work on this important matter? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that in detail when she responds.
I also urge colleagues from all parties in the House to consider the context for families—who will perhaps have started thinking at this time about booking a summer holiday, or going away for a weekend or to the seaside at Easter—because we are living through the most serious and sustained cost of living crisis for 40 years. When families go to purchase everyday goods, they will see cost increases of around 20% for those goods in the supermarket, and there is a real issue with additional items possibly not being bought as a result. We need to understand that that is a huge risk. There have been many reports in the media of families paring back other products and services because they are under such severe pressure. I hope the Minister will consider that context and see the obvious additional importance of wise public health advice and any measures that are deemed necessary.
When we consider the cost of the summer as a whole for families, particularly those with two or even three children, which involves buying hats, sunglasses, loose-fitting clothing—as we heard earlier—and sunscreen, there are quite obviously considerable extra costs for the many families who are thinking about a summer holiday, either in the UK or abroad. Obviously, sunscreen is part of that cost, so the point that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire made about the cost of sunscreen is an important one.
Finally, I turn to the need for more investment in public health. It is noticeable that in this country we have a very strong tradition of public information campaigns, which have actually been very successful over the years. Some of us will remember campaigns such as Clunk Click, or other campaigns to try to prevent smoking or many other health risks. What are the Government prepared to do to try to prevent the risk of melanoma, perhaps through better advice, through the media and by directing Government information in a more effective way?
There is also a wider point about working with the health service and other public health professionals. It is a tragedy that since 2010, and certainly for the period immediately before the pandemic, there was a cut in Government spending on public health. In my opinion that is a tragedy, and sadly many important health priorities were allowed to drift in that time, including action to tackle smoking, and there may well be other important measures that were not supported, possibly including the battle against melanoma.
I am conscious of time, so to conclude, this is an important health issue, and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire has made an interesting point. This debate is also timely, given that this is the time of year when many families are booking holidays and considering what to do in the summer, and at Easter and in other holiday periods approaching in the spring. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I hope she will address a number of the points made today.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am delighted to participate in the debate and I pay tribute to my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), for her pursuit of this important matter and for her excellent, comprehensive and very powerful opening speech.
My hon. Friend, along with the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), came to Westminster Hall today to speak as a survivor. That gives what they say power and authenticity. When survivors speak, it is incumbent on us all to listen to the lessons they are trying to teach us. Whether we are in government or not, what they say matters and must be listened to in that way.
It seems odd to most people that suncream is not already classified as an essential healthcare item in the UK and, as such, is not exempt from VAT. After all, we know and have heard today in some detail that suncream plays a vital role in preventing serious health conditions such as skin cancer. In all honesty, I am not aware of anybody who wears suncream for cosmetic purposes; they wear it because the consequences of exposing themselves to the sun without sunscreen are extremely serious and potentially fatal. That is because it provides protection against harmful ultraviolet radiation. Importantly, it is strictly regulated to ensure that it provides sufficient ultraviolet protection for consumers, so there is no sense or logic in classifying it as a cosmetic product.
As we have heard, that is recognised in the US, where sunscreen is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, and in Canada, where it is classified as a non-prescription drug, so there is international precedent for reclassifying the product as a healthcare item. The hon. Member for Strangford reminded us of those international examples and precedents for the change that everybody in the Chamber seeks.
The debate matters, and it is even more important when we consider that skin cancer is now much more common across the UK, where around 16,000 new cases of melanoma are diagnosed each year. Of the 16,000 people who are diagnosed, about 2,300 will die. Cancer Research UK concludes that being sunburnt just once every two years can triple the risk of melanoma, and statistics show that more than one in four skin cancer cases are diagnosed in people under 50. When we consider the cost of treating the growing numbers of people diagnosed with skin cancer, removing VAT from suncream should be considered as important preventive spend. I suspect that the Minister will tell us about the pressure on the public finances and the significant contribution that VAT makes to the public finances, but, like others in the debate, I find it unbelievable that simply removing VAT from sunscreen—that one act on its own—would create insurmountable fiscal challenges for the Treasury. It would make sunscreen more affordable, and that can only be positive when we think about the quest to reduce skin cancer cases and pressure on our NHS.
Some retailers, such as Tesco, have decided to absorb the cost of VAT on sunscreen, so that at the point of sale the consumer is spared that cost. It is worth noting that when Tesco made that announcement, in May 2021, consumers were outraged to discover that sunscreen was subject to VAT. There is a lesson in that outrage for all of us and for the Government: we are working in a situation in which the public believe one thing when the reality is entirely different. Of course, the public are using logic, which we all want the Government to use. The work that Tesco and other retailers have done is to be applauded, but it is a pity that the Government will not and have not taken the lead on the issue and shown that they understand the importance of making that important health product VAT-free.
Tesco made the decision to absorb the cost of VAT on its sunscreen products because, after it did some research, it discovered that 57% of adults think sunscreen is too expensive, 29% say that they would wear it daily if it was a little bit cheaper and 31% of parents—this is important in terms of the stats for melanoma—state that they cannot always afford to apply sunscreen to the whole family. That means that this is not really a debate about sunscreen; it is a debate about public health. It is hugely disappointing that the Government are content to leave this important public health concern to the discretion of retailers, who have taken a lead on the issue. It is important that retailers have done so when the Government have not acted, because we know how financially challenged households are at this time.
I do not want to second-guess what the Minister will say, but I suspect that she will say that high factor sunscreen is available on the NHS on prescription for certain conditions, and therefore is provided VAT-free when dispensed by a pharmacist. That point has been made to me in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire said, that does not really help someone in Scotland; to be honest, it does not really help all the people who do not get it on prescription but who would benefit enormously from using it.
Removing VAT from sunscreen for everybody will help make the product just a little cheaper during these difficult times. More people would be able to stretch to affording it and would get the protection they need, and it would thereby help to prevent some of the 16,000 diagnoses a year of melanoma. We all urge the Minister to rethink. This is not a debate about the wider principle of VAT—we understand that VAT is levied on certain products. It is about VAT on sunscreen. When I have asked about the issue in the past, I have been told, in great detail, why VAT matters. VAT does matter, but the Treasury is well able to forgo VAT on this particular product, for the sake of public health.
The levy on this particular product has to end. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire said, that would logically go alongside a public health campaign on the importance of wearing sunscreen. Such measures would ultimately take pressure off our NHS. I urge the Minister to ensure that sunscreen is no longer categorised as a cosmetic item—that is just daft; it is ludicrous. We need to call it what it is. Sunscreen is an important weapon in our armoury for tackling melanoma.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a particular pleasure to serve in this debate with you, Mr Sharma, my parliamentary neighbour, as Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) on securing the debate and raising this important health issue. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Opposition and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. People have spoken powerfully about the impact that skin cancer can have on people’s lives, and on friends and family.
There is consensus among hon. Members present about the importance of sunscreen products and their growing importance in our lives. While these products have perhaps historically been associated more with travel to warmer climates, the past year has demonstrated how susceptible we are to heatwaves and the intense periods of direct sunlight they can bring to the UK.
I echo what other hon. Members have said today. Organisations including Cancer Research UK have long made clear that the amount of UV exposure over someone’s entire lifetime is one factor that contributes significantly to the risk of skin cancer. According to the research, melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with 16,000 cases a year, of which almost nine in 10 cases are preventable. It is vital that people can access sunscreen products when they need them.
As we heard earlier, high factor sunscreen products are already available on the NHS prescription list for a few specific conditions, and are exempt from VAT when dispensed through pharmacies. However, we are only too aware of the crisis facing our NHS and the difficulties people can encounter trying to secure an appointment with an NHS GP. That may restrict access to prescriptions, especially in cases where a repeat prescription is not available.
In her response, it would be very helpful if the Minister could share with us any information she has on the number of people receiving sunscreen products as a prescription on the NHS, and how many receive their prescription free of charge. It would also be helpful if she could update us on the average waiting time to obtain an NHS GP appointment. I am sure that the Minister will also set out the Government’s position in response to the call from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire. The Opposition appreciate that expanding the scope of VAT release is a complex consideration that can add pressures to public finances.
There is a wider point about the affordability of sunscreen and other products that consumers may need to buy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) said. As the cost of living crisis has deepened, costs for ordinary households have risen to record highs. The Office for Budget Responsibility has predicted that living standards will be worse at the end of this Parliament than they were at its start. It has also outlined that real post-tax household income is expected to fall by 4.3% in 2022-23—the biggest fall since comparable records began nearly 70 years ago.
Finally, I would be interested to hear from the Minister what discussions the Government have had with sunscreen product manufacturers and retailers to determine what steps can be taken to ensure that such products are affordable for consumers. I would be grateful if she could also set out what support those manufacturers have said they may want or need from the Government to help make sure this can be achieved.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) on securing the debate. We had a very interesting, helpful and detailed conversation in November, which was quite amicable, so I hope she will forgive me for saying that my recollection of our conversation is not that I said that people should wear a hat. I was merely pointing out to her that the NHS advice is that we should all wear appropriate clothing, particularly when we are in strong sunshine and in hot places. I think we all accept that sunscreen is but one part of our protection against the damage that the sun can do to us. If I remember correctly, she acknowledged that sunglasses, hats, appropriate clothing and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) said, staying inside during the hottest times of the year are all part of that jigsaw.
Amy Callaghan
I agree that we had a very amicable meeting, but I do not think it was necessarily helpful to my VAT Burn campaign. What the Minister said is correct, but there are some questions from our meeting that are still to be answered.
Victoria Atkins
I very much accept that, and I genuinely welcome the debate. I particularly thank her and my hon. Friend the Member of Erewash for bringing their personal examples into the debate. It is very important as part of our national conversation—not just on this topic, but on all sorts of topics that the House rightly debates. When we do so, it does not always get the attention it deserves, but it is important that people can bring their experiences to the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought the experiences of his staff and their families into the debate, underlining the point that has been made fairly and effectively about how common melanoma is in the UK and the particular impact it can have on people under the age of 50.
As one would expect, the NHS advises people to wear suitable clothing, to spend time in the shade during the hottest times of the day, and to wear high factor sunscreen with at least a four-star UVA rating. The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) made an interesting point when he said that this is the time of year when a lot of people start to book summer holidays, whether here in the UK—I would always recommend the coastline of Lincolnshire for a holiday, unsurprisingly—or overseas. There is some interesting research that I looked into as part of my preparation not just for today’s debate but for the meeting I had with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire in November. Increased exposure to intense sunlight is thought to have increased because more people can travel internationally and to go abroad, and there is some thinking that that may explain the increase in the rate of melanomas since the early 1990s. It is important to note that, as although sunscreen is an important part of our defence, where we go and what we do when we go abroad on holiday also has an impact.
I am sorry to fulfil hon. Members’ predictions about what I would say, but the truth is that any Treasury Minister worth their salt would make the point that VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption. The 20% standard rate applies to most goods and services, including sunscreen products purchased over the counter. A couple of misconceptions about that seem to have arisen, which I will correct.
We do not have categorisations of cosmetic products for the purposes of VAT, or the Canadian categorisations that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) described. Either products are bought over the counter, and will therefore have VAT charged on them, or they are prescribed by a doctor or other prescribing professional. Those are the categorisations. VAT applies to all products bought over the counter, including paracetamol and Calpol. In their examinations of patients, GPs carefully analyse whether families are able to buy products over the counter or need them to be prescribed.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran is right that the NHS can provide sunscreen on prescription in certain restricted circumstances. Doctors can prescribe sunscreen, which will therefore be provided without incurring VAT, to people who suffer from certain skin conditions characterised by extreme sun sensitivity, including porphyria. In addition, it can be prescribed to patients who have an increased risk from UV radiation because of chronic disease, therapies or procedures. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) asked for numbers; I do not have the numbers from either the Department of Health and Social Care or the NHS to hand, but I will happily provide them to the House of Commons Library.
There are no plans to change the VAT rating on sunscreen.
Victoria Atkins
I will develop my argument, and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.
I know that hon. Members have said they suspect they know what I am going to say, but I cannot change the fact that VAT is one of the main forms of revenue for the UK Government. In the year 2022-23, VAT is predicted to raise some £157 billion. To put that into context, that it almost the entire cost of our NHS. That is how important it is as a revenue raiser for the Government so that we can fund the services we care so much about.
Against that VAT backdrop, we look at items that we want to zero-rate or exempt. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire mentioned period products; I am really proud that a Conservative Government removed VAT from period products. That is a definite benefit of our having left the EU. Starkly, evidence is emerging that such VAT cuts are not being passed on to customers by those who sell those products. I have asked for more details about that, because when Government change tax policy in order to try to help with the cost of living—
Victoria Atkins
In a moment. It is important that those changes are passed on to the consumer, as that is the purpose of the policy. Our raw concern is that if relief is provided, not just with VAT but on other taxable items, it may not be passed on to the customer.
Colleagues across the House have rightly commended Tesco for choosing to absorb the VAT on sunscreen products within its profit margins. I stand with those Members and encourage other retailers to do the same, if this is a matter they care deeply about. While I am delighted to hear that Morrisons will promise to pass on the cut to customers if this VAT policy is changed, I gently point out that we would expect it to do that anyway; perhaps Morrisons should be encouraged to follow the lead of its market competitor Tesco. I know not, and I had better not get involved in competition between supermarkets. However, I would very much hope that retailers—I am sure they take a close interest in their customers’ ability to pay—will follow Tesco’s lead.
Amy Callaghan
The Minister has made a number of points that I want to pick up on. While it is great that these larger businesses pick up and absorb the VAT, we cannot expect that of the small retailers, such as independent pharmacies, in our constituencies. I am thoroughly disappointed that the Minister’s response is living up to expectations, to be honest. Does she recognise that the Government previously committed to reviewing VAT on sunscreen products on the Floor of the House, when the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) committed to it?
Victoria Atkins
There were a number of points there. First, the hon. Lady asked about independent retailers, and I fully accept what she said. I do not pretend that this is an easy decision or an easy policy area. My duty as a Minister is to weigh up the trade-offs implicit in deciding tax policy. We have to ensure that when we make changes to the VAT system, we do so fully understanding the potential consequences for other aspects of that system.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said that this change would represent a very small sum. The truth is, since the 2016 referendum, the Treasury has been encouraged to make changes to the VAT system totalling some £50 billion. Many of those changes will be commendable, and we will have a great deal of sympathy with why a Member feels compelled to make that case on behalf of their constituents. However, we have to make these difficult decisions as to which items are VAT-exempted or VAT-free and which are not, and that is why those products are so small in number.
Patricia Gibson
The Minister is making a powerful case as to why VAT is an important source of revenue for the UK Government, and I do not think anybody would dispute that. But if she was to do as Members in the Chamber ask and remove VAT on sunscreen, can she tell us how much that one single measure would cost the Treasury?
Victoria Atkins
It is very difficult to calculate. Because of the way multinational companies such as Tesco conduct their VAT returns, it is difficult to break it down. Our concern is, as I say, a practical one about the impact. Each and every time I get asked to exempt a product from VAT—this is a regular occurrence, I promise, and I completely understand why Members of Parliament would wish for such matters to be exempted—I have to conduct this trade-off. It is incredibly difficult. I very much understand the intentions behind the campaign, but this is the thinking behind why we have thus far had to say no. Of course, we keep it under review.
Maggie Throup
I completely understand the point the Minister is making about trade-off and balance, but will she commit to looking at the cost to the NHS of melanoma as a condition? That, surely, should be balanced out against the loss of VAT. Obviously, she will have to go to the Department of Health and Social Care for that, but let us look at that trade-off and that balance in more detail.
Victoria Atkins
That is a very fair challenge. I keep talking about difficulties, but that is the reality of the decisions we have to make; while a lot of melanoma is caused by of exposure to the sun, even in this day and age, some melanoma will be due to sunbed use, which I know colleagues across the House will have great concerns about. Some melanoma will be from damage caused decades ago, when we were less aware of the risks of the sun, and some will have no link at all to sun damage. It will never be a straight swap.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her response, and I want to follow on from what the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) said. In my contribution I referred to 200,000 surgical operations and 16,000 new melanoma cases every year, and the scale of that results in a significant cost for the NHS. We are not criticising the Minister; she is doing what a Treasury Minister has to do. We are saying, very respectfully, that there is a cost to the NHS every year. That has to be part of the mathematics of the process.
This is a very long intervention, and I apologise for that. Given that Australia and the United States of America have cut VAT on sunscreen, has there been any discussion with the relevant bodies about what those countries achieved by doing so?
Victoria Atkins
I do not know if there have been any discussions. I will ask, because it may be that my predecessors had them. In terms of comparisons with Australia and the United States, we have to tread a little bit carefully. With the horrendous damage that has been done to the ozone, Australia has a very particular problem with exposure to the sun, and we have to remember the strength of the sun there. I note what the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said about UVA and UVB being present in Scotland, but I do not think that anyone would suggest that Scotland has the same strength of sun exposure all year round as the sunnier parts of Australia.
Victoria Atkins
I have been quite generous with the hon. Lady, so I will carry on. We have to tread carefully with international comparisons. On the broader point, I understand the argument, but we have a great deal of other extremely good causes that I have to look at carefully. It is the responsibility I have to bear. That is the thinking behind our approach to the VAT system.
Amy Callaghan
I thank the Minister very much for giving way. The point that she was getting to prior to the previous intervention hinted at the desperate need for an awareness campaign. If she will not commit to reforming the VAT on sunscreen products, will she consider an awareness campaign around exposure of our skin to the sun?
Victoria Atkins
I fear I may be treading on Health Ministers’ toes if I commit the Department to an awareness campaign. I have already written to the relevant Health Minister to ask what plans there are to help the public on this. Again, it should not just be the Government working on this. Any parent who has a baby nowadays will be told by medical professionals —I remember that I was with my little boy—how vital it is to protect infants, babies and young children with sunscreen, and, critically, to keep them indoors at the hottest times of the day.
There is work that schools can do to help with this, and, in fairness, an awful lot of them do. I do not know if the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire is aware of this, but when there are hot days, such as during the heatwave we had last summer, schools encourage mums and dads to put sunscreen on their children before they go to school and to top it up. I think there is a greater awareness of the risks than there was 20 years ago—even than there was 10 years ago, dare I say.
On the point about the cost of sunscreen, one of the best things that the Government can do is, of course, to cut inflation. Inflation lies at the heart of many of the issues that we as a country are facing. It is precisely why in his new year speech, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made, as his very first pledge to the British public, the promise to halve inflation. We want to cut inflation, because if we cut inflation, prices across the board begin to fall. The poorest, who are the ones hurt most by inflation, will then begin to see their money going a little further, helping them with the cost of living. As well as cutting inflation, we have to get the economy growing and we need to continue on our path of fiscal prudence. That is why I have set out the Government’s responsibilities when it comes to the administration of VAT and its importance as a single revenue raiser towards the cost of the public services that we care so very much about.
The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire asked about emergency workers. I will try to chase that one down. If I am completely honest, I was not at the urgent question, but I will get back to her on that issue. We take the point, of course, that people working in our emergency services are outside day in, day out. We absolutely accept that and we thank them for the services that they provide on behalf of us all. Whatever our disagreements in this Chamber, we can certainly agree on that.
In the fight against cancer, we are taking action to improve early diagnosis for all cancers. That is why the NHS long-term plan sets out the ambition for 75% of cancers to be diagnosed at stage 1 or 2 by 2028. A recent NHS campaign called Help Us Help You focuses on the barriers to earlier presentation across all cancer types and aims to address some of the underlying challenges to earlier diagnosis. That campaign ran during March and June of last year and in both months saw a 1,600% increase in the number of visits to the NHS website’s cancer symptoms landing page. In addition, the cancer programme has worked with the British Association of Dermatologists and NHS England’s out-patient recovery and transformation programme on a timed pathway for suspected skin cancers, as well as guidance on implementing teledermatology and community spot clinics. Both documents promote the use of technology and efficient pathways to prioritise and quickly diagnose suspected melanomas so that treatment can start as quickly as possible.
I conclude by thanking again the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire for highlighting this important issue and by thanking hon. Members from across the House for their contributions and, in particular, for sharing their personal experiences. I know that we all continue to advise the public to buy sunscreen but also to follow the other guidelines presented by our NHS to help to tackle skin damage. There is a need to protect people’s health against the very real risks that have been presented in this Chamber today.
Amy Callaghan
I thank colleagues from across the House for their support for VAT Burn. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), who is not in his place today, and the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) for sharing their personal experiences of melanoma. I also place on record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate in the first place.
I appreciate that the Minister has been generous with her time, both today and previously, but I must record my disappointment that VAT Burn is not a priority for this Government. A lot of effort goes into campaigns like this, and I thank my team, some of whom are here today, for the huge effort that they have put into this campaign so far. VAT Burn is not over; this is literally just the beginning. I will keep pursuing this issue, including with the ten-minute rule Bill that is coming up, as I said previously. I thank everyone for their contributions thus far and I hope that Members from across the House will continue to show their support at a drop-in event that I am hosting in the first week back after the recess. They can come and hold a pledge board and get a photo, and show their support for VAT Burn; and we can show the Government and the Minister just how important the strength of feeling on this issue is across the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of VAT on sunscreen products.
Customs Fraud and the European Union
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
In March 2018, the European Commission took the first steps towards infracting the UK, alleging that between November 2011 and October 2017, the UK had failed to prevent undervaluation fraud involving importations of Chinese textiles and footwear. On 8 March 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) published its judgment, finding against the UK on most liability points.
The UK has argued throughout the case that it took appropriate steps to counter the fraud in question. However, since these infringement proceedings were raised, the UK has taken proportionate and increased steps to combat this fraud without impacting legitimate trade, including by liquidating suspect traders through enforcement action. The UK takes a comprehensive and dynamic approach to tackling customs fraud risk and evolves its responses as any new potential threats emerge.
Whilst the UK has now left the European Union and this is a legacy matter from before our departure, the Government are keen to resolve this long-running case once and for all and are committed to fulfilling their international obligations.
Throughout this process, the Government have also been conscious of the risk of further protracted legal proceedings, which could open UK taxpayers to not only a larger principal bill, but also continued substantial interest accrual. Considering this, in June 2022 the UK took the proactive step of making a payment of €678,372,885.63, which the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out in a statement to the House on 30 June (HCWS167). This represented the minimum, indisputable amount the UK considered due at that time in light of the CJEU judgment and, vitally, stopped interest accruing on this portion of the bill.
Following further discussions with the European Commission, on 13 January 2023, the UK made a final principal payment to the EU of €700,351,738.31. This constitutes the entire remaining principal due and the figure paid reflects the 12.43% share back that the UK is entitled to from its time as a member state.
On 6 February 2023, the UK made a final payment to the EU of €1,227,884,519.53, representing the interest due on the principal amounts paid. These are substantial sums but represent the final payments and draw a line under this long running case, with the UK fulfilling its international obligations.
Now that the UK is no longer part of the EU customs union, we do not have to remit any duties to the European Union, a tax that in 2021-22 represented a £4.9 billion contribution to the Exchequer. Outside the EU, we can set our own law, including tax and trade policies, that work for the UK. Furthermore, taking into account the financial settlement with the EU, the Government have determined how an additional £14.6 billion of spending by 2024-25 can be allocated to its domestic priorities, rather than be sent in contributions to the EU. This additional spending was already included in the overall spending plans that the Government set out at previous spending reviews.
[HCWS561]
Chemical Weapons Convention: UK Protective Programmes for 2020 and 2021
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
My noble Friend the Minister in the House of Lords (the right hon. Baroness Goldie DL) has made the following written ministerial statement.
The UK’s chemical protection programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. Such a programme is permitted by the chemical weapons convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully compliant. Under the terms of the convention, we are required to provide information annually to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In accordance with the Government’s commitment to openness, I am placing in the Library of the House copies of the summaries that have been provided to the organisation outlining the UK’s chemical protection programme for 2020 and 2021.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-02-09/HCWS553/.
[HCWS553]
Air Pollution: Funding for Local Authorities
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Today we announced our award of £10.7 million in funding to local authorities in England to help them tackle air pollution in their areas. Authority Value funded (£) Bedford Borough Council 36,332 Bedford Borough Council 113,071 Blaby District Council 573,701 Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole Council 120,309 Buckinghamshire Council 120,000 City of York 101,375 Colchester Borough Council 310,770 Cornwall Council 62,160 Derbyshire County Council 278,347 East Herts Council 126,408 Exeter City Council 367,428 Lancaster City Council Air Quality 454,576 Lincolnshire County Council (In partnership with councils for City of Lincoln, South Kesteven District, North Kesteven District, Boston Borough, East Lindsey District, West Lindsey District, and South Holland District). 58,180 London Borough of Brent 470,546 London Borough of Camden 170,645 London Borough of Enfield 223,500 London Borough of Havering 65,127 London Borough of Havering 35,139 London Borough of Islington 282,680 London Borough of Lewisham 248,021 London Borough of Redbridge 323,774 London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham 277,950 Maldon District Council 129,000 Medway Council—Environmental Protection Team 279,533 Norfolk County Council 171,545 Oxford City Council 192,993 Reading Borough Council 327,000 South Ribble Borough Council 53,244 South Tyneside Council 201,005 Southampton City Council 248,198 Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 256,285 St Helens Borough Council (in partnership with Warrington Borough Council) 405,227 Surrey Heath Borough Council 12,280 Swindon Borough Council 148,902 Telford and Wrekin Council 147,615 Tunbridge Wells Council (in partnership with councils for Ashford Borough, Canterbury City, Dartford Borough, Dover District, Folkestone & Hythe District, Gravesham Borough, Kent County, Maidstone Borough, Medway, Sevenoaks District, Swale Borough Council, Thanet District, Tonbridge and Mailing Borough) 175,675 West Midlands Combined Authority (in partnership with councils for Birmingham City, Coventry City, Dudley Metropolitan Borough, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough, Solihull Metropolitan Borough, Walsall Metropolitan Borough and the City of Wolverhampton) 918,531 West Northamptonshire Council 292,378 West Yorkshire Combined Authority (in partnership with councils for Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds City, and Wakefield) 220,457 Westminster City Council 72,521 Westminster City Council (delivered through Cross River Partnership, in partnership with City of London Corporation, London Boroughs of Ealing, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Richmond, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea) 1,000,000 Wirral Borough Council 171,200 Wokingham Borough Council 213,332 Worcestershire Regulatory Services (on behalf of councils for Worcester City, Wyre Forest District, Wychavon District, Malvern Hills District, Bromsgrove District, and Redditch Borough) 248,400
Across 44 different projects, we are helping local authorities to improve air quality in their local communities to benefit schools, businesses and residential areas and reduce the impact of air pollution on public health.
The air quality grants have been running since 1997 and since 2010, we have awarded nearly £53 million in funding.
This year’s grant has prioritised three areas:
Projects which reduce air pollutant exceedances especially in those areas that are projected to remain in exceedance of the UK’s legal targets;
Projects to improve knowledge and information about air quality and steps individuals can take to reduce their exposure to air pollution and minimise health risk;
Measures that reduce levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), including support for low-emission transport.
Schemes across England being funded include air quality education programmes for healthcare workers; traffic management schemes to reduce congestion and emissions; the funding of an e-cargo bike scheme for businesses to reduce their reliance on more polluting vehicles; and the implementation of a river freight scheme in London.
The air quality grant scheme will reopen for new applications in summer 2023.
[HCWS555]
The UK and the Arctic
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The Minister of State (Overseas Territories, Commonwealth, Energy, Climate and Environment), my noble Friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, has made the following written ministerial statement:
Today, the Government are publishing a new UK-Arctic policy framework, “Looking North: The UK and the Arctic”. This updates the UK’s current Arctic policy frame- work, “Beyond the ice”, published in 2018.
“Looking North” brings together all the UK’s policies and strategies relevant to the Arctic under a single, integrated framework, in line with the integrated review. It builds on the Ministry of Defence’s “The UK’s Defence Contribution in the High North” paper, published in March 2022. It outlines the full range of UK interests in the region, and sets out the long-term priorities and objectives which shape our engagement and actions on the Arctic.
This new framework is designed to represent evolution, rather than revolution, in the UK’s approach to the Arctic, underlining our long-standing interests in the region, particularly at a time of heightened tension in the region, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and amid growing competition from China. Our approach will remain dynamic, responsive to changes in the Arctic region and across the globe.
Our long-term strategic objective remains for the Arctic to be a peaceful and stable region, characterised by co-operation. The new framework reiterates that the UK will remain an active, influential and reliable partner in the Arctic.
In doing so, the UK will focus activity across four priority areas:
Partnering and collaborating—the UK is open to the world, with a global network of friends and partners, and with the opportunity to forge new and deeper relationships.
Protecting the climate, people and environment—the Arctic is, first and foremost, home to the people who live there. But climate change poses an existential threat to the Arctic as we know it, and to all who rely on its ecosystems and biodiversity.
Preserving security and stability—the Arctic has, for many years, enjoyed constructive international co-operation and has, historically, been characterised by low tension. The UK remains committed to the long-term stability and security of the Arctic region.
Promoting our shared prosperity—the UK aims for a prosperous Arctic, where economic and commercial development is achieved in a way that is safe, responsible and sustainable. The people who live in the Arctic should benefit from increasing prosperity in the region.
Through this new framework, the UK will take a whole-of-Government approach to the Arctic. Drawing on the diplomatic excellence of our diplomatic missions across the region, the defence capabilities of the UK’s armed forces, and the world-class scientific expertise of the UK Arctic research community, we will work with our partners and allies to help maintain the Arctic as a place that is safe, secure, peaceful, and well-governed, protecting its environment and the communities who call the Arctic their home. A copy of the framework has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS556]
Ambulance Services: Consultation on Minimum Service Levels
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult with such persons as they consider appropriate prior to making regulations to establish minimum service levels for relevant health services in the event of strike action. The regulations must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they are made. The consultation requirements may be fulfilled before and after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Minimum service levels will enable employers to issue work notices, ensuring adequate staffing for a minimum level of safety to be achieved in the event of strike action.
Minimum service levels aim to limit the impacts of strike action on the lives and livelihoods of the public and to strike a balance between the right of unions and their members to strike with the need for the wider public to be able to access key services during strikes.
This consultation focuses on minimum service levels for ambulance services, which the Prime Minister has identified as a priority, alongside fire and rescue services and rail services. Our proposal is that ambulance services should be covered in regulations as a priority recognising that disruption to blue light services puts lives at immediate risk. This consultation will help to inform a decision as to whether ambulance services should be covered by the regulations and if so the detail regarding the minimum service levels required in the ambulance service.
The consultation will open today, Thursday 9 February 2023, and will be open for a period of 12 weeks, closing on Thursday 4 May 2023.
Copies of the consultation will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS563]
Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch: Transition Update
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I am making this statement to update Members on the Government’s time- table to establish the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) and the Maternity and Newborn Safety Investigations special health authority (MNSI). The programmes of national investigations and maternity investigations currently sit in the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB).
The Health and Care Act 2022 contains provisions that will, once commenced, establish the HSSIB as a non-departmental public body. On 26 January 2022, by way of a written ministerial statement, the Department of Health and Social Care announced that a separate special health authority would also be established to continue the independent maternity investigation programme, and that both bodies were expected to be operational in April 2023.
I am today announcing a delay of six months until October 2023 to the expected establishment of both bodies. I believe this further period will enable all the necessary work to be completed to ensure a smooth transition of these investigation programmes.
In the meantime, I remain committed to ensuring that the important work of the HSIB continues, both investigations and the maternity investigations programme.
[HCWS554]
Indemnity for the Liverpool Community Health Independent Investigation
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
I have today laid a departmental minute proposing the provision by NHS England of an indemnity that is necessary in respect of an NHSE non-statutory independent investigation into patient safety incidents and deaths at the former Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust.
This investigation follows an independent review chaired by Dr Bill Kirkup CBE into widespread failings by Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust. The review report, published on 8 February 2018, found that there were significant failings in the trust from November 2010 to December 2014.
It is important that these failings are investigated and that lessons are learnt to improve services. In response to the serious patient safety incidents described in the report, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care commissioned Dr Kirkup to conduct an independent investigation into patient safety incidents at the trust. The investigation’s terms of reference cover patient safety incidents that occurred in the same period as the initial independent review addressed—namely, November 2010 to December 2014. The investigation was originally intended to submit its report at the end of 2021, but a number of factors have come together to delay its work, including challenges related to information governance and electronic document management. We now expect the investigation to have reported by spring 2024 at the latest.
NHSE is able to obtain indemnity cover from NHS Resolution through the liabilities to third parties scheme—LTPS. The scheme applies to any liability that a member of the scheme owes to any third party in respect of loss, damage or injury arising out of an act or omission in the course of the carrying out of any relevant function of that member which is a qualifying liability.
The NHS resolution indemnity will cover any sums—including any legal or other associated costs—that members of the investigation team are liable to pay in relation to legal action brought against them by a third party in respect of liabilities arising from any act done, or omission made, honestly and in good faith, when carrying out activities for the purposes of the investigation. The indemnity will apply to any work carried out in accordance with the investigation’s terms of reference from the commencement of the investigation to its completion in 2024. The indemnity will cover the contingent liability of any legal action up to and following the publication of the investigation report.
The liability of the scheme for any proceedings brought against the member by virtue of section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, or any subsequent updating or replacement legislation (the “data protection legislation”), for all compensation payable to any claimant or any number of claimants in respect of or arising out of any one event or series of events consequent on or attributable to one source or original cause shall not exceed £50,000. Further, the maximum sum payable for such cases in any one membership year shall not exceed £500,000.
However, in view of the substantial fines that it is possible for the Information Commissioner’s Office to impose in the unlikely event of a data breach, NHSE considers it prudent for the £50,000 cover available under the NHS Resolution LTPS scheme to be “topped up” with a specific NHSE indemnity to £500,000. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days, beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a member signifies an objection, by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS557]
Biometrics Commissioner and Surveillance Camera Commissioner: Annual Report and Reappointment
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today publishing the Annual Report of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, together with the Government’s response.
The Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner are independent statutory roles, who are appointed by the Home Secretary under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is the first time the commissioner, Fraser Sampson, has submitted a combined report covering both roles.
The Report covers the exercise of the Biometrics and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s statutory functions over the reporting year. The Home Secretary has also reappointed Mr Sampson from March 2023 to continue in these roles.
I am grateful to Mr Sampson for this report, which we have published in full.
Copies of the report will be available from the Vote Office. The Government’s response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS560]
Fire and Rescue Services: Consultation on Minimum Service Levels
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
On 10 January, the Government introduced the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill in Parliament. This is part of the Government plan to ensure the ability of the unions and their members to strike whilst giving confidence to the wider public that they can retain access to key services during periods of strike action.
The Bill gives Secretaries of State the power to use regulations to set a minimum service level in six specified sectors and also specify the “relevant services” to which they apply. Fire and rescue services are defined as one of the six sectors.
The Bill sets out that where a trade union gives notice of strike action the employer may decide to issue a work notice, in accordance with the minimum service level set, ahead of the strike day(s). The work notice will specify the individuals required to work in order to meet the minimum service level and the nature of the work that they must carry out.
Consultation
Prior to using regulations to set minimum service levels for any of the sectors in scope of the Bill, the relevant Secretary of State is required to consult such people as they consider appropriate. The Secretary of State must also consult—before specifying in regulations—the particular services to which MSLs will apply.
Today a public consultation has been published on gov.uk to fulfil these requirements in relation to the fire and rescue services. In addition, Home Office officials will continue to engage with key fire and rescue service stakeholders. The consultation will run for 12 weeks from 9 February to 3 May 2023.
The consultation sets out that the essential services in scope of a minimum service level should be those required to deal with emergency incidents that pose an immediate risk to the public. This should include but not be limited to:
• Firefighting.
• Rescues (including, but not limited to, on the road network, water rescue or rescues at height). This includes actions to avoid further harm such as rectifying potentially hazardous situations to avoid future risk of fire and rescue, for example clearance of debris on motorways and major roads.
• Dangerous substance clean-up.
• Services necessary to carry out the above, including for example control room activities. Other activities undertaken by fire and rescue services, such as fire safety audits and domestic fire safety visits, remain vital but it is less arguable that there could be an immediate risk to life as a result of strike action by staff providing these services. We therefore do not consider that these services should be subject to a minimum service level at this time. However, the consultation asks respondents to consider any further services that should be brought into scope of the minimum service level, for example, in the event of prolonged strikes by fire and rescue service staff.
The consultation invites comment on five potential approaches for setting a minimum service level for fire and rescue services. These are:
• Requiring staffing levels or fire engine availability to remain above a specified percentage relative to business as usual.
• Requiring staffing levels to be shaped by the minimum resources needed to respond to specific risks, such as a major incident.
• Requiring business as usual staffing levels to be maintained during periods of peak demand on fire and rescue services. This could include days where we would expect greater demand on the service (such as Bonfire Night and its nearest weekends), periods of severe weather such as extreme flooding or wildfires, and/or periods when other emergency services are taking strike action.
• Asking local leaders and organisational input to provide evidence to allow the Home Office to decide what the minimum service level in each of the 44 fire and rescue service areas should look like.
• Setting a national minimum level of service to be provided by fire and rescue services during periods of strike action, and then providing flexibility for local leader and organisational input to decide whether to build on that minimum level in light of their local area’s needs and risk profile.
The consultation sets out that there is flexibility to use elements from different options in combination, to cover essential services.
This Government recognise the principle of workers and unions being able to negotiate over fair pay. However, the UK Government also have a duty to the public to ensure their safety, protect their access to vital public services and to help them go about their daily lives. The fire and rescue services provide a vital role in protecting the public and it is right that we seek to ensure the public can rely on these vital services during strike periods.
I will place a copy of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS562]
Report on the Operation of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
In accordance with my obligations under section 260 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, I am today laying a report on the operation of that Act, which was prepared between May and November 2022. Copies will be available in the Vote Office and on gov.uk.
I have additionally commissioned Lord Anderson to undertake an independent review into the operation of aspects of the Act, drawing on the areas identified in this statutory report. He will publish his findings later this year. Further information on his appointment is available on gov.uk.
[HCWS559]
Northern Ireland Executive Formation
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Today, the Government is introducing the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill, to extend the period within which the Northern Ireland parties can form an Executive to 18 January 2024.
Over a year has passed since the then First Minister of Northern Ireland resigned. Twelve months and one Assembly election later, it is disappointing that people in Northern Ireland still do not have the strong devolved institutions that they deserve.
The restoration of the Executive, in line with the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement, remains my top priority. I will continue to do all I can to help the Northern Ireland parties work together to make that happen. It was on that basis that we legislated in the autumn to extend the Executive formation period through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022. Since that period ended on 20 January 2023, I have once again been under a statutory duty to hold an Assembly election within 12 weeks (that is on or before 13 April 2023).
Having spoken to political representatives, businesses and communities in Northern Ireland, I have concluded that another election at this time is not the best course of action to facilitate the restoration of the Executive.
On that basis, this Bill will provide for a single retrospective extension of the Executive formation period of one year from 19 January 2023. That would mean that, if the parties are unable to form an Executive before 19 January 2024, I would again fall under a duty to hold an Assembly election within 12 weeks. The legislation will also enable the Government to bring this new period to an early end and move to elections sooner, if necessary.
Yesterday, in a meeting with vice-president of the European Commission Maroš Šefčovič in Brussels, I reiterated that the UK Government are working hard to resolve the problems caused by the Northern Ireland protocol, and the desire to see an agreed solution with the EU. I was clear that this extension does not influence protocol discussions.
I remain focused on restoring devolved institutions as soon as possible and this Bill creates the best opportunity to do that. I will continue to do all I can to support the people of Northern Ireland in the meantime. I will also host Northern Ireland party leaders at a roundtable in Belfast today to urge them to restore the Executive as soon as possible.
I very much hope that the parties will recognise the importance of getting back to work, so that a functioning Executive can take the actions needed, to address the challenges facing public services in Northern Ireland.
[HCWS558]
Climate Change: Nature-based Solutions (STC Report)
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Nature-based solutions for climate change: rhetoric or reality? (2nd Report, Session 2021-22, HL Paper 147).
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as chair of the adaptation committee of the Climate Change Committee.
I am delighted to introduce for debate this Science and Technology Committee report on nature-based solutions for climate change on behalf of my noble friend Lord Patel, the former chair of the committee. I thank all the committee members who participated in the report; our expert adviser, Professor Peter Smith, of the University of Aberdeen; and particularly the committee staff at the time, George Webber, Thomas Hornigold and Cerise Burnett-Stuart.
Nature-based solutions form a critical element of the Government’s net-zero strategy. We will need the carbon sequestration services of new forests and woodlands, restored peatlands, and new wetlands and marine environments if we are to take enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to get us to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. We may also need to grow significant new areas of bioenergy crops to enable us to generate energy with carbon capture and storage, and to contribute to decarbonising aviation through the production of sustainable aviation fuels. All of that implies significant change to the way in which we use land. The CCC estimates that forest and woodland cover will need to increase from about 14% today to 18% by 2050, supported by major changes to what and how we farm. If we get it right, this will lead to healthier diets.
Our inquiry was important, but it was also timely, because the replacement of the common agricultural policy—following our departure from the European Union—by the development and introduction of the new environmental land management scheme is the key opportunity to support farmers properly to deliver the changes that we will need, while maintaining their livelihoods and enhancing our precious countryside.
The inquiry considered how protecting, managing and restoring natural ecosystems and agricultural land can reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and provide co-benefits such as adaptation to the changing climate, examining issues of both science and policy. The inquiry ran from July 2021 to January 2022, and we heard from a wide range of witnesses, including scientists with domain expertise on different types of nature-based solutions. We heard from stakeholders such as the National Farmers’ Union, the National Trust and the RSPB, as well as government agencies, including Natural England, the Forestry Commission and the Environment Agency, that deliver nature-based solutions. We also heard from government witnesses including civil servants, the Defra Chief Scientific Adviser, and the Environment Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park.
Overall, we found that the Government have ambitious, even laudable, plans for nature-based solutions. There are headline commitments to plant 30,000 hectares of trees a year by 2025 and to restore 280,000 hectares of peatland by 2050. These sit alongside the ambitious reductions in land use emissions needed to achieve net zero. The scale of this ambition to restore nature is a major and essential component of reaching net zero, and could provide significant co-benefits for biodiversity, human health and well-being, and adaptation to climate change. We were pleased to see the Government lobby for the inclusion of nature-based solutions in the COP 26 decision text, as we advised in a letter to the president of COP 26.
However, in our report we were sceptical and concerned about whether the current level of policy support is sufficient to see these plans realised. There are strong headwinds that need to be overcome to deliver effective nature-based solutions. There are scientific uncertainties around how much carbon these approaches will sequester, and on what timescales. The Government have neither assessed the skills gap nor provided sufficient training to ensure that nature-based solutions can be deployed at scale.
There remains huge uncertainty about the details of the policies that are set to incentivise nature-based solutions, such as the new environmental land management schemes. More funding is likely to be required in key areas, from basic scientific research to funding for public delivery bodies that will have to regulate and support these projects. Many land managers feel disengaged and uncertain about the changes they will need to make, but their support is critical for these schemes to be delivered.
The Government are relying on private finance to help to fund nature-based solutions by creating markets for carbon credits and other ecosystem services that nature-based solutions can provide. However, these markets exist only on a small scale at present, and the regulatory infrastructure needed to ensure that they work as intended and genuinely deliver carbon removal over time does not yet exist.
Finally, we found that the Government have not said anywhere how they will balance the many competing demands on UK land. The committee was seeking evidence that the Government have a coherent plan for meeting these demands; we did not hear it. In short, although the Government’s ambitions for nature-based solutions are admirable and we support them, our report found that there is a clear and present danger that they will not be achieved, and that this could undermine the target of net zero by 2050, as well as undermine the agricultural sector with a failed transition.
Our committee made a number of recommendations to assist the Government in delivering their ambitions. Among these, we wanted the Government to invest further in researching the storage potential of nature-based solutions, especially for soils and in the marine environment. We recommended that the budgets of public delivery bodies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency be increased to be commensurate with the increased workload of deploying nature-based solutions at the scale of the government targets.
We asked the Government to provide urgent clarity on the nature of environmental land management schemes and how they will support nature-based solutions among their other objectives. We recommended that communication with land managers be improved, and the introduction of a dedicated advisory service for land managers to help them to navigate ELMS.
We made a number of recommendations about private financing for nature-based solutions, including that existing standards such as the woodland and peatland codes incorporate additional value for ecosystem services and co-benefits beyond carbon sequestration. We asked for clearer regulatory standards for emerging carbon markets and for the Government to create or sponsor an independent central broker to allow stacked and blended finance from the private and public sector and for a combination of different projects.
Finally, as with much in climate change policy, we wanted to see a plan that added up. Specifically, we wanted the Government to develop an overall land use strategy that explained how trade-offs in land use would be managed to deliver nature-based solutions as well as other important targets.
The Government’s response to our report was generally positive, and I warmly thank the Defra civil servants involved for their detailed and helpful work. The response was characterised well by our evidence session with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who responded to most of our lines of questioning by agreeing with the concerns and points raised by the committee.
Among the concrete responses, we heard that the Government would publish more detailed information on the environmental land management scheme later in 2022. More detail has now been published on the sustainable farming incentive, launching new standards for payments, and further pilot projects for the landscape recovery scheme will be awarded in the next two years.
The Government said that Defra would conduct “spatially explicit analysis” on land use to assess the level and type of changes in land use in England indicated by government commitments, which would help to manage trade-offs in land uses. They said that the need for a land use strategy would be kept under review as work progressed in 2022.
The Government committed to engaging with land managers but stopped short of our recommendation to introduce a new advisory service to help them navigate ELMS. Farmers are now referred to a range of local organisations that can provide advice. However, evidence from stakeholder groups such as the National Farmers’ Union suggests that farmers are still struggling with the details of the schemes. The Government said they will work with stakeholders to develop a
“more stable and comprehensive standards framework … later this year”—
that is, in 2022, for carbon and other ecosystem services, to
“help ensure their use is beneficial for the climate, people, and nature.”
Section 6.5.1 of Chris Skidmore’s excellent review, Mission Zero: Independent Review of Net Zero, published this year, urges the Government to set up a regulator for carbon credits and offsets, and indeed repeats many of our recommendations in this area, suggesting that the problems are not yet resolved.
A year has passed since we published our report on nature-based solutions; we are a year closer to the net-zero target, and nature needs time to act. Trees take 20 or 30 years to grow and deliver their carbon sequestration potential, so action is urgent; we have to act now, and we do not seem to have seen much progress.
Let me illustrate my point with a few examples. In the environmental land management scheme, only the sustainable farming incentive has launched, which is the most basic payment scheme and the closest to the previous area-based payments. Local nature recovery and landscape recovery are still in pilot stages, and the old scheme of countryside stewardship is still being used. We hear that there are problems getting sufficient enrolment in schemes. Only 2.4% of eligible farmers—2,000 out of 82,000—applied for the sustainable farming incentive, which was intended to be the simplest ELMS and the one that most land managers would apply to. The Government have had to boost the payment rates to try to get more farmers to apply.
The House of Lords ad hoc Committee on Land Use in England, in its final report, published in December 2022, echoes our recommendations, saying:
“Create a Land Use Commission tasked with producing a land use framework. The framework must consider several factors, including food, nature, housing needs and the push for net zero.”
It continues by saying that we should
“provide immediate clarity on the Environmental Land Management Schemes … programme, ending the uncertainty which is causing serious problems for effective land use.”
We are hearing increased reports that the UK will miss its tree-planting targets, and there are similar stories about Scotland’s peat and the Scottish Government’s nature restoration targets. The Government missed their legal deadline for setting the first batch of targets under the Environment Act 2021, and there are concerns that the post-Brexit sunsetting of regulations will remove vital environmental regulations. These examples serve to underline that much more action is needed, and it is needed urgently.
To conclude, I ask the Minister to respond to the following questions. What are the Government going to do to ensure that we catch up with our tree-planting targets, given the shortage of nurseries, plug plants, skilled people and the lack of a clear land use strategy which addresses the trade-offs—for example, between food and carbon sequestration? The current markets for nature-based solutions have been described as the “wild west”, given a lack of strong governance and standards. Greenwashing is rife, while uncertainty about the level and consistency of revenues of certain ecosystems services is undermining the confidence of some investors. What discussions are the Government having about a strong, independent co-ordinating body to scrutinise and set national standards for nature-based solutions in the UK? This is an area where UK action could show real leadership and give confidence to corporates to fund these critical developments.
As you might expect, we are very fond of numbers on the Science and Technology Select Committee. We like sums that add up and measures that can be quantified. How will the Government make the numbers add up? The funding required for nature recovery in the UK is estimated to be between £4 billion and £10 billion per annum. Total government spending is about £650 million per annum, with aspirations for private sector investment to match this. How are we going to fill the gap?
Finally, after a catalogue of good intentions but missed targets and deadlines, what are we going to do to instil a sense of urgency and catch up with the delivery of this critical and laudable ambition? I beg to move.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the chair of the Science and Technology Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for leading this debate. Her expertise in and knowledge of all areas of climate change and the road to net zero are unsurpassed. Like her, I thank the members of the committee, the committee staff and our specialist adviser, Professor Pete Smith FRS, professor of soils and global change at the University of Aberdeen. Due to Covid restrictions, the whole inquiry was conducted virtually, and we have yet to meet our specialist adviser—he certainly looked very colourful on the images we saw—but we hope to meet him some time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, has so eloquently and effectively covered the issues raised in our inquiry that I intend to confine my comments to the contribution that better management of peatlands in the UK can make to climate change and net zero.
The UK’s natural environment is degraded due to decades of neglect and uncontrolled planning, and it has led to a decline in biodiversity, resulting in the UK being the worst country in the G7 and 12th in the world for biodiversity. There are many reasons for the decline in biodiversity, but the State of Nature report identified land use as the single biggest driver.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates that only 20% of UK peatland is in a near-natural state. A recent assessment found that UK peatland is so degraded that it is emitting more CO2 than it is sequestering. The UK is one of the top 10 nations in the world for peatland area, accounting for 9% to 15% of Europe’s peatland and around 13% of the world’s blanket bog.
The partially decomposed organic matter of peatlands makes them the most carbon-dense terrestrial systems on the planet, storing approximately 550 gigatonnes of carbon, which is twice the amount stored in the biomass of all vegetation in a far smaller land area. When disturbed, it releases carbon. In a near-natural state, UK peatland is estimated to hold 11,700 metric tonnes of CO2. Although the precise figure is not known, there is consensus that peatlands are the UK’s largest natural carbon stores, holding 40% of UK soil carbon. Causes of degradation are drainage for agriculture, forestry, air pollution, fires and extraction of peat. Disturbing the peat releases carbon.
It is obvious that restoring peatland should be a matter of urgency. Priorities for policy should be to protect intact peatlands and to restore degraded peatlands. The Government’s peatland code is a good initiative and could ensure good practice.
I have the following questions for the Minister. First, lowland peat used for agriculture accounts for 7% of UK peatland but is responsible for 32% of all peatland emissions. Will the Government commit to developing specific targets for lowland peat in their net-zero strategy?
Secondly, planting trees on peaty soils results in carbon emissions. The Forestry Commission’s current policy allows free planting of trees on such soil types. Should the Government require the Forestry Commission to keep its policy of planting trees on peatland under review?
Thirdly, while the Government’s ambition to restore peatlands is admirable, a skills shortage needs addressing —the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, mentioned that several times. What plans do the Government have to assess the skills needed and for the provision of training of those undertaking peatland restoration?
Fourthly, what plans do the Government have for long-term monitoring of the Peatland Code to assess its success in greenhouse gas reduction, carbon sequestration and enhanced biodiversity status?
Fifthly, peatland restoration delivers a range of co-benefits. Will the Government commit to establishing a research programme to quantify the co-benefits of projects under the Peatland Code and to ensuring that payments for other ecosystem services are included within current and future carbon codes?
Restoration of peatlands should be a matter of urgency if the Government are to meet their net-zero targets. If done successfully, it will deliver more than carbon capture on the road to net zero.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, as it was to be a member of the inquiry into nature-based solutions. It is a real pleasure to follow both the committee’s current chair and its recent past chair. I do not know what this means for my future preferment, but No. 3 is certainly a good place to be.
I will cover three areas and have three asks. Those areas are trees, seas and bees. In our inquiry, we rightly spent a lot of time on trees and woodland. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is important to consider trees and woodland not just at the beginning of their lifecycle—planting—important though that is, but across the story of that most vital resource, post harvest and right the way through its lifecycle? Would he also comment on the current situation regarding planting trees on peat and pseudo-peat boglands, and any current research on it? We spent a lot of time on this in the committee and there seemed at times to be some cloudy thinking around it.
We concluded that much more attention needs to be paid to the potential role that the seas and oceans can play. A whole blue marine programme fully to assess all the elements that the ocean could contribute to nature-based solutions would make a great deal of sense. Does my noble friend agree that a whole lot more work still needs to be done? It is extraordinary that we have the excellent “Blue Planet” on the TV but possibly not enough focus on this area when it comes to nature-based solutions. Similarly, does he agree that a lot of work could be done beyond what our inquiry covered in partnership with the British Overseas Territories, a number of whose environments could be particularly beneficial for ocean-based, nature-based solutions?
Bees were not covered by our report, but it is a universal truth that everything we can do in nature-based solutions must be good for bees. As we know, what is good for the bees is good for us all.
I turn to my asks. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that not only do we need a universal, horizontal approach to nature-based solutions but that it must go across all government departments? For example, I and others put down amendments in Committee and on Report of the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill to put nature-based solutions in that Bill, to give them the necessary level of importance in the potential investments that the UKIB would make. The Government did not accept those amendments. Does my noble friend regret that? Does he see that it would be important and a positive force to move forward on that in future?
My second ask echoes the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on ELMS. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that we still need increased clarity and communication around ELMS? For a lot of farmers and landowners, it seems clear that it is difficult to see the wood for the ELMS.
Finally, as has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, in a sense all of this goes to the critical importance of a universal, coherent, connected land use strategy. Does the Minister agree that we all need to focus more, and that the Government need to put more effort into bringing this about?
So much focus, attention and commentary is rightly around net zero, but as our report demonstrates, net zero is an important part but it is not the whole story. It has to be seen alongside nature-based solutions because even if we reach net zero, we still need, and should welcome, the benefits that nature-based solutions should bring. When she sums up, will my noble friend the Minister give full-throated support for everything that the Government can, should and will do on nature-based solutions?
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, the committee and the staff for having produced the report we are debating today. I pay tribute to the previous chair, the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I did not know until he spoke a moment ago that this is a wholly Covid-based report. I think this is the first debate I have taken part in that is based on a Covid-only investigation.
It was only yesterday that the Lord Privy Seal came to the Dispatch Box in the House and moved a Motion that will allow the Government to take priority over business on Thursdays from now until the end of Session —which is many months away—in order to allow more time in part, he said, to enable debates to take place on Select Committee reports because of the backlog that builds up. That is true in this case, as it has been more than a year since the report was published.
This Select Committee, which one day I hope to join, has produced an interesting and worthwhile report, and I do not need to add anything to the excellent introduction provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. More generally, I think it is important that the House as a whole grasps that one of the committee’s most important conclusions is that there remain “significant scientific uncertainties” about not only the nature of this report but in general. Life and science are full of uncertainty. How much carbon is stored in habitats? We do not fully know. How much can be sequestered by different habitats in future? We do not fully know. For how long might carbon remain sequestered in those habitats? We do not fully know. I agree with the previous speaker, and add that there is still an enormous degree of uncertainty about the role of the world’s oceans in carbon sequestration, which is another point made by the committee.
Another key point was to question whether the Government have an effective plan for resolving the
“many competing demands on the land”,
whether it is producing food or materials or providing space for nature or housing, or, as the Government pledged earlier this week, access to green space or blue water within 15 minutes of where we live. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I should have added that I welcome the Minister to what may be his first science debate, and I hope that there are many more. I look forward to him saying a bit more about the “spatially explicit analysis” which the Government have promised in their reply.
In this contribution, I want to convey the views of the Royal Society of Biology and its science team. In the interests of transparency, I ought to say that I worked for the Royal Society of Biology for 10 years, and I look back on those years with great fondness. I should add that I have been elected a fellow.
I want to make six points, briefly. First, investing in the workforce and technologies involved in creating and implementing nature-based solutions is crucial to unlock the solutions needed to achieve the Government’s environmental goals. The committee recognises that the UK does not yet have the range of skills required to deliver nature-based solutions at scale. Effective training and recruitment can allow the development and capture of a broad range of ideas, talents and experience, which can in turn better implement the required solutions. There is a story in the Times today reporting that citizen science is leading more people to nature, and I hope that in future that feeds through to more people taking an interest in this subject.
Secondly, increased investment in research and development is vital to generate more efficient, effective and responsible carbon sequestration techniques, the improvement of which is vital in addressing the climate crisis. This investment should also address funding discrepancies in areas such as research funding opportunities and infrastructure development.
Thirdly, as recommended by the committee, it is crucial that the Government’s plans for nature-based solutions, such as carbon sequestration schemes, are considered in tandem with their other environment-related polices, such as championing the 30 by 30 target and the commitment to halt and reverse biodiversity loss as outlined in the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. It was only this week that the Minister came to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about the EIP. Biodiversity loss is one of the great themes of our century and a great deal depends on the COP biodiversity conferences.
Fourthly, although initiatives such as increased tree planting are positive, they should be implemented with due consideration of the pre-existing habitat, such as avoiding planting on areas such as peatlands and species-rich grasslands, with the aim of maintaining and restoring the natural habitation of the UK landscape. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I wondered what that noise was. I now realise that it is me hitting the microphone.
This should include the types of environment and specific tree species present as opposed to the sole objective of maximising carbon sequestration. Failure to consider those in tandem with the net-zero objectives will lead to a greater problem in the long term, including further biodiversity loss.
Fifthly, as highlighted by the British Ecological Society, which is a member organisation of the Royal Society of Biology, it is important to understand that nature-based solutions are not the only answer to solutions on climate change.
Sixthly, it is important that nature-based solutions are implemented through effective public communication, dialogue and incentives, and that a combination of public and private investment will help to fund and facilitate nature-based solutions provided that they are effectively regulated and monitored. In short, we need more research; who would not say that?
Finally, in the moments I have left I turn to something that arose this week: the government reorganisation of the machinery of government at the centre, which is an important thing for us to touch on briefly today. The Prime Minister’s restructuring will have a considerable effect on government activity, including the subject that we are addressing today. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to say anything about this, but I am sure that anything he says will be very welcome and of interest.
I take the view that the break-up of BEIS will not be mourned. However, more importantly, the creation of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology could provide this Government, and indeed any future Government, with a renewed sense of purpose and focus on making the UK the science superpower that we all hope to see. Of course, the change in the machinery of government will also take time to bed in. I mention this, because I think this committee might want to look that subject. It is certainly a worthy subject for a future report and a debate, but that is for another day.
In the meantime, I commend the committee’s report and I hope that it will prove a real contribution to the future success of nature-based solutions for climate change.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. I must compliment the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who so expertly chaired the committee, on which I was privileged to serve, and produced such a fantastic report. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for so comprehensively introducing the report; there is very little left for us to say, especially on land use. I echo her thanks to the clerk of the committee and the staff, and to the special adviser, Professor Pete Smith.
Planet earth supports life above and below ground through the intricate web of independence of all living species, flora and fauna, in balance with the essential physical cycles of water, carbon and nitrogen. The biggest takeaway for me from this report is how woefully incomplete our understanding is of these forces and how they interact with each other. For example, we are only now beginning to understand the vital role of soil, be it onshore, in ancient rainforests, tropical or temperate, in mixed woodland, in peatlands, in grasslands or mangroves, or offshore. For the first time, we are beginning to appreciate the effectiveness of seagrass meadows, kelp forests, the seabed floor and algae as essential carbon sinks.
This report makes many recommendations on how much better we should be doing in understanding how to manage our land in the UK to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. I know that other noble Lords will cover that aspect, so I will concentrate most of my remarks on recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9, which all relate to the marine environment and the gaps in the evidence base about carbon sequestration in marine habitats.
In the report, we recommend collaboration between Natural England, the Crown Estate, the Marine Management Organisation, academics and other relevant bodies, and we asked Defra to support research on establishing the current and historical extent of marine habitats, their carbon sequestration rates and their long-term potential for carbon storage. In their response to the report, the Government cite a slew of collaborative efforts, and it is clear that in the run-up to COP 26 that was indeed the case. I thank the Government for their work on raising the profile of the marine environment. However, can the Minister tell us in what way that momentum has been maintained since November 2021?
Lastly on this issue, an important point was raised in recommendation 9 about the effects of bottom trawling on the decline of marine habitats. This was not addressed in the Government’s response, so can the Minister update your Lordships on research programmes by the MMO to look into this vital issue?
We are at a crucial point when global emissions need to be falling fast, yet they are in fact still rising and have not yet peaked. To reduce or even stabilise concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the world needs to reach net-zero emissions. This requires fast reductions in further anthropogenic emissions, and I hope that the creation of the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will bring greater emphasis on energy generation by renewables and end the preferential treatment of oil and gas producers in the North Sea, so that we can proceed with the phase-out of destructive greenhouse gases as fast as possible.
However, it is increasingly being realised that a huge expansion in global carbon removal capacity is required to deliver on global climate goals, and time is of the essence. Novel techniques such as carbon capture and storage; BECCS—bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; direct air capture and enhanced rock weathering do not yet deliver at scale. Indeed, an Oxford University study found that all current carbon removals —that is, 2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per annum—come from conventional nature-based approaches, and nature-based solutions remain far more cost-effective than high-tech versions.
We are in such dire straits that it is essential that research into the newer emerging carbon removal techniques continues apace, but we must grasp what we know works today and protect existing carbon sinks wherever we find them in order to minimise emissions, such as from deforestation, and increase our efforts to create more of the carbon sinks that we know work—for example, planting the right trees in the right place—as fast as possible.
That is where carbon offsets come in, because they are a way of getting the trillions of pounds of investment that the World Economic Forum says is needed to reduce emissions. However, carbon offsetting schemes are open to abuse. The Climate Change Committee has recommended putting stronger regulation, guidance and standards in place to ensure that the purchase of carbon credits is not used as a substitute for direct business emissions reductions. This is the thrust of recommendation 39, which asks BEIS, as was, to provide clarity about what companies must do to claim net zero emissions.
The Government’s response, unfortunately, is not very satisfactory. The Minister will know that I have my name to a number of amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that are designed to deliver a functioning green taxonomy, sustainable finance disclosures plans, mandatory transition plans and clean supply chains from resources from deforestation, as an example. That would give the UK the momentum it needs to become a net-zero financial centre with reduced opportunities for greenwashing.
In conclusion, the report emphasises the importance of nature-based solutions in meeting our net-zero targets and points a way forward for the UK to be at the forefront of this opportunity. I recommend it to noble Lords.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon, and I add my congratulations to the committee on such an excellent and thorough report conducted in very difficult circumstances. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for her introduction and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his excellent chairing of this inquiry.
The summary of this document is excellent; it is very clear. It states that, although there are possible benefits from deploying nature-based solutions in tackling our growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there are significant scientific uncertainties about how carbon is stored in habitats now and how much will be sequestered in future. I will focus on that uncertainty in the few minutes that I have today, because it is fundamental to understanding how we can deploy capital into nature-based solutions without jeopardising our efforts to mitigate climate change.
I will explain why it is so important. Before Christmas, when the UK’s first deep coal mine was approved, the Minister said that it was going to be the world’s first carbon-neutral coal mine. The cynicism of that statement beggars belief. Not only was the very group that was supposed to be supplying the off-sets to the mine saying, “Please don’t count on us. We don’t want to sell you these credits. You’re going to damage our reputation”, but the coal mine was counting its emissions only from processing the coal, not from the actual content of coal being burnt.
I stress this, because it is wonderful to look at nature-based solutions, and this is an admirable report, but, on the other side of the ledger, if you sell a nature-based solution or a carbon sink, in many cases you are allowing a carbon emission to occur. They are totally different in their characteristics. It is not true to say that a tonne is equal to a tonne. That was the lie from the carbon market 20 years ago, and we know now that that is not the case. We know that when you burn coal and release into the atmosphere carbon that has been stored over millions of years in the earth, it will stay there for approximately 1,000 years, with a very high degree of certainty that it will cause impact. In fact, there is ever more evidence that it will cause impact the longer we go on, because it is a cumulative problem: these emissions build up over time. When we release tonnes now, they are even more damaging, because the carrying capacity is that much reduced.
Compare that certainty with the complete uncertainty of a nature-based carbon store. There is simply no equivalent. The report is excellent in pointing out that we need far more research and investment in infrastructure, monitoring, reporting, verification and regulation to make sure that this market does not lock us into a self-defeating cycle whereby we rely on nature to try to soak up the emissions from carbon dioxide but we allow the fossil fuel emissions that are driving climate change to continue, making our forests, land and soils that much more unstable and that much less resilient and durable. We are basically locking ourselves into a highly changeable system with high degrees of uncertainty and using false equivalence to tell ourselves this very seductive lie that we can carry on burning fossil fuels.
The report is clear that this is not a “get out of jail free” card and that it should be used only for residual emissions, but nowhere have the Government defined what they are. There is nothing here that points to the rules that need to be set that state how these things can be used and what can be used to claim against them. That is fundamental to this. We are in a brilliant position in the UK to address this, because we have the world’s best scientists located here, including atmospheric chemists. I am delighted that we have an atmospheric scientist in our midst today, Professor Ray Weiss from the University of California San Diego, an atmospheric chemist of long standing, who understands this far better than me. We have our own experts in this area, and a tall-tower network of sensors and monitors that allow us to know in great detail what is happening to our biosphere.
Those are the sorts of investments that we have to double down on, and I hope that the UK will join up its thinking on how it approaches the measurement of what is happening in the atmosphere. Again, the report is excellent. It states that we must have
“long-term research and monitoring … overseen by the relevant departments”
that will allow us to see the fluxes on a range of different sites around the country, so that we are not just using inventories and guessing whether these actions are delivering a carbon saving but measuring it, and over the long term, so that we have certain sense of whether we are making progress.
We cannot allow this to continue as business as usual. We have been trying to solve climate change for 30 years or longer and, in that time, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have simply got ever higher. We cannot afford a misstep where we allow the fossil fuel industry to make use of the seductive phrase “nature-based solutions” to carry on with business as usual.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to go back to the department and ask how we are using the infrastructure that the UK already has in its tall-tower monitoring system to backstop anything that we do on the opening up of private finance and markets into this area. We also have our public funding from ELMS and the reform of the agricultural subsidies, which is a safe space in which to look at, and experiment with, what works.
Let us do that first, get the groundwork done and be certain that this works before we say that it is open season for the private sector to use this and to develop a carbon market. I have studied carbon markets for far too long, and every one that I have looked at booms and busts, for good reason: this is difficult to do. So let us not rush into it and allow this to be abused by those who would seek to get off lightly from their contributions to climate change. I am delighted that this debate has been kicked off, and I again commend the report.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my registered interests as a co-founder of a natural capital trading platform—one of many seeking to address some of the issues raised in this report—as a developer of natural capital projects to sequester carbon, as an investor in natural capital-related businesses, and as a land and forest owner. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the committee for this excellent report and debate.
I congratulate the Government on the Woodland Carbon Code and the Peatland Code, which are world-leading certification standards. The later edition of the woodland carbon guarantee scheme was a masterstroke in creating confidence in future value. These schemes are uniquely high quality in the strength of the data, the strict qualification requirements and the conservative assumptions. The world has very few reliable certification standards. The Verra avoiding deforestation standard, REDD+, has been attacked by the Guardian for its limited reliability. The New Zealand scheme has led to the blanket planting of radiata pine, although at least this is admissible in its emissions trading scheme’s underpinning values. These codes already place the UK in pole position in this emerging industry. Many of the issues addressed in this excellent report are solvable by private capital, with government support needed in critical areas. In turn, that should lead to much lower financial calls on the Government to enable these outcomes.
High-credibility standards, which private capital is willing to invest in, are critical. The woodland and peatland carbon codes are done, but we await the soil and blue carbon codes, as well as helping to quantify the co-benefits. The crucial question of how to measure and value these co-benefits is raised very effectively in the report. For market acceptance, consistency with the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s principles and assessment framework, due during Q1 2023, will be necessary.
The second point where the industry needs government help is in creating profit incentives. The Woodland Carbon Code and the Peatland Code are voluntary standards with limited tangible value. The industry needs improvement in the standing of these units and to see the creation of market demand for other aspects of natural capital, such as biodiversity, water management, cultural heritage, education, public access and visual impact.
We can bring down the cost and increase the transparency of delivering nature outcomes over time by creating that profit incentive, drawing entrepreneurial talent and capital. Even at this early stage of development, and without clarity around market structures, a plethora of start-up and established companies is improving the cost-effective baselining, monitoring, measuring, managing and analysing of these projects. Most of these use innovative hardware and/or software to create scalable and cost-deflationary solutions.
In ELMS, there is progress on many of these fronts, but three questions are unanswered for landowners. First, do the resulting goods belong to the landowner? When the Government fund actions such as afforestation, peatland restoration or natural habitat restoration, will these benefits belong to the Government or to the landowner? Only one entity can claim them.
Secondly, will the additionality qualification remain intact, even with government funding under ELMS? Expert buyers require that the scheme has the additionality of the units they are buying in order to go ahead. If the Government have financially incentivised the scheme, additionality may be compromised.
Finally, will the tax treatment of these assets be disadvantaged when focused on natural capital, rather than on agriculture or forestry?
I turn to some of the specific points in the report. There is a statement that commercial forestry carbon calculations are dependent on the use of harvested wood, but that is not the case under the Woodland Carbon Code. The code calculations assume that commercial forestry is clearfelled at maturity and the carbon lost, which means that only the average standing carbon over multiple rotations is recognised. Productive forestry captures carbon more rapidly than broadleaves and creates jobs for decades into the future, but it is handicapped in carbon forecasts by this clearfelling assumption. The primary use of hardwoods remains firewood. Are the Government’s calculations based on the code assumptions, or do they use a different methodology for carbon capture within a new forest?
Different industries have different opportunities to eliminate carbon, making a blanket 10% cap unreasonable. Usage discrimination through market pricing that incorporates all methodologies of reaching net zero is likely to provide the most efficient solution for allocating these off-sets to the appropriate sector. It is more than two years since the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets issued its final report. Have the Government considered its recommendations?
The report raises two other points that I will address briefly. UK forestry standard schemes are handicapped by a limited menu of tree species, as highlighted by the report; I believe there are around 60, when there are 3,000 to 4,000 species globally. Our narrow palette brings greater biological and climate risk, and largely references species reintroduced since the last ice age. I agree with the report that work needs to be done to extend this.
In response to the comments on planting into 30 centimetres of organic matter peat,, and I would like the Forestry Commission to stipulate methods of planting depending on soil types and conditions. Mounding is too widely used in the industry, and I would like to see techniques that are less disruptive to soil condition encouraged to minimise carbon emissions during planting and establishment. I would also like the Forestry Commission to look further at its yield class tables, which place caps at yield class 24 on Sitka spruce, for example, which can achieve well into the 30s. I believe that Ireland has already made that step.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the Science and Technology Committee, it gives me great pleasure to support the excellent opening remarks by our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. She has chaired the committee with great skill and good humour, as did the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Both handled our many witnesses, including Ministers, with tact and diplomacy, as well as firing penetrating questions when we needed to cut through to hard evidence.
One of the problems in this inquiry was the evidence available in quantifying the relative benefits of these approaches as against others. It became clear that more research was needed to be able confidently to assert that some solutions were more beneficial than others and thus where the country needed to focus its efforts. Others have mentioned research. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are satisfied that adequate resource is being allocated for this essential research?
Our inquiry into nature-based solutions to climate change follows a number of related inquiries seeking to understand the role that different approaches and so-called solutions can play in responding to the climate and biodiversity crises we face as a society, as well as the UK’s path to net zero. A central issue for all these inquiries has been quantifying and assessing the UK’s skills gap, which must be bridged if we are to make any serious progress to net zero. Indeed, we chose to highlight this in one of our most recent reports. The deadline for the Minister’s response is next Wednesday, so I hope the Minister will gently remind his colleague George Freeman. The new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will hopefully bring another view in support of a STEM skills agenda into the Cabinet.
Even if we are confident about the way forward, do we have the skills to be able to follow through? This has been an intractable problem in the UK despite new policies being developed by every Government ever since I became involved in the education and skills area. We still have major challenges in developing in our people the skills that will enable the country to grow the economy in the way that we all want and need. I will focus my brief remarks on this aspect of our report.
We recommended that, to match their ambitious targets, the Government should establish equally ambitious skills and training programmes for land managers, authorities developing local nature recovery strategies and public delivery bodies. We also urged the Government to expand urgently training in the very specific areas where it was clear that there were gaps: surveying, monitoring and verifying, carbon accountancy, forestry ecology, and planning and carrying out nature-based solutions.
In their response to our report, the Government said that the Green Jobs Taskforce had helped to inform the net-zero strategy published in October 2021, yet this said nothing about these specific skills. They also said that they had invested £80 million in the green recovery challenge fund during Covid and £10 million in the natural environment investment readiness fund, but they did not address the committee’s recommendation that DfE and BEIS must allocate some of their funding to specific schemes for land managers and provide sufficient skilled personnel to meet the Government’s ambitious targets. Is it surprising that I remain concerned about the lack of urgency or even focus on this issue?
Our witnesses reflected those concerns. Our report states:
“The support of local authorities for the Local Nature Recovery Strategies will be essential, but the Association of Local Government Ecologists noted that fewer than a third of local authorities have ecological expertise. The Institute of Chartered Foresters said that a skills gap in tree-planting could undermine climate targets, and we heard from Professor Henderson that forestry skills ‘have deteriorated in the country over recent decades’. Richard Lindsay told us that, for the heavily emitting lowland peats, ‘the hoped-for strategy/solution’ is ‘this new concept of wetland farming’ but the skills required for that do not exist. Professor Stead, Chief Scientific Adviser, Marine Management Organisation, told us of marine nature-based solutions for which ‘the training and capacity building is not at a mature stage.’”
Our report notes that, when speaking for the Government,
“Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park acknowledged the scale of the skills challenge”,
saying that
“‘it would be wrong to pretend, at this stage, that the skills that will be needed in the medium and long term have been fully mapped out and identified, and that our workforce of the future, based on where we are today, will be ready for that challenge.’”
Despite the ongoing talks between Defra and the DfE to address these skills gaps,
“he acknowledged that the urgency of the agricultural transition leaves little time: ‘to hit the 2030 targets on biodiversity, we cannot wait until 2028 to have people doing that work.’”
That seems to be the Government’s position: they have set targets that they know they cannot meet. We have excellent further and higher education bodies, as well as public delivery bodies such as Natural England, that could fill that gap in training land managers and others to implement nature-based solutions. Will the Minister say why the Government are not harnessing this resource urgently? What route do they see for providing training in the timescales required for a transition over the next decade?
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for the thoughtful way in which she has introduced this report and my noble friend Lord Patel for the thoughtful, imaginative and determined way in which he chaired your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee in undertaking this important inquiry.
It is particularly appropriate that we take this debate a few weeks after the Royal Society published its report Multifunctional Landscapes: Informing a Long-Term Vision for Managing the UK’s Land. It is an interesting and informative report that identifies the opportunity for a data and science-driven approach to ensuring that we understand the capacity of UK land, the competing demands on it and how they might be addressed. Of course, as we have heard from noble Lords’ contributions during this important debate, this is a critical issue. Nature-based solutions are not a panacea for achieving net zero and addressing the climate change challenge, but they offer an important opportunity to make a fundamental contribution to achieving those net-zero targets.
Do we really understand the nature base? Are we properly informed about the sequestration capacity of different habitats? Do we understand the impact that our adjacent land use behaviour in total currently has on these different environments? Do we understand how much carbon is already stored in these habitats? Do we understand what behaviour and activity are doing to degrade these habitats and subsequently release carbon? These are all important issues that need to be informed through an appropriate knowledge base, database and science base. Of course, the technology for us to be able to do this in a systematic fashion becomes increasingly available.
I should declare some specific interests in that I was a member of your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee and that I serve as a member of the advisory board of the Royal Society and chairman of the 1851 commission. In your Lordships’ report and in that of the Royal Society, it is recognised that we need common standards, an approach to appropriate metrics, a data standard, methodology protocols and, potentially, the development of a common evidence platform available to inform all land use in our country. That would subsequently help us to understand where nature-based solutions sit.
Beyond that, we need more fundamental research to characterise those different habitats. Do we really understand the nature of our forests? Do we really understand the interplay of the age those forests’ different tree habitats, the broader biodiversity attending the soil and the importance of the different species of trees available in those habitats? Are we properly informed about the true stored carbon content and the ultimate sequestration capacity of peatlands and wetlands? What do we really understand about the marine environment even in our own coastal waters? It is a protected environment that we are proud of, but only 5% of it bans trawling of the seabed. How can that be logical and why is it tolerated? Do we have a science base that helps us properly to understand the implications of that?
When we think about broader land use, are we conscious of the impact of land use adjacent, for instance, to a protected marine environment? What impact does land use for building and for other purposes have on that environment, its biodiversity, its potential destruction and therefore the erroneous assumptions that we might make about that environment making an important contribution to sequestration and ultimate storage of carbon?
Is the Minister content that His Majesty’s Government have a proper, whole-government, holistic approach to establishing a research and evidence base that helps us to best understand the true potential and capacity of our nature base to provide nature-based solutions for net zero and address the climate challenge? In supporting the establishment of an appropriate science evidence base, are we also cognisant of the opportunity to drive innovation in this area—innovative technologies that allow us to map these environments appropriately, bring those data together and make them readily available for all who are responsible for land management? Are we clear that that science base will be used to develop government policy appropriately? We pride ourselves on having an informed science base informing the development of policy. Are we content that is happening with regard to policy to drive the opportunities for nature-based solutions?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak in the gap, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for her excellent introduction to this report, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his chairmanship of the Science and Technology Committee.
This valuable, forensic and detailed report identifies that in this area of climate policy, as in most of them, the Government have rhetoric but no plans for delivery—as the title suggests. First, the report, says that
“the UK does not have the requisite skills to deliver … solutions at scale”
and no plans to create them. Secondly,
“there is huge uncertainty about the details of policies that will incentivise nature-based solutions”.
Thirdly,
“more funding is required in several key areas”.
However, I want to focus on one crucial sentence in the report:
“Nature-based solutions are not a get out of jail free card.”
We have both to stop emitting greenhouse gases and to restore our natural world. No trade-off is scientifically possible. Offsetting is a con, a cheat, a fiction. I am building here on the comments, in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, but also from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. One way of explaining this is by looking at the difference between biology and geology.
First, as the report says, there is scientific uncertainty about how much carbon is stored, and how it can be stored in different habitats, and how long it will remain. The timescale of ecosystems—of biology—is, if you are lucky, years, but it is often months, days, or even minutes. A wildfire sweeps through a forest—I grew up in Australia, and I have watched bushfires all too close up—and, within a blink of an eye, a lot of the so-called stored carbon is in the atmosphere.
By contrast, geological timescales run to hundreds of millions of years. Up to around 400 million years ago, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were up to 6,000 parts per million. We are now at less than a 10th of that, albeit 50% up from the level at the start of the industrial revolution. Over hundreds of millions of years, geological processes locked vast amounts of carbon underground, mostly deep underground. It was never going to emerge, at least on our human timescale—if you take a 24-hour timescale, we as a species have been on this planet for just one second—until we started to dig it up. The best possible carbon capture and storage is to leave the coal in the hole, the gas in the ground, the oil in the orb. That carbon capture and storage is free, certain and essential.
Secondly, biological systems are living systems. They are flexible, ever changing, adaptive, complex far beyond our current understandings. Unlike claims still sometimes made, just dropping a lot of organic matter into the soil—as good an idea as that is for both biodiversity and food security—will not necessarily increase soil carbon. To quote a recent journal article,
“Persistence of organic matter in the soil depends on chemical, physical, environmental, and/or biological factors.”
It is complex.
The fact is that biology is not going to rescue us, which means that we have to stop growing our economy. We have to operate within the physical limits of this one fragile planet. We have to rescue ourselves by transforming our economic and social system from a way of life built on carbon emissions to one that will stabilise this planet.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to start the wind-up speeches in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and all involved in producing this report. It was an honour and a pleasure to serve on the committee. The evidence we heard was compelling—sometimes shocking, in particular on bottom-trawling—and the recommendations that we made are important.
Our findings gave us much cause for concern. We heard about major gaps in the research and data needed to give confidence to the decisions and measures that we need to take to reduce emissions and sequester more carbon in our land and marine environments. For example, we wanted to see more on-farm trials and more research on sequestration in marine environments. However, we found that there is enormous potential in the UK to do better and to take full advantage of the potential of nature-based solutions to help us to reach net zero. While we wait for more evidence, it should not stop us taking action; the precautionary principle must apply.
We heard that we do not have enough people with the appropriate skills and knowledge to do the science, design the programmes and put them into practice. Neither is there a plan in place to achieve the skilled workforce that we need in the numbers that we need when we need them.
We heard about many problems related to farming and land use. The various government land management schemes have been too late for farmers and land managers to plan for the future of their business, and there has too little information and help on eligibility for and accessibility to the schemes, too little advice for farmers and very serious issues for tenant farmers. We heard that, although there is growing interest in investing in natural assets and environment schemes, these need to be properly regulated, on the one hand, and give greater certainty to investors about returns on the other.
Finally, we heard that there is currently no effective plan to resolve the competing demands on land. Indeed, a recent report suggested that to honour all the demands on land, we would need double the land mass we have.
Let me look at some of our recommendations, the Government’s response and ask some questions. There are many players and organisations involved in this massive mission. Two of the key ones are Natural England and the Environment Agency. We recommended that, given the growing demand for their services to fulfil government policies, they need more funding. In response, the Government tell us that they have given an uplift of £1.4 million to Defra over three years—less than £500,000 per year. How much of that will go to those two agencies? They will need more funding as the need for mitigation rises due to the increased number of extreme weather events we are seeing. I refer particularly to flood risk.
We asked for a coherent plan for skills training. The Government established a task force whose work informed the net-zero strategy of October 2021. We are told that there is £40 million in the Green Recovery Challenge Fund, of which £10 million comes from the nature recovery fund and £30 million from Nature for Climate funding. There is also a £10 million in the Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund. All this has to be applied for and is allocated competitively. I have three questions for the Minister. How much of that will go into relevant skills training? How much of it is new money? How are all the recipients of these pots of money being co-ordinated to ensure that a coherent plan for skills is developed and delivered?
We also recommended that a direct and independent expert advisory service be created to assist farmers to apply for schemes, reduce their emissions, produce food more efficiently and sustainably, sequester more carbon in their soils and protect biodiversity. The answer was another fund. It is the Future Farming Resilience Fund of £9 million, and it goes to organisations that will give free advice to farmers and support their transition towards net zero. How will farmers themselves be involved in the design of this support? Have they been asked if they want the workshops which are to be funded? Given that all farms are different, would they not find one-to-one advice more useful, based on information about their particular land, soil and business plan? Although land sparing such as tree planting can sequester more carbon, there are many effective land-sharing approaches, such as silvopasture and hedge planting. When can we expect to see the results of the relevant research on these systems?
We also recommended that the Government should be clear about what companies must do to claim that they are net zero. There seems to be a lot of greenwashing about, but there must always be additionality. Some companies claim that they have reduced the emissions from how they produce their goods or deliver their services but are allowed to ignore what happens to those goods afterwards. I am thinking of plastic goods or fossil-fuel producers such as coal mines. Offsets cannot be a substitute for reducing emissions. When can we expect to see the strong framework of standards and rules for investment in ecosystem services promised in the Government’s response? When will we see flexibility for aggregating multiple projects and combining public and private funding?
Finally, two big things stand out for me. First, we recommended that the Government produce a land use strategy. I accept that that is very difficult, given the competing demands, but someone has to do it and I should like to know from the Minister who that will be and on what scientific and policy basis. Will the Government be implementing the recommendation of the Committee on Land Use in England to create a land use commission?
The other big thing was the issue of tenant farmers. So many witnesses outlined the barriers to tenants participating in schemes to reduce their emissions and increase biodiversity that we became very concerned about their role in reaching net zero. Rents are rising, as is the cost of inputs; the security of basic payments is being withdrawn with too little certainty about what is replacing them, and tenant farmers are being asked to deliver more for the environment without impacting food security.
Tenant farmers are a large and important part of the farming community, so the Government set up a working group, under our committee colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, to review the issues and make recommendations. I was surprised by some of the figures on the very first page of her report. Sixty-four per cent of the total farmable area in England is either wholly or partly rented, a very large part of the whole. Secondly, the average length of new farm business tenancies in 2021 was three years. With a tenancy as short as that, how does anyone expect a tenant to invest in the long-term health of his soil and the productivity and biodiversity of his land?
The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, unfortunately is unable to speak today. However, her report made many excellent recommendations about how government schemes should be designed to make them “tenant proof”, to involve tenant farmers and to enable both tenants and landowners to benefit from schemes designed to fulfil government’s environmental policies. Unless those things happen, participation will be poor, farmers will go out of business and government policies will not be achieved. Could the Minister outline the Government’s response to the Rock report? The noble Baroness asked for
“an open and collaborative approach between tenants and landlords”.
This exists in some places, but by no means all. What can the Government do to make schemes fair for all and encourage this collaborative approach?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to contribute to this excellent debate about this extremely timely and important report. I join others in thanking the members of the Science and Technology Committee for their contributions today and for all the work that they have done over a significant time. I thank in particular the former chair, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for her excellent introduction to the report.
Timing is everything in these debates, and it is particularly worth noting that this report is being debated in a week when Whitehall has seen a significant change in the arrangement of departments. We hope that separating energy policy and net zero from the former BEIS is a reflection of the Government’s recognition of the urgency, expressed so much today, of this agenda. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate to us that that message around urgency has been heard and how it will translate into practice. What we need to hear is that the change will lead to more policy output, but Defra’s recent suite of environmental targets has given some of us the impression that the Government do not fully appreciate the urgency of the matters we are discussing today.
The contributions today have been striking, with the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Sheehan, each coming in on this agenda. Of course, the discussion has focused inevitably on the areas of uncertainty. I pay tribute to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and my noble friend Lady Warwick. There is little doubt that nature-based solutions are recognised as having an important role to play in the transition to a cleaner, greener future.
My noble friend Lady Warwick stressed, as have others, the importance of the skills agenda. In so many of the areas that I speak on, the skills shortages that this country is facing are reaching crisis point. In acknowledging the lack of skills in this area, I will pick a specific example. The Government recently announced the Forestry Training Fund, offering free training to those who want to move into the forestry industry. Of course we welcome the initiative, but where is the follow-up? Why has it taken so long for Ministers to bring it forward? How many people do the Government expect to come forward, and do they think that it will generate more interest than their failed Pick for Britain campaign of several years ago?
We have discussed the other major concern about land use, an area which the House explored at length during the passage of the Environment Bill, with the Government unfortunately resisting calls from my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone for the publication of a dedicated land use strategy. We will not scale up nature-based solutions without buy-in from the private sector, whether in the form of finance or delivery capacity. That is why, during the Lords stages of the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, Labour supported an amendment to expand that legislation’s definition of infrastructure to include nature-based solutions. If the Government are so keen to ensure private sector involvement in important projects, why did they overturn that sensible amendment in the House of Commons?
Finally, the committee drew attention to the need for landowners and farmers to have certainty about future funding arrangements, including, as we have heard, through the Government’s ELMS. Could we ask again—I hope we will get a response to the Minister—how the Government aim to settle the important question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, about competing demands on land use? It is now several years since the Agriculture Act was passed and, although there have been announcements on ELMS in recent weeks, the process has been fraught with delays, miscommunications and other difficulties.
We have so much consensus in this area. The questions that we are all asking is why there is so much delay and why so much opportunity is being missed. We understand the need for research programmes. As we have highlighted today, the uncertainty is there, and more research and more funding are required to make sure that that takes place. We understand the need for extensive consultation when so many key players are involved, but the clock is ticking. Can I borrow the report’s excellent title and say that we need to turn rhetoric into reality?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land management, as set out in the register. I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, on securing this debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points raised and to provide an update on the actions that have been taken since the publication of the Science and Technology Committee report. I agree at the outset with the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and other noble Lords about the urgency and extreme importance of tackling climate change.
As was acknowledged following the report’s publication in January 2022, the Government are grateful to the committee for the report and pleased that our ambitious plans for nature-based solutions have been recognised. Nature-based solutions are key to tackling climate change and averting its impacts. They deliver multiple benefits for climate, biodiversity, and people, and play a critical role in our plans to tackle the interrelated climate and biodiversity crises.
At the time of publication, the Government acknowledged the challenges and risks raised by the committee and set out the action being taken with our delivery partners to address these issues. Following the important announcements in this area since the publication of the report and in recent weeks, I welcome the opportunity to provide an update on the key themes raised in the report and in this debate.
First, I will provide an update on our overarching targets and progress being made. We have stretching nature-based targets that set out the Government’s strong ambition to protect and improve our landscapes. We are working tirelessly to ensure that our targets become a reality and that progress is being made.
Starting with forestry, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, raised the need for more action in this area. We have full confidence that our targets are achievable and have increased tree planting and woodland creation in England from 2,700 hectares in 2021-22 to now investing £750 million through our Nature for Climate Fund, which will support England’s contribution to our UK-wide target of planting 30,000 hectares of new woodland annually from May 2024. Tree planting is a key priority in the environmental land management schemes, which I will provide more detail on shortly.
On support for nurseries, also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, the Government committed in the England Trees Action Plan 2021 to 2024 to provide funding for UK public and private sector nurseries and seed suppliers and to set up the sector capacity project. In addition, £879,000 has been provided through the Tree Production Innovation Fund to encourage the adoption of innovative ways of working in the nursery sector. Last year, a new tree production capital grant opened for applications, providing capital support to nurseries and seed suppliers to modernise facilities and improve the quantity, quality, diversity and biosecurity of planting stock available for planting in England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, raised the subject of tracking marine biodiversity. In English waters, we have established a network of marine protected areas across more than 35,000 square miles. We have just created a new statutory target for 70% of designated beaches in marine protected areas to be in a favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition and with an interim target of 48% of designated beaches to be in favourable condition by 31 January 2028, in line with the trajectory required to achieve the long-term target.
On peatland, we are delivering on our commitment to restore 280,000 hectares of peatland in England by 2050, which is supported by funds such as the Nature for Climate Peatland Grant Scheme and the new environmental land management schemes. Through the development of the peat restoration road map, to be published in 2024 by Natural England, we will be able to set out a trajectory for restoration over the next 20 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, raised the subject of lowland peat used for agriculture. I thank him for highlighting this important issue of peatland restoration and, in particular, for highlighting the focus areas for the Government. In 2021, the lowland agricultural peat task force commenced working with stakeholders to deliver recommendations for a more sustainable future for lowland peatland in England. Its aim is to identify ways of extending the usable life of our agricultural peat soils to preserve the carbon stored in them and to ensure that profitable agriculture can continue for decades to come. The task force will report to government in the summer.
To meet our global climate target under the Paris agreement and our commitment to net zero, we need peatland restoration and opportunities for woodland expansion to happen without one compromising the other. Our commitments are reinforced in our recently published Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, which is delivery-focused and sets out the actions that will drive us towards reaching our long-term goals. It includes stretching interim targets to be achieved by the next review of the plan, driving progress towards our new long-term targets as required by the Environment Act 2021.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, raised the issue of skills and research and development. Of course, action to meet our headline targets must be underpinned by research and development and the necessary skills to deliver, issues which the committee report highlighted in detail.
The Government recognise the importance of investing in these areas. In the net-zero strategy we committed to £75 million on net zero-related research and development to inform our pathway to 2037. Defra is involved with many research and development projects to address evidence gaps and inform policy-making on agroforestry, lowland peat and hedgerow planting. Projects cover areas such as: understanding how climate stress will affect tree species in the future; the £5.6 million Paludiculture Exploration Fund, which looks at tackling barriers to developing that farming practice as commercially viable; and further modelling to estimate the potential benefits of hedgerow creation on carbon storage and sequestration.
A focus of the committee was on the need to build a stronger evidence base on blue carbon habitats in the UK, and a number of actions are being taken in this area. The UK’s recently published UK Net Zero Research and Innovation Framework identifies research needs on coastal wetland habitats to support improved greenhouse gas accounting and reporting as a priority. Research and development was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.
On agroforestry, Defra is currently involved in several agroforestry research projects that are looking at different evidence gaps, including expanding agroforestry in an evidence review and gap analysis to fill in key evidence requirements. Furthermore, Farm Tree will develop decision-support tools for integrating trees on agricultural land and Agroforestry Futures will identify opportunities for, and barriers to, an expansion of agroforestry into peri-urban areas and rural parts of the UK. The Agroforestry Pollinator Plantations project aims to understand how climate stress will affect tree species and which tree and shrub species growing in the UK will be suitable for future climates.
In the England Trees Action Plan, we committed to an ambitious research and development programme which includes building more evidence for the reintroduction of woodland species such as the pine marten, supporting the development of innovative wood products and building the evidence base on how best to protect and enhance ancient woodlands.
Defra has committed £1.2 million from the net-zero research and development allocation over the spending review period to further build the blue carbon evidence base. My noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked about work on the seas. In 2022, we established the UK Blue Carbon Evidence Partnership, through which UK Administrations are working together with BEIS, as it was, and Defra to address key research questions related to blue carbon policy, advancing our commitment to protect and restore these habitats to support them as nature-based solutions. An initial aim of the partnership has been to set out key research questions related to blue carbon by producing an evidence needs statement, which will be published in spring 2023.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, raised the issue of bottom trawling, which can cause carbon dioxide to be released from sediments. However, the processes are complex and the impact of trawling on carbon dioxide remains uncertain. That is why Defra is actively progressing the evidence space to better understand the resilience and recovery of sea biodiversity stores in sediments in response to human practices and management interventions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, raised the issue of skills and growing the workforce. This will be essential to delivering on our targets. We are taking action across key sectors, such as scoping out options for a research project on peat-restoration sector capability. We continue to develop new educational routes and career opportunities around skills in the forestry sector. A new Forestry Commission development woodland officer apprenticeship has been launched jointly with the University of Cumbria and the Institute of Chartered Foresters. It is the first time a degree-level forestry apprenticeship has been offered in the UK. In addition, through the Forestry Commission, we are supporting the Forestry Skills Forum in refreshing its action plan for England, which will raise the profile of forestry careers among school leavers and career changers.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe and Lady Walmsley, asked about green jobs and job opportunities. Last May, the Government established the Green Jobs Delivery Group, bringing together Ministers from BEIS, Defra and the Department for Education with leaders from the green economy, skills sectors, academia and trade unions to ensure that the UK has the pipeline of people needed to deliver our climate and environment ambitions. The new Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 reaffirms our commitment to this continued joint working to address skills needs in priority sectors, including sustainable land use and nature.
Advancing our research and skills allows us to develop and deliver targeted policies to support our key sectors in taking collective action. We recently set out plans for the environmental land management schemes designed to support the nation’s farming sector to be profitable and resilient as it produces food sustainably while protecting nature and enhancing the environment. Key announcements to support our ambitious nature targets covered the following.
The first is accelerating the rollout of the Sustainable Farming Incentive, with six new sets of paid actions for 2023, adding to the three already in place. This will provide farmers with a range of paid actions to manage hedgerows for wildlife, plant nectar-rich wildflowers and manage crop pests without the use of insecticides. The SFI application window is continuously open, and applications continue to be received. This point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. It has always been the intention to add more elements to SFI as funding is released from BPS reductions.
Secondly, expanding our popular Countryside Stewardship Scheme to reward farmers for action to support climate and nature will see around 30 additional actions available to farmers by the end of 2024.
Thirdly and lastly, applications for further rounds of the landscape recovery scheme will open in spring and in 2024. Round 2 will focus on net zero, protected sites and habitat creation, including landscape-scale projects creating and enhancing woodland, peatland, nature reserves and protected sites such as ancient woodlands, wetlands and salt marshes.
My noble friend Lord Roborough raised the issue of tax around assets focused on natural capital rather than agriculture or forestry. HMRC and Defra are considering the evidence that inheritance tax might be a potential barrier to the conversion of land from agricultural to environmental use in some situations. HRMC recently updated its IHT manual to help clarify the position, and further updates will follow in due course. Analysis, including discussions with external stakeholders, is taking place, and the Government are looking carefully at what changes may be required.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised the issue of landowner engagement. Agroforestry is an innovative practice that has a significant role to play in achieving the Government’s commitment to increased tree planting across the UK. Therefore, Defra is introducing agroforestry as part of ELMS; it will play a key role in increasing tree cover on farms. Agroforestry can provide a source of income to the farmer from both the marketable agricultural enterprise and forestry-generated products. This diversity will help reduce the risks from fluctuating agricultural markets and help stimulate and build resilience into the rural economy, without compromising the ability to produce food.
We know we will need to continue to develop our schemes, based on the learnings from our pilots, tests and trials and early rollouts. We will work with stakeholders across the whole sector to achieve this. There are many benefits to delivering nature-based solutions and they play a key role in our efforts to adapt to climate change. Defra is working across government to develop a third national adaptation programme for publication in 2023. This will include key actions for restoring nature and enhancing its ability to adapt to climate change risks, as well as maximising the benefits for communities.
As emphasised in the committee report, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, finance is a key enabler for meeting our climate targets. Nature-based projects need to be financially attractive to landowners and investors. The noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe and Lady Walmsley, both raised the subject of investment. The Government have committed to maintain the farming budget for England at £2.4 billion per year throughout this Parliament, and I have outlined how we are repurposing funding for farmers and land managers as part of the agricultural transition.
We are already seeing progress. Currently, there are around 40,000 agreements in our countryside and environmental schemes, covering about 34% of agricultural land. There are 94% more countryside stewardship agreements now than in January 2020. By 2028 we plan to increase the number of agreements to at least 70,000 in our environmental land management schemes, covering 70% of farmed land and 70% of all farms, so that farmers and land managers can collectively deliver our ambitious targets for the environment, climate and food production. We are committed to being transparent about the budget and how it will be spent. We included in the Agriculture Act a requirement for government to publish an annual report about the budget, and we did this for the first time in 2022.
Alongside publicly funded schemes, the Government have set a target to raise at least £500 million in private finance to support nature’s recovery every year by 2027 in England, rising to more than £1 billion per year in 2030. To set the conditions to achieve this, we are taking a number of actions, including supporting the development of nature projects that can attract private capital through our £10 million Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund and accelerating the natural capital investment market by investing £30 million in a new, blended finance vehicle for nature: the Big Nature Impact Fund.
We continue supporting the Woodland Carbon Code and the Peatland Code to encourage private investment, with registrations continuing to increase. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough for his recognition of these as world-leading certification standards.
Both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, highlighted the importance of strong governance and standards in the current markets for nature-based solutions. The UK has championed initiatives to strengthen and scale up high-integrity voluntary carbon markets, including under our COP 26 presidency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, raised the issue of high integrity in carbon markets. We have launched multi-stakeholder initiatives such the Integrity Council on Voluntary Carbon Markets, and the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative, to establish the very highest standards.
We are developing plans to put in place a comprehensive suite of domestic standards for nature markets to provide assurances of high integrity, create confidence in the market and allow investment to flow at scale into a much wider range of ecosystem services and habitats. We will ensure that, as we develop new domestic standards, we draw on relevant international best practice.
Several noble Lords raised competing demands on land. It is vital that we make the most productive use of our land and strike the right balance between the many priorities that place a demand on land, including food security, sustainable development, action on climate mitigation and adaptation, and promoting nature’s recovery. The noble Baronesses, Lady Brown, Lady Walmsley and Lady Blake, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and my noble friend Lord Holmes all mentioned the need for a clear land use strategy, as did the committee’s report. The Government recognise the importance of this and of managing these trade-offs, and we have therefore committed to publishing a land use framework in 2023 to bring greater alignment in policies affecting land.
I thank all noble Lords here for taking part in this crucial debate and for raising many important points that I will take back to Defra and colleagues across Whitehall. I will look at Hansard and write to noble Lords to follow up on any questions that I have been unable to answer. The Government have committed to leaving the environment in a better place than we found it. There is no doubt that nature-based solutions play a vital part in achieving our ambitions, and, although we recognise that there is work to do, we are confident that we have a strong foundation to build on. With our recent announcements and ongoing commitment to action, we will continue working with key stakeholders in the sector and our delivery partners to deploy nature-based solutions to improve our natural environment and support the climate agenda.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
I thank the Minister for his extensive response. I was pleased that he mentioned a lot of numbers and actions, and I too will study Hansard carefully—I will take them away and think about them further. At the moment, however, I fear I am still not convinced that they add up to an integrated solution to this issue.
I too thank all who have spoken in this debate—I will not repeat what noble Lords said so eloquently. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Bennett, for reminding us of what I will call the “zeroth” law of nature-based solutions, which is that they cannot be used as an excuse for not decarbonising rapidly. In that vein, the first law is that nature-based solutions are critical for achieving net zero for our residual emissions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, reminded us. The second law is that more research and training are needed. The third is that they will not work without robust monitoring and verification. The fourth is that this is not just a Defra issue; it needs the cross-government approach that the Minister mentioned. The fifth is that we must establish robust ways to fund them and we must have offsets that we can trust. The sixth is that our farmers are critical and need our help.
I hope that, as a result of today’s debate, the Government will reflect further—I think I heard the Minister say this, which pleased me—on whether the scale and pace of their current and proposed actions add up to a solution to the challenge of effective implementation and use of nature-based solutions in helping us reach net zero.
Sport, Health and Well-being National Plan (NPSRC Report)
Lord Moynihan
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee, A National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing (HL Paper 113, Session 2021-22).
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, one of the truest aphorisms in sport in the UK is that the world of sports politics makes the House of Commons look tame by comparison. Recognising that, we, as Members of this House who served on the House of Lords National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee should be more than grateful for the outstanding chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, to whom we give our heartfelt thanks and owe lasting respect. With his characteristic Yorkshire charm, good grace, passionate love for sport and commitment to the interests of young people, he steered the 12 members of the committee through the often choppy waters of the world of sports politics—its opaque bureaucracy, sometimes overlapping and intertwined, at others siloed, usually unaccountable, febrile in its complexity but nevertheless united in a passion for the benefits that sport can bring to our lives.
The noble Lord brought his crew safely through the years of Covid and across the finishing line with a range of compelling recommendations to show for his dedicated hard work and service to the subject. The fact that he did so with such enthusiastic generosity of spirit and insight into the lives of the many people whom he both felt and knew had been denied the opportunity to benefit from participating in sport and recreation, and denied the chance to live better and healthier lives, was always there when he opened the questions to the many witnesses who came before us. His absence from opening this debate today, due to illness, is a cause for sadness on all sides of the Committee. Our sincere best wishes go to him.
In recognising the noble Lord’s contribution as our chair, our thanks also go out to our committee staff: Michael Berry our clerk, Katie Barraclough our policy analyst and Hannah Murdoch, our committee operations officer. Their professionalism was clear from day one. They benefited from a genuine enthusiasm, bordering on passion, for the subject matter we were considering, and this seminal report could not have been completed without their close and effective co-operation with Dr Chris Mackintosh, our special adviser. We are very grateful for the huge amount of excellent work he undertook.
Another key member of our team was Owen Williams, our head of press and media, who recognised that the subject was of national importance and appealed to all ages, and showcased the work of your Lordships’ House at its best. His team did not fail to take those opportunities, not least with children’s TV, linking up with Sky “Kids FYI”, the young people’s news show. In so doing, they were enthusiastically backed in this endeavour by members of the committee, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brady. “FYI” even undertook to research among children, the results of which were submitted to the committee, which clearly showed an appetite to be more active in and out of school.
We welcome the maiden speech today of my noble friend Lord Effingham, who is a very welcome new Member of our Benches. We look forward to hearing his contribution.
Overall, we held nearly 30 evidence sessions, analysing over 160 written submissions of evidence over the course of the year. Dr Chris Mackintosh’s own take on the work of the committee is worthy of recording. He said:
“I believe the suggested framework for the National Plan is driven by evidence and can provide the genuine opportunity for catalytic change. Hopefully this is a watershed moment that creates a more radical vision for community sport, wellbeing and physical activity—the time is certainly right for this change.”
Central to our recommendations, we are calling for the development of a long-term, cross-governmental national plan for sport, health and well-being. The national plan will form an overarching framework document which will set out the Government’s vision, aims and objectives over a multi-year period and will bring together disparate strategies covering physical activity, health promotion, planning, housing, education, transport and more. This will mean that some existing strategies such as Sporting Future will need to be incorporated into the national plan and reflect the new way of working, but not abandoned.
We then called for a Minister for Sport to be appointed within the Department of Health and Social Care, moving away from the existing Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We called for the establishment of a national physical activity observatory to address the existing limitations in national, regional and local monitoring and evaluation in sport and recreation policy.
We called for better teacher training, particularly for primary school teachers, including greater emphasis on PE and physical literacy training. We called for schools and colleges to be encouraged to develop closer links with local sports clubs to tackle drop-out from physical activity that often occurs when people leave full-time education.
We hope that the Department for Education will guarantee funding for the PE and sport premium at least at current levels, but not just in the short or medium term but in the long term. We looked for the introduction of a statutory requirement for local authorities to provide and maintain
“adequate facilities for sport and physical activity, backed up with adequate financial support from the Treasury”.
We looked for the designation of PE as a core national curriculum subject to ensure that it received “adequate time and resource”, and the creation of a robust approach to duty of care and safeguarding in grassroots and elite support, backed by financial sanctions and built on the findings of the independent review of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, Duty of Care in Sport, published in 2017. We looked for a national register of coaches to maintain standards in safeguarding and child protection as well as an ombudsman for duty of care in sport, and close working with the sector to introduce mandatory reporting
“given the potential for abuse in sport”.
We untangled the webs which obfuscate the key delivery mechanisms of the sector by placing emphasis on physical literacy; accessibility and availability of facilities and spaces; tackling discrimination; public messaging campaigns; addressing health inequalities and the need for more social prescribing, and sport for development in criminal justice settings.
We believed passionately in the importance of instilling a lifelong habit of sport and physical activity. We recognised the need for major progress in the delivery of PE and school sport, addressing cost, facilities and accessibility—not least to the countryside.
What was the genesis of the sense of frustration that members of the committee felt? It was excellently summarised by our chair, who said:
“I thought the committee would look very narrowly at sport and recreation and what could be done for them, but it ended up with a set of proposals that are quite revolutionary, which state something really quite different about the way forward, not only for sport and recreation but for the NHS itself … How is it possible that the UK is world-leading in elite and professional sports, that 3 billion people across the world watch our Premier League matches in over 187 different countries and that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has consistently said, at Olympics after Olympics … we have failed at grass-roots level to get more people from more diverse backgrounds to be more active, despite all the investment that successive Governments have made? … With one-third of the adult population at the moment getting less than 150 minutes of moderate activity each week; with schoolchildren doing consistently less activity both at school and at home; with PE marginalised in the school curriculum and no longer inspected by Ofsted while, as we heard in our evidence, many primary school teachers get less than three hours’ training in a three-year degree course, which is shameful, so physical literacy in most of our primary schools means nothing, frankly, because it does not appear on the league tables; with access to facilities ever more difficult; with local authorities closing swimming pools and leisure centres to save resources; and with transport non-existent for large parts of the day for large swathes of the community, we have become one of the most lazy, inactive nations in the … world. Those sections of the population with the poorest diets and the worst levels of deprivation are, not surprisingly, the least active, too, and of course the pandemic has disproportionately affected all the target groups.”—[Official Report, 4/2/22; cols. 1207-09.]
No one in this Committee could have put it better.
We on the committee concluded that the day had arrived to bring sport and recreation away from the touchlines of Whitehall to the centre of government, where, led from a position of strength and embedded at the centre of the Department of Health, sport could be united with health and well-being to play a pivotal role in our health policy. Then and only then can we truly promote a proactive health agenda as Governments have been doing across the world, from Australia and New Zealand to Norway, Sweden and France. Only then will we achieve effective cross-departmental work, which is touted as a goal by successive Ministers for Sport but which remains a chimera—a benign illusion that withers on the vine when road-tested for effectiveness.
Our hope was that funding would then “coalesce around the national plan”. We looked enviously at New Zealand, whose strength at elite level lay in a strong emphasis on participation and opportunity for all: a pathway from all local communities to podium success. New Zealand’s well-being budget model was seen as well thought through and inspirational in co-ordinating departmental budgets and departmental agendas. Those who designed and led the New Zealand strategy clearly recognised that sport and an effective, active lifestyle played an increasing role in virtually all government departments. Such is the power of sport.
High levels of physical inactivity remain a major issue of national concern. Inadequate steps have been taken to tackle childhood obesity and inactivity. At grass-roots level, women, disabled people, the elderly, ethnic minorities, those with long-term health problems and people from less affluent backgrounds had suffered most from inadequate opportunities, poor information flows, local authority cuts and numerous underwhelming attempts to boost activity rates.
A central raison d’être for hosting the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games—a healthier, more active population inspired by our great athletes—has failed to materialise. While the urban regeneration of the East End of London and the consistent funding of our elite athletes have been a success, the opportunity to raise the bar for physical activity at grass-roots level was seen by the committee to have been lost and has yet to recover.
We learned in answer to a Written Parliamentary Question tabled on 22 July 2021 that the complement of the team who worked on sports policy was just 25—25 enthusiastic, capable people who could easily transfer with their Minister to the Department of Health. Even the Minister for Sport in his evidence was not against that proposal. Yesterday’s move of digital out of DCMS would have been an opportunity to move sport to health as well, if health is to be taken as seriously as digital.
All our work was happening when countries across the world were introducing new sports laws, creating clear lines of policy formulation and accountability to their Parliaments. Ask the 25 civil servants where they believe they would be most effective. Some may indeed say they should be in education, but that removes them from the majority of the population who really need them after the waterfall effect on participation after they leave school. Maybe they should be in the Cabinet Office, but while we recognise that that would bring the importance of these policies to the heart of government, it would lack direct accountability for the programmes we considered.
Those are some of the reasons why we recommended a national plan for sport, health and well-being at the centre of government and led by the Minister for Sport in the Department of Health, leading an office of health promotion to be placed on a statutory footing to ensure its accountability to Parliament. With a national plan, a Minister at the centre of government and the 54 recommendations and conclusions we reached, it is time to act. If this Government will not act, hopefully the next one will.
This report will not gather dust. It will not sleep. As members of the committee from across the House recognised, it forms an excellent, vibrant and relevant manifesto for each and every party at the next election. No Member of your Lordships’ House who has been engaged on this work will not fully support whichever party is in power to implement the report’s key recommendations in full. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in thanking our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for leading us so well and making being on the committee so enjoyable. The quality of our discussions has led to a very good report. I join the noble Lord in sending the noble Lord, Lord Willis, our very best wishes for a speedy recovery. I also thank him for the way in which he has presented the report. Those of us who served on the committee know that it was originally his idea that we should have a special inquiry into this and he was a guiding spirit pushing us to radical thinking throughout the whole time we met. I am sure that I speak on behalf of many of us in thanking him for what has been achieved.
Sport, health and well-being is one of those strange topics in politics that no one is against. I have never heard anyone make a speech saying that they do not think it is important, a good idea or a crucial part of a healthy society. Sometimes, in my experience, when no one is against something, no one is so much in favour of it that it goes to the top of everyone’s agenda. It is a weird weakness of our political system. When I was a Minister, I was told by a politician whom I greatly admired that to achieve change you need an argument. If you do not, there will be no energy, heat or momentum for change. I hate creating rows—it is not my style—but I have concluded that we have to go a bit further in this area than we have done previously to create a discussion out of which some ideas might come that someone will be brave enough to take forward. I see that mood in this report. Its main recommendations are radical; some people are against them, which gives us something to grab hold of and take further.
I will concentrate on one or two general things and take a couple of examples. Sport, health and well-being is a tale of two stories, whichever part of the population you look at. Among adults, we have some of the highest-achieving athletes and sportspeople in the world; we are good at lots of things and win lots of medals—we had three international Olympians on our committee—so we do very well at adult sports. However, over a quarter of the population is deemed to be inactive and only 36% of people participate in sports once a week. Among children and young people, there are some marvellous boys and girls in our schools achieving at a high level, some of whom enter adult sport and compete at senior level while still of school age. Yet we also have lots of young boys and girls turned off PE and sport who never return to it throughout their lives.
In the wider population, some families and communities, for whom being active is part of family and community life, have lots of sports facilities and thrive, but we also have some places, people and communities who do not have the facilities, the motivation or the encouragement. Thinking about ourselves as a nation—what is good for our well-being and that of our citizens—frankly, although I love football, it is more important to get wider involvement than to have the wealthiest football league in the world. Sometimes, it seems as though we have backed the wrong thing. We are immensely proud of having a lot of money in the Premier League, but we worry less about the neighbourhoods and communities for which sport is not available.
Things need to change. I will take two examples from my background of where the report says this very well. First, it seems minor to say that PE and sport should be core school subjects. The Government responded that it does not matter because they are part of the national curriculum. However, if everything on the national curriculum was treated equally, we would not have core and non-core subjects. “Core subject” means that it is more important than the rest of the national curriculum. If anything has to go—if money is short and anything is not measured or celebrated—it will be the non-core subjects, not the core ones. The notion of “physical literacy” in the report and the move to make it a core subject would give a powerful signal, though not overnight, to people in education and schools that this matters and that change must happen.
Where we are at the moment is that many children in primary school will be taught all their PE by somebody who may not be interested in sport, may not be confident in sport themselves and may only have had between three and six hours of training in the whole of their teacher training. Even in secondary schools, where we have, I hope, qualified teachers—although I am not sure that every class is taken by a fully qualified teacher—when the exams come along, it is the sports hall that is closed so that desks and chairs can be put out. Can you imagine literacy or numeracy lessons being cancelled because there was this or something else in the rest of the curriculum? The message given there is that yes, it is important, yes, it is part of a broad and balanced curriculum, and yes, we see the importance of activity for children, but we are keeping it just below the radar while our messages about other parts of the curriculum are far stronger. Unless that changes, we will fail to lay the foundations with children and young people so that they remain active throughout their life.
If you miss out at school, or you are in a school that does not have those facilities, you look to your community —and the amount of money local authorities spend has reduced in the past 10 years by £0.6 billion, and it is not a statutory duty to provide leisure facilities. So there is something wrong. Imagine if we closed all our GP surgeries, or all our dental surgeries—well, we do have a problem with dentists. But if we closed all those health facilities, we would worry that it would be a crisis. The swimming pool closes, and it reaches the headlines in the local newspaper but nowhere else.
I give those examples, because to me that is saying that we are not yet in a position where policy is giving a clear message about what is important. I am disappointed with the Government’s response—although, to be honest, I could have predicted it; I could almost have guessed the draft. I was probably the same, but it does what Ministers of government departments always do. It says how much they have spent in the past on various pilots or trials and that they have picked out some geographical areas to run some more trials, says that they have a new measurement, and then to top it all says that they have set up a cross-party working group or a cross-party departmental committee. It is a formula that you go down. In government terms it does not cost much, but it looks like a lot when it is written on a piece of paper.
My message is that all that has been done in the past, and it did not work. That is the tragedy of this issue—that when you look at both Governments, you can see that they have made honest efforts, because they want to bring about the change. But a bit more money, another cross-party working group, another pilot and another trial has not delivered the change that we need. The statistics are worse than they used to be. We should say in this area that there should be no more pilots or small pots of money until you tell us what happened to the last ones you spent. What was the impact, what lessons have you learned, and what are you changing in future?
To be honest, it took me some time to come around to the notion of changing the machinery of government, because I am always a bit worried when politicians suggest doing so. It is a bit of a safe haven for those who have worked in the machinery of government—but I have become an enthusiastic convert to it. I can see that the proposal at the core of the report to put this in the Department of Health, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, explained, could give a very big signal that government understands that, if things are to change, the leadership that it has to show is that it will change too. I very much hope that this debate will go on in future years.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, with her passion and enthusiasm for the subject. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of interests which, from our Select Committee sessions, noble Lords will know are extensive. I shall not read them all out here, because it would take most of my speech time—but most pertinently for this debate, I was chair of UK Active during the evidence sessions, and vice-president of the LGA, which is still current. I am now chair of Sport Wales, co-chair of Yorkshire CCC and a board member of the National Academy for Social Prescribing, and I was author of the independent review of duty of care in sport. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough—we are all sorry that he is not here—and the secretary and Dr Mackintosh for guiding us through, as well as my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for leading the debate today, for his expertise and for summing up the extensive contributions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is right: this never gets to the top of the priority list. We talk about medals and sports performance, but what we are talking about here is far more serious: the health of our nation. As someone who has worked in this space for a number of years, I learned through the Select Committee process that there is a lot of agreement. It also gave me contact with organisations that I do not normally deal with.
I will start the main part of my speech with a quote from Nelson Mandela in 2000. He said:
“Sport has the power to change the world.”
It is a high bar to follow, and I am not going to argue with Nelson Mandela, but I would change it slightly by adding physical activity. Sport and physical activity have the power to nudge the world into a better place. Away from big sports reporting, we need to find a way of raising this up the agenda. There is so much research to show that sport and physical activity can tackle inequalities and bring community cohesion, academic attainment, personal responsibility and so on—I could go on and on—yet they never get to the top of the priority list.
Big sporting moments such as the Olympics, the Paralympics and the Commonwealth Games are amazing and great; I competed at all three. Working in this area, I experienced a really proud moment after the Lionesses’ victory last year. I was on a train, and I heard two young boys arguing about who was the best English female footballer. It felt as though we had turned a corner, but we then seemed to slow down again. If you look at what the 2012 Games did at Olympic park for communities and the built environment, beyond an incredible Games, you will see, again, that we must have the right support beneath these big sporting moments —you cannot just expect them to change anything. One of my biggest frustrations is when people tell me that 2012 changed the world for disabled people. It did not. They were a great Games, but we have to do more.
We sat as a committee during Covid, and as I was going out and about being active it was interesting to see so many more people, including women, being active who were not before, because they had the opportunity to do so. During that time, we heard so many people being passionate about the NHS, which was amazing, but I throw out the challenge that, if we care about the NHS so much, we have to stop people going into it. We should not talk about physical activity and sport in silos—they need to be the golden thread that runs through our debates. Physical activity can help with waiting lists and surgery; it can help with everything. We just need to talk about it a little more. I raised some of these issues at Second Reading of the levelling-up Bill.
The question is: should there be a national plan for sport? The answer, really simply, is yes. We could all have answered the question very quickly, but it was right that we spent so much time looking at it. What was really powerful about the committee was bringing it all together in one place. Briefly, I will pick out a couple of the recommendations and give my thoughts.
Statutory provision is vital. This cannot be a postcode lottery. We have to start thinking differently about the money that is spent. There should be a new requirement on councils, with adequate support from the Treasury, but we have to think about it as investing in people’s future and not just about the money that we spend. Many have called for a review of the tax environment for the sport and recreation sector, and I fundamentally support that.
What do we think about PE? A lot of people’s experience of PE is not positive, and I would argue that that is because of the way that it can be taught. It brings in sporty children, like me, but we do not teach trigonometry without teaching maths, yet we expect children to play sport without teaching them physical literacy. This is not just about the health of the nation; it would have an impact on our elite pathway. Members of the committee who do not work in this space were shocked by what happens in schools. I found that to be really useful and an important wake-up call.
It would be remiss of me not to briefly mention the areas that I am currently working in. I urge the Minister to look again at the establishment of an independent sports ombudsman. I am not desperately attached to the name or the connotations that come with it but calling it “an independent body that provides some oversight of the sports system” does not quite have the same ring to it. I had to call it something. The Government should look at this again, especially given all the sports and governing bodies in use at the moment.
I would also be delighted if the Government were to look favourably on mandatory reporting. I have a Private Member’s Bill on the list and I would happily hand it over to the Minister. It was written with the support of Mandate Now and others, because, again, this is something that is sorely needed.
I will make one plea. There is the report and there are other things that we need to think about doing. The potential closure of swimming pools is a real worry for me. Without the Government’s support, it is anticipated that 40% of council areas will lose their leisure centres or see reduced services before 31 March this year. That should be a cause of huge concern to all of us. I am sure the Minister will tell me why the Government cannot look at this differently and regrade the commitments made, but they should look urgently at doing something to protect this, because it affects the whole of British society.
Finally, there are so many opportunities in this area and I am really looking forward to the Minister’s response. This is our chance to do things differently and we should take it.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is an absolute privilege to follow noble Lords on the committee who are our national heroes. The report is a powerful testimonial to the urgency of action needed for healthy communities and a healthy nation. The importance of sports and recreation to the well-being of young lives, with many people coping with multiple pressures resulting in mental health distress at a time of the cost of living emergency, cannot be oversimplified.
I wish to speak about the involvement of girls in sport. Although I am not a girl anymore, I grew up without any barriers to playing cricket, cycling, climbing trees, playing badminton, playing football or swimming. When I arrived in London, the only sporting field was our four walls, as it is for many children in this country. School was absolutely liberating and, after a little tough negotiation, I was allowed to wear trousers and play tennis and badminton briefly for my school team. It all seems so long ago.
School is the critical playground for encouraging girls to participate in sports. Muslim women and girls are playing football and cricket and participating in archery in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Egypt. Even in Saudi Arabia, women’s teams are making great strides in the international sporting arena. Therefore, I challenge the decades-old excuse that it is cultural barriers that prevent certain sections of our female population taking part in sporting activities. Certainly, this should not be the case at primary and secondary level.
From what I see, community activities and school sports and recreation are dominated by programmes for boys and young men, and, even within that setting, young men and boys of Bangladeshi heritage have not broken through the barrier to professional football or cricket, bar one or two players.
In my area, many council-run sports centres, where girls appear to be absolutely absent, have rundown facilities due to lack of funds. Inertia has set in; girls will not play, so why bother? Community buildings once used for youth and community services, with hubs for girls, have shut or been sold without adequate scrutiny or any impact assessment of the loss of services to the community, as my noble friend Lady Morris mentioned. There are also significant numbers of private clubs in all localities of an excellent standard and with excellent facilities, and I would like to see how they can be encouraged to do more to engage the communities they operate in. The report also highlights the profound impact of discrimination as a barrier to wider participation and engagement, no doubt compounded by years of chronic national and local underfunding of sports and recreation services.
A decade on from the fanfare of the national pride in our Olympic Games, my observation—I dissent from my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson here—is that the fundamental delivery promise of community empowerment has not taken place. The Olympic legacy promise was that it would revolutionise and reinvigorate communities and develop sustainable community sports and recreation facilities in all five boroughs, if not impact sports nationwide. Does the Minister agree that we have failed to honour that promise?
For a decade, young families put up with the health consequences of building the village, and frail children paid a heavy price with poor health and heightened childhood asthma and eczema. The Olympic promise was better housing, a family environment, and opportunities for sport and recreation facilities, but the outcome was inevitable, given that those involved in the design and implementation had little interest or stake in the local communities, and credible community experts were absent as decision-makers in the legacy delivery team.
A reflective workforce must include management at all levels. I am pleased to see that that is mentioned in the report. Will the Minister say whether there has been an analysis of the impact of the Olympic legacy on sports provision for all the boroughs surrounding the Olympic village? Is consideration given to why provision in these areas remains so poor?
I was recently informed that one of the legacies of the World Cup in Qatar is that a stadium has been designated to develop women’s sports and that it is led by a Minister for Women’s Sports Development. I do not know whether I have a created a rod for my own back by saying that, but the framework suggested on page 26 of the report would be extremely impactful, so long as it is inclusive and diverse throughout the structure.
The report is timely and thoughtful, and I am pleased to see references to safeguarding, given the current attention to online safety. An overwhelming impact of Covid isolation and lockdown was increased reliance on technology as the main source of recreation, and it is likely to become more prevalent and addictive as the new generation of games, virtual reality and augmented reality immerse us in the metaverse and Web3 transitional space. The Government should heed the recommendations in the report and take action and, as well as being answerable for delivery, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, be a catalyst for a national transformation.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a singular pleasure to take part in this afternoon’s debate. I congratulate all members of the committee, and indeed the staff, who put together such an excellent, coherent report. Not least, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Moynihan on the elegant and erudite way in which he introduced this afternoon’s debate. I am only sad that I was not on the committee. As ever, I did not make the first eleven.
Sport is a tremendous thing. It is an extraordinary honour to stand on a medal podium on club, county, national or international duty, but it is as nothing when set against enabling somebody to take their first stroke in a swimming pool, their first step on to a track or a walking trail, or to get on to their first trike or bike. Switching on the light of possibility through sport and physical exercise is worth more than any gold, silver or bronze. Yet we hear that potentially, within the next quarter, 40% of leisure centres will close their doors. They will be padlocked and will be of no benefit to anybody. It is bad enough that buildings are closed, but it is a disaster for all people whose lives are legged over through not being able to access those sporting facilities. When a swimming pool closes, there is rarely a ripple at national government level.
What is happening in the department? There should be a mission control looking at what is happening across our leisure provision to prevent this becoming a leisure centre emergency.
Similarly, it is essential to promote the opportunity of sport and physical recreation in the right way. We have seen some superb examples of this. “This Girl Can” and “We Are Undefeatable” are brilliant pieces of marketing. They are connective and understand the real issues why people may not feel that sport and physical exercise are for them. That is putting a different lens, the lens of possibility, the lens of connection, in such marketing attempts.
I should declare an interest as a board member of Channel 4, which is still the UK rights-holding broadcaster for the Paralympic Games. I was delighted to be able to negotiate those rights way back when I was at London 2012 towards the end of 2009, transforming how we present disability sport, to not just the nation but the world.
Looking at the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee’s report, does the Minister agree that it makes complete sense to rename the office “the office for health promotion”? Would he not see it as a thoroughly good thing that the Minister is not just a Minister for sport but a Minister for sport, health and well-being? Would he not like to take those few steps across to the Department of Health?
Would he further agree that we need to look hard into what is happening across the country in social prescribing, which can do so much good? What data exists on how universal this opportunity is and on its outcomes? What more can government do to enable everybody to be able to avail themselves of this possibility to change their lives for the better forever?
On the role of technology, the negative side was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, but we could have the potential positive side. Is the department working in partnership to look at some of the benefits that can be gained, particularly through wearable technology? As with all good technology, data has to be at the heart. What quality of data do the Government have across this area because it is only by having a golden bedrock of data that we will be able to drive the changes that we want in this space?
In conclusion, we are in the midst of an obesity crisis. We have a post-Covid crisis. Does my noble friend agree that physical literacy is at least as important as literacy and numeracy? What is the cost of having such parlously low levels of physical literacy right now, not how much it will cost to change that but what is the current cost—social, psychological, individual and, yes, economic? What is the economic cost to neighbourhoods, to our nation, of this lack of physical literacy right now? To that end, does my noble friend agree that the best thing the Government could do right now is accept this excellent report in full?
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who I first got to know after we successfully won the bid to stage 2012, when he accompanied me—I was the Schools Minister, and he was the Olympian to inspire children around the Olympics. It is also a pleasure to follow the other speakers. In particular, after the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, opened the debate, I want to associate myself with his comments about the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who so excellently led us in the committee. I also remind this committee of my interests as the chair of the multi-academy trust, E-ACT, as I shall go on to talk a little bit about schools.
The core problem that the committee addressed is that of inactivity among adults and children. Those thumbing the report need only go to pages 9 and 13 to see the graphics that show that inactivity. My noble friend Lady Morris cited some of the statistics. It is that relationship between inactivity, poor mental well-being and chronic health problems that are at the heart of the recommendation that the committee made around a national plan and something centrally driven. The Government’s response unfortunately shows a negligible appetite to change anything. I would say to the Arts Minister, in the words of Shakespeare,
“Nothing will come of nothing”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, noted, the machinery of government changes announced this week mean that perhaps the particular solution that the committee arrived at might have missed the boat for the time being. However, perhaps if he were listening, the Chancellor could be inspired by one of our witnesses, Grant Robertson, who was the New Zealand Finance Minister and also the Sports Minister. I am not necessarily suggesting that Jeremy Hunt should become Sports Minister, but he could head up a national plan for sport, health and well-being, given his background as a previous Secretary of State at DCMS and a previous Secretary of State at Health and the huge savings that our NHS, in such crisis at the moment, could gain over the long term if we tackled this chronic problem of inactivity among adults and children.
I also very much want to associate myself with what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, in respect of mandatory reporting. The committee heard from no one who disagreed with the need to bring in mandatory reporting, and I cannot understand why the Government resist that.
In the time I have left, I want to focus on physical literacy among children. The Government are defensive and rely on the money from the sport premium and that PE is mandatory between ages of five to 16. Yet again, we see a problem. We have had those things for a little while now, and the problem has not been solved, so what are we going to do differently? I have visited a lot of primary schools and asked them how they are spending their sport premium, and it is making a difference. Many primary schools are now engaging professional coaches, who are helping to address the problem of the absence of PE training among primary school teachers that the committee identified. That is positive, but other problems endure.
Swimming was made statutory. I am very proud that as Schools Minister I introduced it as part of the Olympic package, but if we do not have swimming pools for kids to learn in, it does not really amount to much. Some things will endure. The issues around puberty and body image and the mental health difficulties that girls, in particular, are going through at the moment, as well as the difficulty around changing rooms in organised sport are very difficult ongoing challenges. However, the accountability system that we have in schools values the academic subjects in the EBacc and excludes PE, with Progress 8 then enforcing that and fetishising the academic within the accountability system, so that in the end schools end up having a GCSE for everything so that it looks academic. A GCSE for PE then becomes kids in classrooms studying PE rather than being physically active, which is a perverse and ridiculous situation in which to find ourselves.
Now, of course, we have schools facing budgetary pressures with pay and energy and so on struggling to renew equipment and facilities that we need for children to be physically active. So we need an approach of physical literacy, and the PE teachers that the committee spoke to were clear about wanting to make that change, combining the health and mental well-being effects with fitness. It is less about sport for sport’s sake and allows the learning to become more personalised, using after-school clubs and community use of school facilities and updating the idea of extended schools that we had in the first decade of this century.
As the committee discussed, I would like to see more accountability about how that sport premium money is being used, so that every school is publishing on its website exactly how it is using it. A great example is Surrey Square Primary School, which talked about its investment in the professional development of staff and its membership of a local sports network, supporting and engaging the least active children with that money through new or additional sports clubs during the school day. The school mentioned a whole run of things, including inviting athletes, dance troops and gymnasts into the school to inspire the children. It listed not only how it spends the money but the impact that that then has on the children that it is targeting. If that kind of activity was mandatory across the system, we would see a real impact. Children in particular need better than just cognitive development. Our school system must change to better develop children socially, emotionally and physically, because it is key to their future happiness and prosperity.
Finally, can the Minister say when a DCMS Minister last met with the DfE and Department of Health and Social Care Ministers to discuss changing the curriculum and the accountability of schools to reflect the need for better physical activity among children?
Earl Effingham (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I cannot emphasise enough what an honour and privilege it is to make my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House today. As the eldest son of an Earl, I was fortunate to have a parliamentary pass pre 1999, which allowed me to sit on the steps of the Throne and listen to debates, as I frequently did and greatly enjoyed. Following the reforms of 1999, I said to myself, “One day I sincerely hope I will be able to return to the House and contribute in the same way my father and previous family members before him did.”
I would like to thank the many people who make your Lordships’ House such a unique and special place and the reason I look forward to coming as often as I can. To be greeted with a smile by the doorkeepers, attendants, the restaurant team and many others is fantastic—and of course it would be impossible not to mention noble Lords, the Members of the House. In the brief time I have been here it has been amazing to meet so many talented individuals at the top of their game who add real value with their contributions to the House. Everyone without exception has been friendly and welcoming, and I am most grateful.
The Effingham title was created in 1554 for William Howard, fourth son of the second Duke of Norfolk, and I believe the most famous of my ancestors would be his son Lord Howard of Effingham, who defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588. I am reminded of this every time I walk into the Prince’s Chamber and look up to see the copies of the Armada tapestries on the wall. The original tapestries were commissioned by Lord Howard in 1595 and were hung in the Chamber of the House from 1644 onwards. Sadly, they were destroyed in the Great Fire of 1834, but the very fine replicas are worthy replacements for the originals. I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Crathorne, chairman of the Works of Art Committee at the time, without whose hard work and negotiation the tapestries might not be with us today.
For my part, I am married with two children, I have a degree in classics, and I have spent the past 23 years working in the City. Around half of that time was at Barclays, with the remainder at two other global banks, where I advised predominantly FTSE 100 companies on foreign exchange and treasury. I now work for a company called Birchstone, doing exactly the same thing, only we help UK SMEs. I hope I can use my experience in finance to participate in relevant debates and Bills.
My father was in the Navy all of his life and was president of the Royal British Legion. As a result of my naval upbringing, I will take a keen interest in the House on anything veteran-related and issues which will affect ex-military servicemen and women. I would also like to be involved with anything related to sport and its positive effects on society, such as the work that the Sport England organisation carries out. That leads me on to today’s discussion, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan.
It was the Roman poet, Juvenal, who wrote in around 80 AD
“Mens sana in corpore sano”
and in doing so coined the phrase “healthy body, health mind”. The reason for my interest in this debate is that I understand and have been a beneficiary of the positive effects of sport. I have been taking regular exercise for the past 25 years and, without a shadow of a doubt, it has enabled me to remain healthy, feel good and work hard. The benefits of sport and exercise are well publicised and manifold.
As this excellent plan states, sport and physical activity can change lives, improve physical and mental health and well-being and lead to a better quality of life, as well as benefiting both national and local economies. Unfortunately, although we know this to be the case, there remain high levels of inactivity within the population, and if we can overcome this, the benefits for all will be felt.
One of the key findings of the report from my perspective is that we have to instil a lifelong habit of sport and activity within our children and younger population. By nurturing this love of sport from an early age, we can try to ensure that when the younger generation grow, they will continue to adopt an exercise regime and instil that love of sport and exercise into their own children, thereby creating a virtuous circle. Physical education should be encouraged in schools, and the report believes that the physical literacy of children should be valued as highly as their educational literacy and numeracy. I could not agree more. Physical exercise should be the building block for their future, enabling them to maximise their potential in other aspects of their life. The report also suggests campaigns to encourage and inspire parents to be active with their children outside of school. This can dovetail with a requirement for local authorities to provide and maintain adequate facilities for sport and physical activity for local communities.
There are so many invaluable recommendations and findings in this report, and I very much hope they will be acted on. I look forward to working with noble Lords on this report and any future business relating to this subject.
Lord Bethell (Con)
It is a great honour to follow my noble friend Lord Effingham in his maiden speech. It was an absolute model of its kind, and I think we were all very impressed by the way he put it. His commitment to supporting the lives of veterans is something I think we would all want to endorse. His speech was a masterclass in making the case for sports. I particularly enjoyed his reference to his forebear, William Howard, who was a Lord Chamberlain, a Lord Admiral, a diplomat and all-round British superhero, and who served Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth. You will remember that he was elevated to the peerage for taking on Wyatt’s rebellion at Ludgate in the City of London and turning around the rebel crowd. So when crowds next come braying at the gates of Parliament, we will know who to turn to when we want to send someone out to negotiate.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan is absolutely right, and I violently agree with him, that the question of sport in this country is 100% a health question. We are in desperate trouble in this country: our health outcomes have fallen back very severely. As a former Health Minister who was on the front line of the pandemic, I felt that very severely. It is absolutely right that this report puts health in the centre. In fact, I would be more ambitious than the report has spelled out; the ambition should be for Britain to become the healthiest country in the developed world. The failure to engage in that kind of mission, the failure to lift our eyes and truly believe with confidence that we can turn around the problems of the past few years and make Britain healthier, is at the root of failure to address illness. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, put it extremely well: we have to stop people falling ill, or we will have an NHS cost that explodes, a workforce that is unable to work and an economy that cannot pay for schools, pensions and illness.
However, we are going backwards at the moment, not forwards. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, put it extremely well: activity among young people aged 16 to 34 dropped from 72% to 66% from 2015 to 2022. That is a terrible statistic and a shocking state of affairs, so we have some really hard questions to ask.
I am afraid that I do not agree that we should somehow dump the responsibility for sport on the Department of Health and Social Care. Having been in that department, I can tell noble Lords that there is quite a lot going on already—it is pretty swamped trying to tackle waiting lists, build hospitals, sort out our catastrophic care service and prevent illness. I do not think that scapegoating the department by dumping the responsibility for sport on it is the silver bullet that anyone would hope for. I know that that is not exactly what my noble friend Lord Moynihan has in mind; I would just like to flag it to add a sense of proportion.
Responsibility for the health of the nation, and therefore for sport, needs to be spread much more broadly, rather than simply scapegoating the NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care. We need houses that have green spaces and access to sports facilities—access is very important. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, pointed out, schools are absolutely central to solving health and sport issues. We have sold off far too many sports grounds; sport is not taught properly and the risk-averse nature of the sports culture in schools means that not enough kids are doing it. The list is quite long, but it is critical that we sort it out.
In practical terms, I find the state of the swimming pool estate heartbreaking. I am utterly obsessed by swimming at the moment—I can tell noble Lords another time about my adventures in the outdoor and wild swimming game. Nearly half of our swimming pool estate is under threat of closure at the moment. Something needs to be done. The Government may be cash-strapped and their credit card may be maxed out, but, as my noble friend Lord Holmes said, it would be heartbreaking if more than half of kids in the next generation did not learn to swim, which is where we are heading at the moment.
The problem is not central control of sport; it is more about local authorities. I will not go through it in depth, but my experience as a Health Minister taught me that there has been a great hollowing out of the resources of local authorities, which is seen severely in the area of sport. There is not enough access or encouragement and the culture in many of our communities is simply not supported by the necessary resources to do it.
On big sporting events, I will throw in a note of challenge as a bit of a sceptic. I apologise to the amazing Olympians in our presence but, in terms of delivering actual activity, our big events have simply not encouraged our population to engage in sport. That is a big failure.
We need our sports clubs—we have fantastic football and rugby clubs—to do more than they do at the moment, and we need our employers to put sport at the centre of the workplace experience. We have 20 pubs, clubs and restaurants in this building and one very poky gym—I do not know whether anyone here has been to it, but it is not as good as many of the pubs and clubs. That culture really needs to change.
To conclude, the project of getting Britain healthier could not be more important. The role of sport is central to that. We need to change the environment in which people live and give them agency and the ability to address their behaviours. Sport is the one thing you can take on yourself that will really improve your health outcomes. That is why we need to support people to do sport: it will give them the opportunity to turn around their health outcomes. It is also why I would like to see this much more widely distributed across the responsibilities of government.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I first welcome on to the pitch, if I may use a rather cheap sporting analogy, the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and congratulate him on his debut and his excellent maiden speech. We look forward to hearing more from him.
I should also congratulate the committee on producing such a comprehensive and thought-provoking report on an increasingly critical subject. I agree with many of its recommendations, not least the need for a national action plan, and I would argue that, if we are serious about uniting health and well-being with sport, then, yes, we do need a dedicated ministerial post within the Department of Health to take ownership, as this is a complex and fiendishly difficult area to get right.
In the report, I thought that the University of Cambridge’s MRC unit made a telling point when it suggested a
“national plan for active lives”
rather than for “sport and recreation”. It is the word “activity” that I will focus on, because this has become a huge issue—not just for sport, health and recreation but for education, the economy and the workforce.
If noble Lords have not done so already, I encourage them to read the latest report from the Economic Affairs Committee—I declare my interest as a member—entitled Where Have All the Workers Gone? The UK has seen an alarming drop since 2019 in the number of economically active people. This trend is now the single biggest drag on economic growth and may continue for many years. It raises major questions over our nation’s health, and in particular workforce fitness in an ageing population.
In just three years, some 500,000 people in the UK have been added to the long-term sickness category, taking the total to 2.5 million. In addition, hundreds of thousands of apparently healthy 50 to 64 year-olds have opted to retire early and become economically inactive. So that is a partial response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on economic cost.
As we know, levels of physical activity have fallen in recent years, not helped by the surge in sedentary hours spent online. This has happened in spite of the legacy of such events as the London Olympics, or indeed the £1.5 billion spent by Sport England—to which I will come back in a moment.
Talking of Sport England, I find the setting of activity targets too simplistic and binary. You are deemed “active” if you do more than 150 minutes of activity a week and, bizarrely, “fairly active” if you do just 30 minutes a week. I appreciate that Sport England is taking its cue from the Chief Medical Officer, but it should look at the medical research on reducing the risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes 2, cancer and dementia. In all cases, the recommended activity tends to be at least 30 minutes a day, or 200 to 300 minutes a week—a huge difference. I suggest that these targets need to be recalibrated to reflect the real health benefits, particularly at the margins.
In terms of measurement, we should be leveraging the health and sports tech companies to provide far more comprehensive and sophisticated data, focusing not just on the number of minutes but on the intensity and type of exercise. In my former life, I was an information and data entrepreneur, brought up on concepts such as statistical significance, return on investment and impact analysis—all highly relevant here, but largely absent in terms of execution. We discovered that Sport England distributed £1.5 billion in grants over five years but knows which local authorities the funds went to for only £450 million of that. So we can forget about impact analysis, or any sort of effective evaluation.
We are struggling with a multiplicity of players and stakeholders, both national and local, while the health and well-being remit runs across departments—DCMS, health, education, the Treasury of course, and now levelling up. This week’s Cabinet reshuffle has resulted in the “digital” part being removed, so it is CMS and not DCMS. But digital is so wrapped up in media, as we can see with the Online Safety Bill, that I am not sure the department has lost the right letter.
That said, I welcome the right honourable Lucy Frazer as the new Secretary of State—the eighth, by my count, in the past five years. One of the Government’s excuses last year for delaying yet again the launch of a new sports strategy was that the then new Minister needed time to settle in. In view of this, I ask the noble Lord the Minister when this strategy will realistically see the light of day.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech. I hope that we as Members of the upper House will hear him much more often on the issues where he has expertise. I feel I am a lone voice today. I have played a lot of sport in my life. I played for the English schoolboys at rugby—I was at Twickenham last Saturday. I have played, to put it modestly, extremely good tennis across the world. I played in Canada, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka, and I am privileged to be a member of the All-England Club. I play golf. I am president of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Golfing Society, which is also a privilege, and I am also president of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club. I am not just a titular president. I am alongside the chairman, and I am invited to attend the committees—quite rightly without voting powers—and I think I understand the world of cricket in considerable depth in the difficult time at the moment. Finally, at the age of 86 with two artificial knees, I have taken up croquet, and I do a lot of walking backwards and forwards in your Lordships’ House.
I understand the depth of feeling that has gone into this national plan. The very word “national” grates with me. A UK plan would suggest that it would be operating in the devolved parts of the United Kingdom, and they play rugby slightly differently in Scotland—rather better than us at the moment—and are doing something different on cricket. Certainly in Northern Ireland, where I was a PPS, sport is very different from what it is in England. If it is to be UK, fine, but I do not think that “national” is the right word. I think it should be devolved if it is to happen at all.
To me, the whole thing smacks of being a dictatorial policy from on high, then I read about the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. That is a function of the Department of Health, but it suggests considerably more bureaucracy as far as I can see. Even worse, it proposes that sport, in all its aspects, should come from the Department of Health. Even my noble friend who was in the Department of Health and did a wonderful job through the whole of the Covid period—my goodness, he must really have worked the hours—says that it is not a good idea to put it in the Department of Health. I know a bit about the Department of Health because I am married to a retired GP and my son was a GP and is now a deputy coroner in Southwark. I know that the National Health Service has a huge number of problems at this point in time and is totally incapable of taking anything else on at all. I hope that my noble friends who have to make decisions will think about that.
I am slightly surprised, when we have a new Minister for Sport—an excellent promotion in my judgment—to read that my Government are proposing a task force that is chaired by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. We have made no decision that sport should come under that department yet, so it seems to me that that is somewhat premature. I do not understand why it is not still with DCMS.
For me, the challenge falls into two parts. One is the overall improvement of the health and well-being of the nation—diet, exercise and the bits that are relevant to the Department of Health and Social Care—but the overall improvement of the physical fitness of the nation depends on the implementation of physical activity in sport and individual physical activity. In sport, there is professional sport, school sport—I agree with what has been said about the need to improve school sport—and voluntary sport.
For example, I look at the depth of cricket in Northamptonshire, where I was an MP, and the ethnic balance there. There are far more ethnic people playing cricket in Northamptonshire today than there ever used to be, and they come right the way through to our first-division team. Then there is also what we call individual sport activity.
Yes, the disabled are left out; I moved a motion the other day at the MCC that one of the new activities we should have at Lord’s cricket ground is a disabled cricket championship, for want of a better word. The poor are also left out. That is why we need charities or someone else there. For a sport such as cricket, it is quite expensive to buy a cricket bat and pads. We are providing a charitable dimension in Northamptonshire, as I believe others are doing.
We need pathways, and that is what we are now getting. In my judgment, some of the evidence offered today is plainly out of date. We have a pathway in Northamptonshire to the mainly Pakistani ethnic community in Luton. We have a nursery there that feeds through to the academy, and some of them will doubtless come through that pathway. We have another pathway being built up in Peterborough. We are not alone; it is happening in other counties, with varying levels of success.
I am sorry to say to my noble friend that I am not impressed with the plan. I do not think it will work. I think it will be darned expensive and it is another piece of bureaucracy. You cannot dictate to people. You must ensure that they do things because they want to do them. The framework has to be there for them to do that, and noble Lords are absolutely right that the leisure centres that have been closed because of energy problems should be reopened. That must happen, but we have a wonderful blend of volunteers in this country who spend time and energy alongside the professionals to make sport work.
We have moved tremendously in the past 10 years on the problem that this plan is put forward to address. In my judgment, if it had come 10 years earlier, it might have worked, but it is too late now. I think we should let sport lie within DCMS but have a clearer voice there.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I thoroughly enjoyed serving on the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee and thank everybody involved in producing such an excellent report. I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who sadly is not here today, for his excellent chairmanship and my noble friend Lord Moynihan for helping drive this important subject to a committee of the House. I also draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests set out in the register, as I shall mention one of them later. It was also good to hear from my noble friend Lord Naseby that he plays tennis. I play a little too, so if he would like a game sometime, I am sure we can arrange it.
As we have already heard, there is so much more work to be done to tackle health inequalities across the nation. Sport and physical activity provision must be one of the primary tools to achieve this and help foster and support the culture needed to deliver a healthier society. Extremely good provision is being delivered, but so much more can be achieved. When the committee initially released the report in December 2021, the then Minister indicated his support for many of the recommendations made in it, so it is disappointing that there seems to have been such little progress considering the initial positive noises from government.
The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities highlighted data in March 2022 relating to how physical inactivity is associated with one in six deaths in the UK and is estimated to cost the economy £7.4 billion annually. Our population is around 20% less active than it was in the 1960s. One in three men, 34%, and one in two women, 42%, are not active enough for good health. We really need to get a grip on this.
We know that physical activity leads to better mental and physical health. That is partly why the report recommended that the OHID should be renamed as well as placed on a statutory footing and that physical activity, health and well-being should be prioritised across government. We have heard many urgent issues raised today, from PE becoming a core subject to saving our swimming pools, and there are many that I would have wished to speak on. I hope the Minister will be able to give some hope on the concerns highlighted today so that we can make genuine progress.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would welcome some positive feedback, especially in light of the Health Minister’s response to his Health Promotion Bill that the OHID’s
“core aim is to reduce preventable ill health and health disparities”
and that
“We are all united in wanting to find the best way to promote healthy living through sport, education and active lifestyle.”—[Official Report, 2/12/22; cols. 2002-05.]
I also reinforce the report’s recommendation on the importance of improving social prescribing, which has been mentioned briefly today, with local authorities working more closely with health and well-being boards, local NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups to ensure that co-ordination and quality are enhanced to create better outcomes.
A taskforce set up by the Alliance of Sport in Criminal Justice, which I chair, recently published the Get Well, Stay Well agreement. It provides a framework for increased collaboration, health promotion and the use of physical activity and sport to tackle health inequalities across the justice system. Like so many issues that need to be addressed, the report highlights the urgent need for cross-departmental working in this area, which, if achieved, could make a real difference. To move forward and reverse the decline that we have seen in physical activity levels across the population, bringing relevant national and local stakeholders together would be a really good first step. It would be helpful to know what updates my noble friend the Minister can give us on the work that the OHID is undertaking in this area, particularly on the promotion of sport and physical activity in tackling health inequalities.
Another recommendation in the report that I would like briefly to touch on is with regard to the physical activity observatory, which my noble friend Lord Moynihan touched on earlier. At present, the sector is fractured in its reporting and lacks substantive evidence in certain areas. Acting as a central point for data collection that could in turn be independently monitored, an observatory would bring relevant stakeholders together and gather the data needed to better support and show the benefits of investment and delivery and to drive this whole agenda further and faster.
If we do not act soon, particularly in the current climate, with grass-roots sport under pressure and budgets constrained, we risk sleepwalking into a society with even worse outcomes and a generation not being offered the vast range of opportunities that follow from better physical and mental health. I remind noble Lords that not only are we less active than in the 1960s but the OHID predicts that, if current trends continue, our population will be 35% less active by 2030. We cannot allow this to happen—we really must act now.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to join in this debate. I thank my noble friend in sport, to use his expression, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, very much for introducing it. I shall pass on to my noble friend Lord Willis the wishes that have been expressed, and the support of all those who supported the committee. He did a wonderful job, and actually made it a pleasant experience.
We have had one or two voices against the report, which probably makes it slightly more interesting. To deal with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, first, this is not something that the Department of Health has to do—it is about the Department of Health looking out. It is not about the Department of Health taking over sport; it is about making sure that it happens and making sure that sport and recreation has somebody championing it.
One thing we have not mentioned that we should have done is the fact that we now have the power in the Department of Agriculture to create footpaths. Let us create a footpath and have somebody making sure that those footpaths connect and that the local bus service connects with them, or that at least you can park your car. Footpaths that dump you on to the middle of B-roads without anywhere to walk afterwards are useless to the vast majority of the population. It is about making sure that somebody can do that, and making sure that, in your planning, there is some green space so a child can play—that is the sort of thing which something that looks out can do. It can make sure that a plan for sport actually looks out.
The Department of Health is uniquely well placed because it touches everything. I am afraid that the current departmental structure does not; it mainly just distributes lottery money, and does a little bit of everything else. And if you put it in the Department for Education—as I have said on numerous occasions to numerous bodies, the thing about children is that they grow up. Even if they have a good experience at school, sport must be brought to them, and they need to be told that they are taking it forward. One or two of the Government’s initiatives on that seem to have largely died, and I am afraid that the coalition Government takes some of the blame for that.
Lord Addington (LD)
Thank you. We have to make sure that that link is improved because, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, pointed out, the prosperous classes will carry on playing sport: “We’ve never had a problem, we can afford private memberships, we’ve got cars to take us to places”. Not everyone has those resources.
I will give an anecdote from the village of Lambourn, where I live. Two mothers were in front of me in the Co-op, which is where all the action happens there, and one said, “My son wants to join the football team, but he can’t because we haven’t got a car and there’ll be away games”. I turned around and said, “They’ll probably have a minibus that will drive you there”. The response: “Oh, I couldn’t expect that”. That is a real attitude. Unless we get something that looks at the structure and encourages those for whom it is not easy to take on sport, we will continue on our current path. This is not about new failure; it is a continuation of what we have. As noble Lords have mentioned, 40% of leisure centres and pools are threatened with closure, because we did not include them in our energy support strategies. It was coming anyway—the pressure was there—but this might just be the catalyst. The Government overlooked how important they are.
The Department of Health gets a direct benefit from physical activity, because it is a preventive wonder drug for mental and physical health. It is also a socialising factor. By supporting sport, we can make sure that we take a bigger bonus from it. We have all heard about workforces, retirements and so on, and all these factors will help. Somebody who is active and engaged can possibly be encouraged to go to a second career. All this is there, if we do it a little better than we are doing it now.
In this country, the Government have inherited, historically, something wonderful, which is the fact that much of our sporting structure was done on a voluntary basis and formed by people outside the national structures. Not one of the FA, RFU or MCC is a government-funded or government-initiated structure. Sport owns a lot of its own facilities here. You do not have to put that much in. We are mainly talking about amateur sport, which—I will define it again—is where you pay to play; you do not get paid. People are doing that, and providing a coaching base, putting on activities and social funds, and many other things. If we have some form of government backing to make sure that they are supported, we will take a bonus at all levels. If we make sure that this happens, something positive can come from it.
It does not mean an increase in bureaucracy. I will tell noble Lords how many bits of government bureaucracy we already have here. I picked out 10 schemes from the Government’s response to this report. They include:
“a new sport strategy to be published in 2022,”
the reports Uniting the Movement and Gear Change, and several campaigns, including We Are Undefeatable, Rediscover Summer, the 10 Minute Shake Up campaign, Join the Movement and This Girl Can. I could go on. I am sure that if I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, she would find a couple more. Then you have the ones for individual sports.
Unless you have a central drive—and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned this—little packages, with little impetus but wonderful photo ops, it will die. If anyone has not seen that, I can quote you a few, as well as some that repeat themselves over and over again. That is what we have a tradition of; we do not have a tradition of maintaining and structuring support and driving it forward, which is what we need because, if the Government give a little push, the rest of the sporting community will do most of this for them, if they make it a little easier for it. But we do not do that—we sit back and then decide that, in education, the literacy hour or the new maths scheme to the age of 18 must take precedence, when we all know that physical activity improves grades within the school system. That is absolutely proven and unanswerable.
We have to look at this in the round and make sure that the Government take this seriously, to get the benefits that are so easy to get. If the Department of Health cannot do this, what other department has that degree of reach and authority? The Treasury is the only one, but I am afraid that our Treasury is not about investment but about controlling spending. Can we have a government response that tells us how we will get coherent about supporting this? The health benefits that we have at the moment are under direct threat; they are more difficult to obtain for those who need it most because of the funding structure, given the current financial squeeze and energy crisis. How will we answer this?
For every two or three leisure centres or swimming pools that are closed down, only one will open—we know that. Every voluntary group that uses them, not just for sport but for the arts, social activity and anything else, will also lose its base of operation and all the social and physical benefits. How will the Government get a coherent attitude to this? There is a chance for them to take a huge win here, and I hope that we will hear how they plan to do this, because at the moment we seem to be sleepwalking towards the edge of a cliff.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a wonderful debate—one of the best I have heard in the Grand Committee Room, and, indeed, in the House, in some time. I had not realised I was living among so many sporting greats until I heard the effusion of speeches this afternoon. We genuinely owe the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, a great debt of gratitude: he has done a brilliant job in pulling this excellent report together. The recommendations speak for themselves and make a cogent and coherent case.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on how he kicked off the debate. He did the noble Lord, Lord Willis, justice and made a powerful, and pretty much unarguable, case for a national plan for sport. I also acknowledge and thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his brilliant maiden speech this afternoon and his contribution to our debate. When he started talking about the defeat of the Spanish, I thought he meant a fixture that I had missed in an earlier iteration of the sport I love most, which is football. The noble Earl went on to address other subjects as well, and, if he does that as he did today, the House will greatly benefit from his input and wisdom.
I made notes about comments that colleagues made in the debate, and some points stood out for me in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a great plea for a national plan, and he pointed out the widening gap between elite performance in sport and the general participation of our population. He mentioned the recommendations being useful in addressing that, and described the plan as a “vibrant” manifesto for parties to consider at the next general election. That is right: sport should be very much at the forefront of our thinking for that.
My noble friend Lady Morris said that we needed an argument, a row, a national debate. She was right. The point about physical literacy is terribly important, and we should have it firmly in our minds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, made the powerful point, repeating an argument that has been put many times before, that sport has the power to change the world. That is absolutely right; we should just look at the way in which it transforms lives in our communities up and down the country now. Worryingly, she pointed out that 34% of councils are likely to close their swimming pools in the next period. That is a frightening statistic. As someone who played a major role in local government for many years—I do not know about others in the Room today—I have seen the decline of our sporting facilities over that period, as less and less money has been invested as budgets are squeezed.
I liked the reference made by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, to the potential for sport to widen the participation of different communities. She referred in particular to the Bangladeshi community and the joy that she discovered in sport as she grew up.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, nailed it when he talked about a “leisure centre emergency”. These are powerful expressions that we should not lose sight of. My noble friend Lord Knight talked about the core problem of inactivity. As ever, he was absolutely right.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was our primary doubter. He did not like the idea of a national plan. I suspect that goes to the core of his political thinking, but even he admitted that we needed a UK plan and personally I do not really see much of a difference. However, it is important that we understand where sceptics are coming from because, if we do not, we will not make the coherent argument that we need to deliver on a national plan.
I also enjoyed the reflections of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, and her challenge for others to get involved in the game of tennis. I am probably past my best in that sport, but I still enjoy a game of cricket and intend this summer to return to that game in my 70th year.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Well, if you had been there in my 30th year, you would have been among those whom I bowled out regularly.
This has been a very important debate for all of us join together in. The report notes high levels of inactivity among certain societal groups—it has been a problem for many decades, and we need to grasp it—leading not only to those health issues that we have concerns about but to social and community cohesion being the poorer for it.
The last Labour Government took a number of positive steps to get children and other groups more interested in sport and physical activity, but that momentum has been lost over the past 13 years. If that sounds like a party-political point, it probably is, but it is to do with the way in which our current Government have failed to build on some of the legacy opportunities, in particular the London 2012 legacy, which was a missed opportunity.
As I said earlier, the cuts to local authority and public health funding, as well as changes to the national curriculum and the expansion of academies and free schools, have left a patchwork of provision of sports clubs and facilities across the country.
We know that cuts to public health budgets have disproportionately hit groups who were already less physically active, which is why the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is a very good idea, even if there are issues around its operation. In December, the House debated a Private Member’s Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which sought to enact one of the key recommendations of the Select Committee: that is, that the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities be renamed the Office for Health Promotion. That is an important point, but to put it on a statutory footing is important too.
In his response to that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, made a series of commitments, including that the Government would publish various updated strategies in the first quarter of this year, rather than 2022 as was originally intended. The Government claim that cross-departmental working in this area is functioning well, so in that spirit can the Minister confirm the status of those documents? Has he been personally involved in the processes? Can he update us on where those documents have got to and what the Government intend to do to bring forward some form of national strategy?
In their response to this report, the Government cite various pots of money for new football pitches and school sports facilities and a commitment to renovate existing park tennis courts. Can the Minister confirm how many facilities have actually been built or renovated since the announcements were made? I would very much like to know where they are and what improvements have been seen.
We are glad that the Government agree with the committee’s views on the importance of public messaging campaigns such as “This Girl Can”. This arguably runs contrary to other areas of policy where the Government seem to put too little resource into raising public awareness. Let us hope that it is different for sport. Can the Minister go into more detail on Sport England’s upcoming campaigns and comment on whether DCMS and the Department of Health and Social Care have assessed the potential benefits of broader public information campaigns on some of these issues?
I cannot let this debate pass without expressing thanks to community groups, sports clubs and amateur coaches across the country. They do so much to involve and inspire others, even if they do not always feel supported in that work. At least this group of Members can express their support and encouragement for their efforts.
The social and health benefits that could be derived from improving participation in sports and physical activity are huge, as a number of noble Lords have said. We owe it to those who run initiatives across the country to try to realise the benefits sooner rather than later, as we will otherwise face a health emergency. As the report points out, and as I think the Minister would acknowledge, making meaningful progress will take concerted action across Whitehall. Now that the Prime Minister has rejigged departments, are the Government confident that they can deliver?
I will spend a few moments reflecting on the decline at a non-elite level of one of our great sports, which the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, referred to: cricket. When I was a schoolboy, cricket was played in schools. Schools had cricket pitches which were well looked after. We played our rival schools in the summer games. For me, there were only two seasons in the year, not four—cricket and football. They were really important for us, growing up as we did. Cricket in state schools is pretty much non-existent unless you happen to be the beneficiary of something like Rod Aldridge’s sports academy, which focuses on cricket in the city where I live. That is a terrible gap. Cricket is a great game, not just because it is physical activity but because it takes you into the worlds of literature and maths—it is three or four disciplines all in one game of participation. However, there is little concern or interest from the Government in making that sport part of the regular day-to-day activity of the school curriculum.
Excellence at elite-level rugby league, rugby, football and cricket is a bonus to us. Winning more medals at the Olympics and the Lionesses winning the Euro championship are wonderful moments for national celebration, but they do not of themselves encourage wider sporting participation. The committee’s report goes a long way to addressing the steps we need to take to ensure that that ceases to be the case in future and, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, becomes our manifesto—and a vibrant one, at that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a spirited and thoughtful debate, following the lead set by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who opened it brilliantly on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, to whom we send our best wishes. We have heard from five former government Ministers, whose careers have spanned I think 10 departments, and accomplished players and followers of many more sports, including noble Lords who, between them, have an impressive haul of 32 Olympic and Paralympic medals.
Some of these accolades may still be in store for my noble friend Lord Effingham. He eloquently set out his strong credentials and personal passion for speaking on certain topics, including that before your Lordships today. We warmly welcome both his mens sana and corpus sanum—I believe I have declined them correctly, but he is the classicist and will correct me—to your Lordships’ House and look forward very much to hearing more from him in debates in the years to come.
It has been very clear from all your Lordships’ speeches that sport has a vital role to play in our lives through its power to be a force for good and something which brings people together, as well as an important tool in improving the health and well-being of the nation. The benefits of participating in sport and physical activity are well known. Undertaking regular activity helps improve people’s health, both physical and mental, not just giving them healthier lives but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, pointed out, easing the pressure on our National Health Service. Sport also has the power to bring people closer together by fostering social cohesion and reducing loneliness, an essential part of a healthy and happy life. Research commissioned by Sport England shows that for every £1 that is invested in community sport, there is a return of £3.91 in wider social and economic value. That is why the Government are so committed to ensuring that everyone, across the whole country, has access to high-quality provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, was right to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a former Secretary of State responsible for sport and for health, but even if he were not, the economic benefits are clear. A robust and high-performing sport sector is immensely valuable to our economy, contributing £39 billion a year. In terms of jobs, in the decade and a half from 2003 to 2017, the sector saw employment growth of 42%, with 129,000 new jobs created.
While my department holds the remit for sport, it is the responsibility of many departments to ensure that people lead healthy and active lives. As we made clear in our response to the report of your Lordships’ committee, the Government do not believe that we need a machinery of government change to bring a sharper focus to that work. As we said in our response, sport is a major focus for officials at DCMS, indeed a larger one now that sport accounts for a greater proportion of our work following the machinery of government changes announced this week. I think I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who was a very effective Sports Minister, did that while working for the Department of the Environment, and we have seen considerable and important work led by Sports Ministers working with colleagues across a number of government departments over the years.
However, the Government agree with your Lordships’ committee on the importance of setting a strategic direction for sport and physical activity. We have been working on a new sport strategy. I have not been involved in that work as Minister for Arts and Heritage, but I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that it will be published in the first quarter of this year. We are also refreshing the school sport activity action plan. The new sport strategy will have a specific focus on addressing inactivity levels and the barriers which prevent people participating in sport and physical activity. We will consider the challenges facing children and young people and ensure that facilities are accessible to everyone.
The strategy has been drafted in consultation with key sector representatives as well as our arm’s-length bodies and active partnerships, which enable vital local collaboration. We are confident that this new strategy will address many of the important points raised by your Lordships’ committee, while recognising, as your Lordships have done, that action to address these issues requires a united, cross-government approach, an holistic understanding of physical activity, and strong local leadership.
I mentioned just now our arm’s-length body, Sport England, through which we annually invest more than £250 million of public and National Lottery funding. We are particularly keen to ensure that less affluent communities are not forgotten, which is why over the past 12 months, one-fifth of Sport England’s local investment has been in projects in the most deprived areas, those classed as IMD1.
Your Lordships’ committee mentioned measuring the impact of Sport England. We agree that that is crucial and can confirm that work is under way to ensure the fundamental alignment of Sport England’s work with the Government’s sports strategy.
My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who is always an innovative thinker, raised the importance of innovation and data. As he would expect of a department that had until Tuesday “digital” in its name, we recognise the importance of digital tools and data in supporting people to be active. Sport England has worked with the Open Data Institute to develop OpenActive, a key programme to help tackle inequalities in activity, and we will continue to monitor how money is spent, gathering data to show impact at a local level, and work with Sport England to include specific key performance indicators to decrease inactivity, particularly among underrepresented groups.
Sport is uniquely placed to help create a more inclusive society, as speeches from noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, reminded us today. It has the power to bring people together, no matter what their background. The Government are working closely with Sport England, UK Sport and the national governing bodies to tackle all forms of discrimination, from grass-roots level to elite level. Our aim is to increase diversity among sporting organisations. By helping the sports sector to become more inclusive, we hope that it will become more welcoming to all spectators and participants, and to the people in its workforce, and that this in turn will enable and encourage more people to get active.
I will turn to some examples of the Government’s work in this important area. We recognise the importance of sport and physical activity for people with disabilities and continue to work with partners to encourage sport to be accessible to all. Indeed, the Government’s National Disability Strategy, published in the summer of 2021, included commitments to improve the accessibility of sport and physical activity, in line with our and Sport England’s ambitions. This will help enable disabled people to live more active and independent lives. Sport England has ensured that each of its programmes has a positive impact on people with disabilities through initiatives such as the Together Fund. It has so far invested £8.5 million in over 2,200 projects that support disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.
Along with noble Lords who have echoed this point today, we strongly believe that there is no place for any kind of discrimination in sport. We know that experiences of discrimination are not only hugely detrimental to people’s propensity to be active; they can also create divisions in local communities. At the Qatar World Cup, my colleague Stuart Andrew, the Minister for Sport but also the Minister for Equality, chose to wear the OneLove armband to support gay, lesbian. bisexual, trans and queer people, and send a positive message that everyone should feel welcome at all sports tournaments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the importance of safeguarding, and it is vital that everyone participating in sport feels safe and secure, and that, where allegations of inappropriate or harmful behaviour are made, they are taken seriously. There is no place for abuse of any kind in sport and anyone responsible for such behaviour must be held accountable. We have taken significant steps to improve safeguarding in sport, including the revision of standards and protections for children in sport, the introduction of an independent complaints and disclosure system for elite sport, and the strengthening of positions of trust legislation. But we will continue to work to make sport in the UK inclusive and welcoming for everyone, at every level.
A number of noble Lords mentioned facilities, which are indeed fundamental to a strong sporting community. The Government are acting to deliver the right facilities that every community needs across the United Kingdom. We are investing a total of £230 million between 2022 and 2025, and I can tell noble Lords that £43 million of that was delivered in 2021-22. This includes an existing £18 million of annual commitment in England, which is delivered through the Football Foundation in partnership with the FA and the Premier League. This investment will build up or improve up to 8,000 facilities across the country, especially in some of the most deprived areas.
The focus is not just on football: 40% of our investment will deliver facilities that can support multiple sports. We are also investing £30 million, together with the Lawn Tennis Association, to renovate and repair thousands of public park tennis courts, which might be able to host the match between my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lady Sater—I know who my money would be on.
Like my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, we recognise the importance of ensuring public access to leisure facilities, including swimming pools, which are great spaces for people of all ages and backgrounds to stay fit and healthy. They also play a vital role in their communities. The responsibility for providing access to public leisure facilities, as noble Lords know, lies with local authorities, which the Government continue to encourage to invest in this. We know that the rise in the cost of living, and energy costs in particular, is concerning for many clubs and for local authorities. That is why we supported them through the energy bills relief scheme and continue to provide support under the energy bills discount scheme.
My noble friend Lord Holmes asked what we are doing at a national government level. My right honourable friend the Sport Minister is actively engaging with the sector, including by recently holding a round table to continue to assess the ongoing impact on leisure centres. So that work continues.
I turn to the important role of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which was raised by my noble friend Lady Sater and others. It was established in 2021 and works across government, using evidence to influence policy and ensure greater consideration of preventing ill health and tackling disparities in cross-government decision-making. It is taking action on the major preventable conditions that drive ill health and early death, including cardiovascular disease and some cancers, as well as the risk factors that can cause those conditions, including tobacco, obesity, alcohol and drug use. It does this alongside local government, the National Health Service, academia and industry.
As the Government mentioned in our response to the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Addington —the Health Promotion Bill—social prescribing is an evolving and important mechanism to direct and refer people into physical activity opportunities. The Government are providing £13.9 million to deliver active travel social prescribing pilot programmes to 11 local authority areas across England. The funding will go towards projects including adult cycle training, free bicycle loans and walking groups.
The Government have a particular focus on supporting children and young people to become more active. Quite simply, sport and physical activity are a life-long habit that needs to be carefully nurtured from a young age, as noble Lords raised. High-quality physical education and sport in all schools is fundamental to ensuring that every child and young person has the opportunity to take part in a range of sports, which is why PE is a compulsory subject in the national curriculum from key stages 1 to 4. The PE national curriculum aims to ensure that all pupils develop competence to excel in a broad range of sport and physical activities, are physically active for sustained periods of time, and engage in competitive sports and activities. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked when the Sport Minister last discussed the curriculum with the Schools Minister. I can tell him that they discussed it in public just last month, when both spoke in another place in a debate on sport in schools.
On teachers, we are committed to ensuring that evidence-informed training, support and professional development runs through every teacher’s career. The evidence base underpinning the initial teacher training core content framework is the same as that underpinning the early career framework and the new national professional qualifications. This will ensure coherence and quality through teacher training and development that is based on the best evidence of what works. Some 179 providers have been successful, following a rigorous accreditation process designed to drive up the quality and consistency of initial teacher training.
The Government continue to fund the primary PE and sport premium, with £320 million of funding to primary schools confirmed for the current academic year. Since 2013, the total is over £2 billion. The PE and sport premium supports primary schools to make additional and sustainable improvements to the quality of the PE, school sport and physical activity that they provide. The Government are currently considering arrangements for the primary PE and sport premium for the forthcoming academic year and beyond, which will be announced as soon as possible.
Alongside community facilities, facilities on school sites represent an important resource for pupils and their families. The Department for Education is providing additional support to schools to open their sporting facilities outside the core day—at weekends and in the school holidays—which will increase sporting opportunities for pupils and wider community users from parts of the country with low physical activity levels. The Department for Education has procured a national partner to deliver phase 3 of its opening schools’ facilities programme. This phase aims to connect schools to national and local sporting organisations that can offer children and young people more opportunities to access extracurricular activities.
The Government also support physical activity and sport outside the school term through the £200 million a year holiday activities and food programme. All local authorities in England are delivering this programme, which takes place in schools and community venues and which supports disadvantaged pupils and families with enriching activities, including sport, as well as with healthy food. Last summer, the programme reached over 685,000 children and young people in England, including more than 580,000 funded directly by the programme.
Of course, as noble Lords reminded us, getting moving is not confined to playing sport. People can get fitter and healthier through increased walking and cycling in their daily lives. Last August, the Department for Transport formally established Active Travel England as an executive agency. As a delivery body, it will be at the heart of ensuring that the objectives of the Government’s second statutory cycling and walking investment strategy are met, and it will oversee the delivery of funding programmes. The Department for Transport is investing over £200 million on Active Travel projects in this financial year. That includes £161 million on 134 walking and cycling infrastructure schemes across 46 local authorities, including new footways, cycle lanes and pedestrian crossings.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and for the lively and passionate debate we have enjoyed today. I echo the tributes paid by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to the work of voluntary and community sports groups, as well as all those who work professionally to inspire people to get more active. Sport forms an essential part of our society, and I hope that my response has given noble Lords a clear indication of the Government’s commitment to building a healthier and fitter nation. I look forward to debating the topic with noble Lords as we continue that work.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak personally and very briefly. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friend Lord Effingham for his maiden speech. He drew on Juvenal to quote the important phrase about rational minds in healthy bodies. Of course, Juvenal was a Roman satirist, who, if memory serves me right, hated how the politicians controlled his city, and at the same time was angry about how the impoverished were treated, which was one reason why he wanted everybody in the population to have the opportunity of developing a rational mind in a healthy body. So he would probably be sitting on the Opposition Benches, but I have absolutely no doubt that he would be strongly supportive of this report—although my noble friend Lord Naseby will be pleased to learn that he would probably have called it a “city plan” for sport, health and well-being.
I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby. Through his speech today, he has satisfied the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for an argument and a row. Nobody in the committee detracts from the fact that there is much good work being done by governing bodies and by the clubs and associations with which my noble friend is involved, but it was the data in the report that focused our attention.
I do agree with him that we have moved tremendously —but in the wrong direction, as evidenced in participation levels; in poor diets; in obesity; in the failure to promote inclusion and diversity in many governing bodies; in the small but ineffectual steps in duty of care, which is still critical for so many participants in sport; in reaching out and encouraging children in our schools; and in delivering accurate data. It was only five years or so ago when surveys on sport and recreation used only landlines as a basis for getting data. How on earth can you get an accurate representation of participation levels in the country if you are only phoning landlines, when most young people are, of course, on their mobiles?
Anyway, in good spirit, I will continue my discussion with my good and noble friend Lord Naseby, as we have in both places over many decades. I hope he has a relaxing and enjoyable Recess, rereading the National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing.
I genuinely thank the Minister, because I know that, like so many people who have been in his role, his intentions in this direction are right, and I am sure that his commitment is strong. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would have been very grateful for a list of nearly 32 more initiatives to add to his list today, but we on the committee hope that many of them will be turned into action and we are very grateful to the Minister for responding to this debate.
I will end by saying that the committee will continue to pursue with enthusiasm and vigour its recommendations, because evidence-based recommendations are vital, and they are not pointing in the right direction. We are absolutely committed to seeing improvements made to our sport, health and well-being in this country. It is with that intent and gratitude to noble Lords that I thank everybody who has participated in this debate for the contributions that they made.
Afghanistan: British Council Staff
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in helping relocate former British Council staff, living in danger in Afghanistan since 2021, who qualify for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, progress continues to be made to support those eligible under the first year of pathway 3 of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, or ACRS. We have now allocated around 60% of the 1,500 available places to the British Council contractors, GardaWorld contractors and Chevening scholars, including their dependents. An increasing number of individuals are now also safely in a third country and being provided with UK-funded accommodation and other support, while awaiting further checks prior to travelling to and securing accommodation in the UK.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware—I am sure that he is—that these British Council teachers, numbering between 100 and 200 by the latest information, were recruited and directly employed by the British Council, teaching English and inclusion to combat violent extremism and to promote British values? The majority qualify for the ACRS, but they were abandoned in 2021; many are still in hiding and are now actively being targeted and hunted by the Taliban. Given that this British Council work was supported by the UK Government’s ODA budget, what further action is the FCDO taking to ensure that the British Council honours its obligations and responsibilities to those it employed in Afghanistan and does more to help those who have not got the means to buy visas to get out to safety in a third country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness; both the British Council and His Majesty’s Government need to honour the commitments given to the incredible people who helped serve in Afghanistan and carried out such important duties, including through the British Council, in the area of education, among others. We work very closely and have regular meetings with the British Council, and I get regular updates on those who are making progress under pathway 3. There are challenges that are obviously still being worked through, including relating to those who have arrived in the UK through the other two ACRS pathways and are going into permanent accommodation. I assure the noble Baroness that I am focused on ensuring that we see greater progress and deliver on the 1,500 places that were agreed as part of His Majesty’s Government’s commitment. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and others in your Lordships’ House who are also focused on ensuring that we get the desired outcome for all those who serve Britain, as part of the British Council or indeed other organisations.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Will my noble friend the Minister make clear what the criteria are for Afghans coming to the UK? I share with him the example of one of my former academic colleagues who wrote to me the other day saying that he had worked with Kabul University and Kabul Polytechnic University with the British Council. This person has been targeted and had been trying to come to Britain, but he was refused. Can the Minister be quite clear about the criteria for deciding which Afghans who worked for the British should be allowed here? Frankly, most of them should be.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, there are specific criteria for who qualifies under the scheme, which I will work through. To give the context in terms of numbers: when the ACRS pathway 3 was opened, over 11,400 applications were received for those 1,500 places. As I said, we allocated about 1,600 because it is not just the principals but also their dependents and of course additional family members as well. Each one requires scrutiny, checks and security validation—that is part and parcel of the process. The initial criteria that are applied are of course quite strict, including for those who were directly employed by the British Council and who also had direct input into serving British interests. I have worked on this brief since the Taliban takeover; it is probably one of the most complex areas of our work but, equally, we need to ensure that there are robust procedures so that applications are and dealt with as swiftly as possible when they are received. I fully accept that we need to see—and expedite—progress for those who do qualify.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise what the Minister has been doing personally, but we cannot be filled with too much confidence when we hear a Minister say one thing in the Chamber of the House of Commons and then the department say something completely different later. It is an absolute scandal that people who have risked their lives on behalf of the British Government have been left stranded. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that we need proper urgent action; there are 9,000 people who are still at risk in Afghanistan and we owe a duty to them. I understand what the Minister is saying, but I hope that he can assure us that the department will act swiftly with other Whitehall departments to ensure the safety of these people who have protected British interests.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that, to speak for my own department, we are working through those expressions of interest and are also working closely with GardaWorld and the British Council. Of course, the Chevening scholars, the third cohort highlighted for pathway 3, are an integrated part—they are part and parcel—of the FCDO. However, I understand the frustrations of the noble Lord and indeed everyone in your Lordships’ House who has worked on this. There are processes that need to be followed, including the checks and balances regarding security, which I know the noble Lord agrees must happen. We are also working with near neighbours; there are a number of people who are now waiting in third countries, being supported by the British Government, who need to travel to the UK. We are working across Government, including with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Home Office, to ensure that those who qualify and are in third countries can, as quickly as possible, come to the UK and start to rebuild their lives.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, there is a difference between the ARAP scheme, which did not have a limit on numbers, and the ACRS. My understanding is that some former British Council contractors are deemed eligible to come but have additional family members, which has delayed their ability to come to the United Kingdom. What conversations is the Minister having with the Home Office about this matter? In particular, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, last week whether a meeting with the Home Office would be possible. He said that he would decide whether it was necessary to meet me. I hope that the Minister at the FCDO might feel that a meeting could be useful.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend is not here to share his response but I always feel that Ministers across your Lordships’ House need to engage directly. I know that those are the sentiments of my noble friend the Leader of the House, as well, so I will certainly look into that. On the specific point that the noble Baroness raised, I am aware of some of the cases that have been raised of those who did not qualify under the ARAP scheme and have applied to the ACRS scheme. A number of those cases are being worked through but I am not going to give specific numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about getting into specifics but the numbers regarding those who qualify and under what category, and which part of the process they have reached, are literally moving on a daily basis. However, I assure the noble Baroness of my good offices and if she wishes to meet me, I should be happy to do so.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I should declare an interest, I suppose, because when I was a junior member of the embassy in Kabul in 1962, I negotiated the first placement of British Council teachers at one of the four high schools in Kabul. The British Council’s time in Afghanistan has been one that we should recognise as a major contribution to that country and our own foreign policy. Is the Minister quite sure that the criteria for admitting people to this scheme are not too tightly and narrowly drawn?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great insight and expertise on the importance of our diplomatic services. I must admit that I was not around in 1962, so I do not have his strength of experience. Nevertheless, on the more material point that he raises and the criteria established for working through the three cohorts of Afghans who have been asked to apply for this scheme—we work closely with the organisations in the application of those criteria—as I said in response to my noble friend Lord Kamall, the number wishing to come to the UK who have applied to the scheme far outweighs the number allocated. It is therefore right that we adopt a process that is fair to the individuals applying and ensures that the criteria can be applied as regards additional family members, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It is right that we show compassion if someone approaches but does not fulfil the strict criteria for additional family members who happen to be an elderly mother or father, or a child over the threshold of 18. But that requires a certain degree of delay as an assessment is made on the security of that person’s viability for coming to the UK.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for all his efforts on this particularly difficult problem. He rightly has concentrated on Britain’s responsibility, but other European countries are involved in Afghanistan. What help are we getting from countries such as Sweden, which is very much involved, and are we working with them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are working with other partners. At the time of Operation Pitting, the UK was a key country and helped 36 other countries with the departures from Afghanistan. We are working closely with our EU partners and the United States, looking directly at those who have moved to third countries and how best we can expedite their relocation to whichever country they have applied to. That is done in a co-ordinated fashion. That said, all noble Lords are aware that the situation within Afghanistan is going from bad to worse. The deterioration of civil and human rights continues. However, at the same time, we are seeking to engage, even through our chargé based out of Doha, and at least alleviate the plight of those left in Afghanistan, including through humanitarian support.
Soft Power
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they remain committed to maintaining the quality of the components of the United Kingdom’s soft power, as listed in chapter 2 of the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy (CP 403), published on 16 March 2021.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain absolutely committed to harnessing the range of UK influence to advance our interests overseas. The FCDO has demonstrated this through our continued support for the British Council and the BBC World Service, our flagship scholarship programmes engaging future generations of global leaders, our world-class diplomatic network and our role in supporting the international elements of major UK cultural events, such as Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s Platinum Jubilee and the upcoming coronation of Their Majesties the King and Queen Consort.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the previous Prime Minister but one used to talk about the UK as a soft power superpower. The integrated review listed: the BBC World Service in particular with its global reputation; UK universities and their immense attraction for overseas students; our strong and flourishing cultural sector; the British Council, as the Minister has mentioned; and our record as one of the world’s major and most skilled providers of overseas aid and development assistance. Which of those are the Government still as committed to as they were when the integrated review was agreed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to all of the above. The BBC World Service currently provides services in 42 languages to 365 million people. We have committed £94.4 million annually to the BBC through the spending review, an additional £4.1 million to the World Service to support Ukrainian and Russian language services in the light of Russia’s illegal war on Ukraine, and a further £1.44 million from the FCDO to support countering disinformation.
I use that as a specific example, but the noble Lord talked about all the areas. He will know from his involvement in education that the United Kingdom remains second only to the United States in terms of numbers of overseas students. That service has improved. My colleagues at the Home Office have extended someone’s ability to come to the UK not only to study but to work, which enhances both the reputation of the UK’s education offer and the abilities and skills of the individual coming. I would be happy to discuss that with the noble Lord.
Of course I accept that ODA has been cut from 0.7% to 0.5%; I hope we can return to 0.7% as soon as possible. Working within those parameters, we continue to prioritise important issues such as humanitarian support, as we have done recently in Turkey, to ensure that the agility and flexibility needed to respond to natural disasters is also met.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of the Minister’s very wise words on higher education, can he explain the constant briefings from Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch that we really do not want higher education international students to come to the United Kingdom and be welcomed in the way that they have been over so many years?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister for South Asia, among other areas, I am directly involved in some of the important work we are doing to strengthen our partnership with India, for example, as well as other south Asian countries, and education is a key component of that. I assure the noble Lord that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is very proud of our educational offer to international students and equally proud of the programmes we run, such as the Chevening scholarships and the Commonwealth scholarships, which are part and parcel of our overall educational offer. I stand by the fact that the UK has been, continues to be and should remain a key place for any student wishing to come to the UK, because our educational institutions, with which many noble Lords are involved, are second to none.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the world has changed rather dramatically in the two years since the publication of this review. I know that the Minister is not directly responsible, but could he go back and ask the Foreign Secretary to lobby for an immediate review of the review, because we must spend more on defence? Funnily enough, I think that is what President Zelensky said yesterday, and everybody said, “Hear, hear”. Well, I say “Hear, hear” to that. We need to have hard power as well as soft power.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
And I say to my noble friend that I hear him, and I hear him again. I assure him that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is seized of the very points he has just made.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, yesterday some of us from this House attended a meeting on the BBC World Service in Iran. That programme is now severely threatened due to various expenditure cuts and the flat licence fee, yet the BBC World Service is the only voice of democracy and values that Iranians have access to at the moment. Can the Minister guarantee that this programme has special consideration by the FCDO to preserve it and allow it to have sufficient funding?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work in this area. I assure her that we are very much—again—seized of the evolving and changing situation in Iran. We have seen the most appalling and abhorrent suppression of human rights by Iran on its own communities, particularly women and girls. As I understand it, under the current BBC proposals no services will be closed. The issue is one of broadcast services and radio. According to the figures I have, about 1% of the BBC’s total weekly audience of 13.8 million in Iran get BBC news solely by radio. The other 99% use BBC Persian on TV and online. However, I hear what the noble Baroness says. Although the BBC has an independent mandate to work in this respect, the importance of BBC Persian services in Iran is very much a key priority for us as well.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister cannot have it both ways. He talks about grants to the BBC, but it is suffering precisely because of what the noble Baroness asked about in terms of licence fee constraints. Tim Davie has been saying that that it is for the Government to determine strategic decisions on funding the World Service. It is one of the most important elements of our soft power. I hear from Tim Davie that the BBC is making a strong case for the Government to look at taking back responsibility for funding the World Service, taking it away from the licence fee. He has said that he is engaging constructively with the FCDO on future funding. Can the Minister tell us what that means and what sorts of discussions have been taking place?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Well, we are engaging constructively with the BBC, as the noble Lord has heard from the BBC directly. To put this into context, since about 2016 the FCDO, notwithstanding quite a number of challenges that we have faced, has provided more than £468 million to the World Service via the World2020 programme, which funds 12 language services. I also accept that 2016 was the last time a review of those services was carried out. Some of the discussions we are having in the FCDO are about reviewing those services to ensure, as noble Lords often highlight and have done today, that, in an ever-changing world, we prioritise the services that are funded. That said, over 42 languages are funded overall, including through the licence fee. They reach a sizeable part of the world’s population—365 million people. However, I accept the premise of the noble Lord’s question that we need to ensure that the BBC is fit for purpose, particularly in the important service it provides to many communities around the world that are under severe suppression and targeted by their own Governments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Government have reaffirmed the importance of soft power to the UK. I agree with them. Three or four years ago, the then Minister for Soft Power met this House’s International Relations and Defence Committee to consult on a soft power strategy that he said was imminent. Who currently is the Minister for Soft Power? Is there a strategy? If there is, where is it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure your Lordships that the care and compassion shown by all Ministers, including those in the FCDO, are very empowering. We are all responsible for the delivery of the influence that we can extend through our soft power, as it is termed, around the world. The noble Lord will also be aware that that strategy was integrated into the integrated review as part of the influence we have around the world. We have one of the best diplomatic networks, which I know the noble Lord himself has experienced, and the best diplomats around the world. Those networks, working with the likes of the British Council and other key bodies at arm’s length from the UK Government, are part and parcel of the UK offer. The soft power and influence we have around the world, whether through our world-class universities, our diplomats or, indeed, the caring and compassionate words of Ministers who travel around the world, as well as parliamentarians, are all part of that UK offer. It is actually a key part, particularly in the world we live in today.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the UK without doubt has some of the strongest elements of soft power, including the Royal Family, the BBC, Premier League football or our universities. Can the Minister reassure us that, having hit the 600,000 target for international students, there will be no reduction—in fact, we should increase it to 1 million—and that the two-year post-graduation work visa will not be reduced but retained? Why do the Government continue to include international students in net migration figures? They should be excluded, as our competitor countries do.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I first pay tribute to the noble Lord as an example of our soft power around the world. I hear what he said. Of course, it is not within the remit of the department that I speak for, but I will certainly relay the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House to colleagues in the Home Office. Again, I accept the principle he relates: if we have a world-class offer for students, from which we, they and the world gain, we should ensure that it is available in the maximum way it can be, while accepting the domestic challenges we face.
Maternity Services
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in response to the Care Quality Commission’s Maternity Survey 2022, published on 11 January.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to continuing our work to ensure that all maternity services provide safe and compassionate care. We will continue to closely monitor progress in improving the standard of maternity care across the country. We have made significant investment into maternity and neonatal services, with £127 million announced in 2022 to go into the maternity system to help to increase the NHS maternity workforce and improve neonatal care.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. The Ockenden report on Shrewsbury and Telford, the Kirkup reports on East Kent and Morecambe Bay, the current report of the CQC, the fact that the CQC fined a Nottingham hospital the maximum amount—£800,000—for a baby death, and the fact that we are now paying out in maternity litigation costs over £1 billion per year all point to one thing: a question of safety in our maternity units. Mothers and babies should not die in our maternity units without care and compassion, but that is what is happening. I am glad that the Minister, the honourable Maria Caulfield, met Dr Kirkup last week, which is a great improvement and progress. I hope the Government will now take seriously the need for zero tolerance of mothers dying in our maternity units and zero tolerance of normally formed babies dying or being damaged in childbirth. I shall keep pursuing this until we get that.
Lord Markham (Con)
I welcome the noble Lord’s pursuit because that is absolutely the right thing to do. I think we all agree with that, and we would all say that what happened in East Kent and the other examples from the Ockenden report are clearly not something that we are happy with or that we should put up with. The Kirkup and Ockenden reports gave us a north star, a way forward. I am pleased to see that we are making progress on that, but I expect the noble Lord to hold us fully to account because I am holding the department to account on this.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, building on what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has said, my noble friend will know that continuity of care is really important and has been recommended by the Better Births maternity review. That builds up with better medical understanding of the woman, the pregnancy and the issues related to it. However, only 37% of women are afforded this, and that drops down to 27% in antenatal care. What are the Government doing to take steps to address this so that the terrible examples that we have seen recently are averted?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree with the work by my noble friends, including the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to put the importance of midwifery continuity of care at the centre of everything. The survey to which my noble friend’s question refers shows that that is coming through in terms of a consistent message that having that confidence in the person in treating them is vital to all of this. That remains important. Key to this is the workforce, so this is one of the things that is being built into the workforce plan. That is starting with ensuring that we have new people coming in. The 1,200 graduates that we now have going into training each year are a vital part of making sure that we can deliver.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, report after report shows that the current system of treating maternity and reproductive health services on an episodic basis is costly and inefficient. Will the Government undertake to review that so that we can begin to go back to the system where staff were trained in both maternity and general nursing? We could therefore treat women on the basis of the whole of their lifestyle and get back to doing the most important jobs, such as making postpartum contraception available, which in the end would not only enable women to be treated more safely but save the NHS money.
Lord Markham (Con)
That question probably deserves a more detailed reply then I can give here in 30 seconds. In terms of the direction of travel, continuity of care, not just in the maternity service but in understanding that person and their needs, has to be the right thing to do to make sure that we have cradle-to-grave treatment with people who know your case. So I agree with that direction of travel and I will follow up with a more detailed response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend update the House on the number of midwives available? I understand that there is concern among expectant mothers about the availability of midwives.
Lord Markham (Con)
The figure for the number of midwives has been roughly constant over the last few years at about 23,000. We want to increase that, which is why we have made a commitment to increase the number of graduate places to more than 1,000 each year. This year, as I say, we have 1,200 places, so we are making good progress.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, there is an almost twofold difference in maternity mortality rates between women from Asian ethnic groups and white women, while black women are now 40% more likely to experience a miscarriage than white women. When will there be a report from the Maternity Disparities Taskforce? Could the Minister confirm that Parliament will have a full opportunity to examine its findings and review the progress that has been made?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right to point out those figures, and they are something that none of us is happy with. That is exactly what the Maternity Disparities Taskforce was set up to deal with, so I am happy to make a commitment to talk through with the noble Baroness the progress of that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, running through the reports that my noble friend Lord Patel referred to are two strands: one is workforce, which relates to numbers and qualifications, but the other is dysfunctional teams and a failure of teamwork across the different disciplines, both within maternity services and relating to general medical services, for providing support to women, particularly those with multiple comorbidities who are then going through pregnancy and delivery. I wonder whether the Government are commissioning a specific piece of work to look at ways in which these teams can alter their behaviours internally and be supported to improve on this dysfunctional behaviour within them, which is having an adverse knock-on effect on the experience of mothers and on the clinical outcomes which, as has been said, are sometimes fatal.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, one of the Kirkup recommendations—recommendation 3, I believe—was about an improvement in teamwork, and that is what will be done under the guidance of national and regional maternity safety champions. I should say that while there is much improvement that we want to do, the overall context is a 19% decrease in stillbirth since 2010 and a 36% decrease in neonatal mortality over 24 weeks since 2010. So it is an improving picture, but it is something that we want to improve further.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, another day, another area of the NHS that is suffering from serious staff shortages, and these shortages are having a real impact on the willingness of midwives to stay in the profession, more than half of whom are considering leaving the NHS, according to surveys by the Royal College of Midwives. What is the Minister’s view on the proposals that have come from various groups that there should be nationally agreed minimum staffing levels for maternity and neonatal staff?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, I think there are certain things that we are saying we want to see in place. Continuity of care is part of that, and the workforce plan is how we put teams around to do that. It will always be a feature that we then expect the local health trusts and ICBs to work out how best to do that in their own situations. I also say in this context that we are increasing our numbers but this is not like other demographics where we have an ageing population. The birth rate, as we all know, is actually constant/declining, so it is not like those other areas where we are talking about that. Notwithstanding that, as I mentioned before, we are increasing the number of graduate places.
Hospitals: Maintenance
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the NHS’s Estate Returns Information Collection data, which show that the cost of maintenance work on hospitals in England exceeded £1 billion in 2021–22.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
Patient and staff safety is our top priority: that is why the Government are providing £12 billion in operational capital to the NHS over the next three years for trusts to maintain and improve the estate. We support the increasing levels of investment by trusts to ensure that facilities are safe and maintained to a high standard.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, while the cost of replacing crumbling wards and operating theatres soars, only 10 of the 40 proposed hospital construction projects have full planning permission and the National Audit Office is investigating the programme. Can the Minister confirm how many of the 40 promised new hospitals will actually have been built by 2030? Can he also confirm that they really will be hospitals and not extensions or refurbishments?
Lord Markham (Con)
Twenty-one outline or full planning permissions have been given, which is totally on track with the target. Clearly, if some of those hospitals are not being built until, say, 2027, there would be no detailed planning permission yet. So those statistics are not representative of the situation, which shows that the programme of planning applications is on track. I am committed, as are my colleagues, to ensuring that we deliver the 40 by 2030.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, what are the Government going to do to end the ludicrous situation whereby even if NHS trusts have cash in the bank or access to the proceeds of asset disposals, they can be barred from improving major equipment on their estate because of arbitrary departmental capital expenditure limits imposed by the Treasury?
Lord Markham (Con)
Clearly, we want to give each trust the freedom to spend where it needs to. Obviously, there are overall Treasury rules but the main thing is the increased allocation we have made available in this space. We have spent £1.4 billion in the past year, which is a 57% increase, recognising that it is a good thing to put preventive maintenance in place to get on top of the backlog.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I may not be doing the Minister much justice but I admire his ability to give straight answers. I also admire his ability to maintain the fiction of 40 new hospitals. Does he accept that the Nuffield Trust puts the number of hospitals that any person in the street would recognise as new at three?
Lord Markham (Con)
I know that it is a lot more than that. The number of cohort 1 and cohort 2 hospitals being built at the moment is substantially more. This is a real programme; in fact, I invite all my colleagues here to a parliamentary open day, which I think will happen in the next month or so, when we plan to exhibit exactly what we are doing. We will have virtual reality glasses so that noble Lords can see the hospital of the future. Please come along and see for yourselves how real this programme is.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the old joke about how many men it takes to change a light bulb tends not to go down well in PFI hospitals, where the answer can be “Several—and a lot of money”. In November, the Minister said to me that he was re-examining all these ruinous PFI contracts. Can he tell the House what progress he has made?
Lord Markham (Con)
We are actually making a lot of progress on them. A number of them, dare I say it, were introduced by Governments of a different colour and we are now working through and correcting those. At the same time, private capital can do a lot of good things. Many in the House will have heard me say just yesterday that if we put LED lightbulbs in every hospital, it would cost £400 million and save £100 million a year. That is the sort of thing private capital will fund every day of the week, probably at a 5% yield, giving us £95 million of savings a year. That is a good use of private capital, and the sort of thing I am looking at.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am surprised that more noble Lords have not dived into this report. It is fascinating, especially sheet 7 of the spreadsheet, which tells us that NHS England is spending £234 million a year on storing medical records. So while some parts of the NHS are working towards all-singing, all-dancing federated data platforms, in other places the height of modern technology is a new shopping trolley to move mouldering files in and out of a dingy basement. Will the Minister share with the House the Government’s plans to digitise or securely dispose of those paper records so that in future editions of this ERIC report, we will see that that £234 million has fallen close to zero?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord makes an excellent point. As he knows, we are investing heavily in a federated data platform, which is precisely about stopping storing paper and making such savings. Even more importantly, it is about improving patient care so that we can ensure that records are transferred instantaneously and really build on the knowledge that will bring.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister really addressed the question my noble friend raised about the number of hospitals. He said that it was substantially more than three, then tailed off without giving us a number. He promised us a virtual reality opportunity to look at “the hospital of the future”, but I do not know whether that exhibition will show exactly which hospitals the 40 in question are, what is going to happen and how many of them a normal person in the street would regard as new. While he is on his feet, can he tell us what feedback Ministers have had from NHS staff working in hospitals about the physical state of those buildings and the extent to which that impedes their daily activities supporting patients?
Lord Markham (Con)
We have eight cohort 1 hospitals, which all have full planning permission and are in various stages of construction. We have 10 cohort 2 hospitals, of which two have full planning permission, seven have outline planning permission and one is awaiting approval of outline permission. All have had the preparation works done. So that is 17 where massive progress is being made. We then have cohort 3 schemes: the new hospital 2.0 projects, which are introducing modern methods of construction to standardise production and get cheaper and more efficient hospitals at a quicker rate of output. That is what I invite noble Lords to come and see for themselves over the coming weeks. This programme is very real and I will happily take people through whatever detail they want because, believe me, it is all there.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that, from time to time I have asked his predecessors to discuss with Scottish Ministers how they can help each other? However, in this area I am not going to do that because in Scotland, the children’s hospital in Edinburgh was delayed by a year and the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow has had enormous problems. Is there a competition between the English Tories and the SNP to see who can bring the NHS to its knees first?
Lord Markham (Con)
I can speak clearly on the subject of the new hospital programme, which I think the noble Lord will find is world-class. I will happily demonstrate that to him; indeed, people will see how ground-breaking this project actually is. We will see standardised designs with improved clinical standards, and more efficient productivity and costs as a result. It will be world-class, and we will export it around the world.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, if the Government are saying that these are to be world-class hospitals, what is the comparison? Is it hospitals such as those in the Netherlands, which are extremely well designed and function very well, versus the many hospitals here which do not function well and have appalling design features? As soon as the staff move into them, they deteriorate rapidly.
Lord Markham (Con)
We are assessing best practice around the world in order to design them. That is exactly the point: we are taking on board things from the Netherlands and all round the world to make them state of the art and world class.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
I do not know how many hospitals have been completed, and I accept that there is a huge programme. But what I do know is that, since we came into power, in Liverpool we have had the brand new, state-of-the-art Liverpool University Hospital, a multi-billion pound hospital that has opened recently; Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, a first-class, world-renowned children’s hospital which has been opened in the last few years; and a huge cancer research centre—all within three miles of each other. I am sure there must be many others around the country. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me on this?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. Now I am no longer holding anyone up in terms of time, I welcome noble Lords to visit places like Liverpool hospital and Chase Farm Hospital, where they will see brilliant examples of state-of-the-art hospitals. There will be many more—in fact, 40—going forward.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Supreme Court Judgment
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morrow
To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what assessment they have made of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the status of the Northern Ireland Protocol and its effects on the Acts of Union 1800 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and (2) what urgent proposals they plan to implement to prevent any deterioration in relations between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, yesterday the Supreme Court considered the appeal brought to it last year and found in the Government’s favour. Regardless of this outcome, significant problems with the protocol remain. These will require political, not legal, remedies. The Government remain determined to find a solution that protects Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom’s internal market and respects all three strands of the Belfast agreement. Intensive talks with the EU continue to that end.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his reply. The Supreme Court judgment handed down yesterday states that the protection regarding constitutional change in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 pertains only to a situation where it is proposed that Northern Ireland fully leaves the United Kingdom to become fully part of the Irish Republic. This means that the critical prohibition in the Good Friday agreement on
“change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”
is not upheld in law. Given that, without this protection, the Good Friday agreement cannot stand, will the Government now introduce emergency legislation to give effect to the consent protections in the Good Friday agreement?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I gently point out that in the Supreme Court the Government won on all counts brought by the applicants. On his specific points, the Supreme Court was very clear that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom. The position set out in the Belfast agreement is very clear: Northern Ireland is either fully part of the United Kingdom or it is fully part of a united Ireland, which will only ever be determined by the consent of the people in Northern Ireland. That remains unchanged.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Supreme Court judgment is welcome in that it provides legal certainty where there was uncertainty. The protocol negotiated by this Government—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who was responsible for it, is in his place—is by no means perfect. There are problems with it, which is why it is being renegotiated. I distinctly recall Ministers in your Lordships’ House saying that the protocol was essential to protect the Good Friday agreement, but now the Government tell us they have to change it to protect the Good Friday agreement. Only one of those statements can be true.
Businesses in Northern Ireland have been forced to adapt to their circumstances. They have put a lot of effort into adjusting to this. To unilaterally remove it would be the worst thing for businesses in Northern Ireland. There are reports that some limited progress is being made in negotiations. How confident is the Minister that the outstanding issues can be resolved quickly and in a manner that can draw broad, if not unanimous, support from across Northern Ireland?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. As I have said on many occasions, she is a very distinguished former Northern Ireland Office Minister. We debated these issues at some length on Tuesday evening during the passage of the Northern Ireland Budget Bill. I was very clear that evening that for many businesses and sectors there are elements of the protocol that are working well. I referred to a recent meeting I had with the Dairy Council and Lakeland Dairies in Newtownards. For those businesses, EU single market access, as provided for in the protocol, is not just desirable but essential. We are committed to preserving that. I also said that there are many problems with the protocol for other sectors. It has led to diversions of trade and increased burdens on business. It has disadvantaged consumers and led to political instability—witness that there are no institutions at the moment.
On the noble Baroness’s question, I will not comment on what may have been written in newspapers. The Government’s preference is to resolve these matters through a negotiated agreement with the European Union. As I said in my initial Answer, we are working tirelessly towards that end.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, further to that answer, does the Minister agree that this ruling increases the urgency to make real progress on the negotiations as soon as possible? The sooner there is a return to Stormont and the Executive, the better this will be for the people of Northern Ireland, given the cost of living crisis they currently face.
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that I have been a consistent supporter of the Belfast agreement since it was reached on 10 April 1998. We are about to mark its 25th anniversary. I agree with her earlier comments. A protocol that was designed to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and to protect the 1998 agreement in all its parts is now having the unintended consequence of undermining and placing strain on that agreement. I agree with the noble Baroness entirely that we need to resolve these issues as quickly as possible and get Stormont back to work.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all that he continues to do in the interests of good sense and Northern Ireland. Is he confident that, given sufficient time—we do not need to rush this or try to accomplish it as soon as we can—negotiation is the only sensible way to resolve this issue? The dairy industry, which has been to see me and others, will then feel that its protection is complete and will be very happy that others should have similar benefits.
Lord Caine (Con)
I agree with my noble friend and thank him for his kind words. We are seeking to achieve, as I indicated in my opening Answer, a situation that respects the integrity of the EU single market and the UK’s internal market, and Northern Ireland’s constitutional position as an integral part of our United Kingdom—a position, I hasten to add, that I wish never to see change.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to having won in the court, but the Government have won on the basis of the argument that the Acts of Union have been suspended. Are the Government proud of arguing in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that the Acts of Union have been suspended? What action will the Minister take to restore the union?
Lord Caine (Con)
I will resist the attempt to turn the House of Lords into another branch of the Supreme Court and relitigate the case on which judgment was reached yesterday. All I will say to my noble friend is that we are well aware of the defects in the protocol, which have become apparent. Some might say that they were apparent at the time, but they are very apparent today. We are determined to remedy what does not work, while preserving what does.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as one of the applicants to the Supreme Court yesterday, I welcome the clarity the Supreme Court has given to the legal position. I also welcome the Minister’s comment that there needs to now be a political solution to this problem for Northern Ireland, which has been ongoing since 2021. Paragraph 67 of the Supreme Court judgment yesterday, as my noble friend Lord Dodds has just referred to, says:
“The Acts of Union and article VI remain on the statute book but are modified to the extent and for the period during which the Protocol applies.”
At the time of the withdrawal agreement, we were told that the Acts of Union had not been changed and that the union was safe. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Acts of Union have been modified as long as the protocol is in existence. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to reinstate Article VI of the Act of Union?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the former First Minister of Northern Ireland for her comments. We will of course continue to study the judgment very carefully, because, as I indicated to my noble friend Lord Dodds, I do not plan to get into a legal rehearsal of all the arguments that we were played out in the Supreme Court. As her former right honourable friend, the current leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, made clear yesterday, this issue was never going to be solved in the courts; it requires a political solution, and that is what the Government are striving to achieve.
There have been modifications to the Acts of Union in the past; if there had not been, 100 Irish representative Peers would still be sitting in your Lordships’ House and the Church of Ireland would not have been disestablished.
Lord Caine (Con)
I note that the former First Minister is a proud Anglican. While there have been modifications, I take on board the noble Baroness’s comments. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Government’s intention is to ensure that Northern Ireland’s position within the UK internal market is fully respected, along with its constitutional position as part of the United Kingdom.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, a group of 18 year-olds from Northern Ireland visited Parliament yesterday. They told me that they were jealous of me because, for years, I had the opportunity to stand for election and to debate and make all the laws to which I was subject—an opportunity they will now be denied under the protocol, with laws being forced upon them over which they have no say. They told me that they felt like second-class citizens in the United Kingdom because of that. What does the Minister say to them?
Lord Caine (Con)
Clearly, we do not want anybody in any part of the United Kingdom to feel like a second-class citizen. As I set out in my comments on the Northern Ireland Budget Bill on Tuesday, dealing with issues around governance and the democratic deficit, to which the noble Lord referred, are extremely important, and they will have to form part of a final negotiated agreement with the EU.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, we used to have a situation where there was a common citizenship across the United Kingdom and that every citizen of the United Kingdom was able to vote for representatives at either regional or national level who could set their laws. It is clear that the Supreme Court ruling yesterday has confirmed that that is no longer the case. As we rightly, as a nation, seek to propagate the values of democracy internationally, can the Minister tell us what message it sends to the outside world that we are tolerating a major democratic deficit in our own backyard?
Lord Caine (Con)
As I just pointed out in response to his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, this is an issue we are seeking to resolve in the negotiations. I cannot really go into any detail at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the Acts of Union were our country’s foundational charter. If the United Kingdom had a national day analogous to the independence days of other countries, it would commemorate 1 January 1801, when the Acts of Union took effect. How can any British Government, least of all a Conservative and Unionist British Government, tolerate legislation that is now held in the courts to be at odds with that foundational document?
Lord Caine (Con)
I can assure my noble friend that, as a staunch unionist, I would have no issue whatever in commemorating or marking 1 January 1801 every year. I have already answered his question: issues around governance and the democratic deficit have to be resolved in our ongoing and intensive dialogue and negotiations with the EU.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, can the Minister comment on the issue whereby people elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly are then subject to laws in some 300 areas made by a legislature of which they are not a part and to which they have no representation?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hay, for his question, which I think I have covered in my previous answers.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, up to half of all goods and produce exported across the border from Northern Ireland to the Republic are produced in Northern Ireland, and therefore cannot be validated as to whether they meet EU conditions at the border between GB and Northern Ireland. Should we not remove the border between GB and Northern Ireland and rely on export controls and the SPIRE system, which I used to exercise as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to ensure that goods exported to the European Union meet European standards? That would solve the problem.
Lord Caine (Con)
My noble friend, as a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, makes a valuable point. He will of course be aware that the Government have proposed, and are currently discussing, a system of green channels and red channels at points of entry, whereby goods that will never leave the United Kingdom will not be subject to the controls that will be placed upon those goods that will enter the single market.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, would the Minister care to speculate as to why the guilty men who got us into this mess in the first place remain silent?
Lord Caine (Con)
I have great admiration for the noble Lord, but I am never one to speculate, especially at the Dispatch Box. As I have said on many occasions, I prefer to dwell less on how we got into this place and more on how we get out of it.
Omagh Bombing
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, throughout history there are incidents of such appalling horror that where we were when we heard the news remains embedded in our memories. Many in your Lordships’ House will have sharp and very painful memories of the Omagh bombing atrocity. On 15 August 1998, just months after the people of Northern Ireland supported the Good Friday/Belfast agreement with hope and optimism for a brighter, peaceful and more democratic future, as the Minister indicated in his answers to the Private Notice Question, the close-knit community in Omagh was thrust into the spotlight in the most shocking way possible: 29 people and two unborn children were killed, 220 were injured and the shockwaves were felt throughout Northern Ireland and far beyond.
While for many of us it remains a terrible memory, for far too many others it has blighted their lives as they have struggled with the consequences: some because they lost loved ones or were physically injured, and others because they suffered from the trauma as members of the community. That includes those who worked for the emergency and health services at the time, for whom it took a huge emotional toll. I remember visiting a centre in Omagh which gave support, counselling and therapies, both to those who lived in Omagh and to those who were part of the emergency services, to help them cope. So while for some it is a memory, others are still living with it, and the consequences remain part of their lives every day. As they have said, they want answers and are seeking the truth of what happened to try to reclaim their lives, even though it will never be the same. I pay tribute to those, including Michael Gallagher, who have campaigned for so long.
The Secretary of State’s announcement of an independent statutory inquiry is welcome. In his Statement, he explained why he has agreed to take that step and how the inquiry will work. The Northern Ireland High Court judgment in October 2021 found that plausible arguments could be made that the state had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights
“to take reasonable steps to prevent the … bombing”.
We also welcome that the Secretary of State has put victims first in considering this issue. The judge did not define what kind of investigation it would be, but the Omagh families and community are at the very core of this decision—and that is right. We must acknowledge that, for those directly affected, this will not be a pain-free process—getting to the truth never is—and additional support for them may be required.
Whatever the outcomes, nothing can absolve the perpetrators of this atrocity, who retain the ultimate responsibility. The Real IRA knew that their bomb would kill and maim, while others across the whole of Northern Ireland had rejected violence and were working for a better, peaceful future. The bomb was a huge betrayal of Northern Ireland’s desire for peace and reconciliation.
Knowing the Minister’s understanding of these issues, I know that he will not be surprised at the issue I want to raise with him today. As I have said, we generally welcome the approach that the Government are taking, but it is impossible not to note that it is so different from that of the Northern Ireland legacy Bill. With this announcement, the Secretary of State has engaged and responded in a way that has been regularly and widely welcomed. Yet the Bill that the Minister is steering through this House does not have the support of any of the Northern Ireland political parties, does not have the support of those who continue to live with the consequences of the euphemistically named Troubles and does not have the support of this House.
I know that the Minister is able to tell us how hard he has personally engaged across Northern Ireland with those who represent victims and with the political parties. He has done that. But engaging is a two-way process and I am not aware, even with all the work that he has undertaken, that he has managed to deliver any significant support for the Bill going forward. So there is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to these two issues.
While we welcome the Statement, we look forward to hearing more information going forward, such as who will be the chair and some of the terms of reference. Will the noble Lord and his ministerial colleagues reflect on what has happened and the welcome for this Statement, to see if we can halt that Bill and work in collaboration for a better outcome?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Northern Ireland Secretary’s Statement from last week and I very much echo and agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.
The decision to hold the inquiry is welcome. It is the right decision, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be commended for it. He listened, and he changed his mind. He has given the families and community in Omagh the hope that they will now learn the truth. As Michael Gallagher, whose son Aiden was murdered on that day, said:
“This is not a case of deflecting the blame from those who are responsible—that was the criminal terrorists who planned, prepared and delivered this bomb into Omagh. What we’re looking at is the failings of the people that are there to protect us.”
The murder of 29 people, including two unborn children—twins—happening as it did just months after the signing of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in 1998 was a truly appalling and barbaric act of an unprecedented scale throughout the Troubles. The devastation to the community and the impact that it has had on the victims and their families, as well as the 220 people who were injured, is almost unimaginable. It is a credit to the peace process that the terrorists did not succeed and it was not derailed.
The Secretary of State said in his Statement,
“the inquiry will allow us to meet our article 2 procedural obligations under the European convention on human rights”.
That is also to be welcomed.
Will the Minister say what he expects to be the timetable now for the announcement of the chair of the inquiry and the publication of the terms of reference? How will he undertake to keep Parliament informed? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I am slightly surprised by the different type of approach to this inquiry from that of the legacy Bill. Will the Minister say a little more about how he imagines this very different process will fit in with the proposals in the current legacy Bill?
The families of the victims and the injured have already waited nearly 25 years. It will, at times, be a difficult and painful process, but as Michael Gallagher has said,
“If we don’t have this process, for the rest of our lives we’re going to be wondering ‘what if’.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
I am sure the noble Baroness will have her opportunity shortly. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Basildon and Lady Suttie, for their broad support and welcome for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s announcement.
Before I respond in detail, I would like to place on the record my own heartfelt sympathy for the victims of the terrible bombing that took place on 15 August 1998. As the noble Baroness reminded us, it was only a few short months after all the hope and optimism that was generated by the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Like many noble Lords across the House, I can vividly remember where I was and what I was doing on that terrible Saturday when I heard the news.
I add my own tribute to the Omagh families’ Omagh Support and Self Help Group, and to other groups, such as Families Moving On, for the work that they have done over the years. In particular, I join those who have paid tribute to Michael Gallagher for his campaigning over the years, not just for a public inquiry, but in respect of the civil case which took place over a number of years and identified four culprits behind this dreadful atrocity.
I concur very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said about never forgetting who actually carried out this atrocity. I can do no better in this respect than to quote the judge, Mr Justice Horner, in his ruling on this in the Gallagher court case. He said:
“It is important not to forget that the responsibility for this terrible atrocity, the worst in the last 60 years of Northern Ireland’s history, lies with those malevolent and evil dissident republicans who, with complete disregard for human life, planned, planted and detonated a huge bomb among shoppers in Omagh’s town centre on a Saturday afternoon in August.”
I concur with every one of those words.
I am grateful again to the noble Baroness for her kind words about the Secretary of State. He met the families last week in person, before the Statement, in order to tell them of his decision. As we noted, the families obviously very much welcomed what the Government have announced.
Both noble Baronesses talked about the legacy Bill and the difference in approach. The House will be aware that the legacy Bill itself will deal with Troubles-related cases between 1 January 1966 and 10 April 1998, when the Belfast agreement was reached, so this case is by definition outside the scope of the legislation. Were it to be put in scope, it would have a consequence, which I do not think would be particularly welcomed across the House, of enabling people who were involved in this and subsequent dissident republican activities—people who rejected the Belfast agreement and the peace process—to apply for conditional immunity in certain cases. As I say, I do not think the House would welcome that.
However, I do not entirely accept that there is some kind of total contrast between what we are doing here and what we are doing on legacy. Of course, not every case can have a public inquiry, but the legacy Bill seeks to establish structures, which will enable families to access greater information about what happened to their loved ones in the Troubles, in much the same way that a public inquiry will try to establish the facts of what happened in this particular case. So I do not necessarily accept the premise of the noble Baronesses’ comments.
On their other questions about the chair and terms of reference, we will of course work as quickly as we can to identify the person to chair the inquiry and finalise the terms of reference. I should point out to noble Lords who are not necessarily familiar with the process that the inquiry will be targeted in scope and will investigate the four grounds which the court held could give rise to plausible arguments that there was a real prospect of preventing the Omagh bomb. These relate to the handling and sharing of intelligence; the use of cell phone analysis; whether there was advance knowledge or reasonable means of knowledge of the bomb; and whether disruption operations could or should have been mounted, which may have helped to prevent the tragedy. Those will be the areas on which the inquiry will focus. As I say, we will set this up as quickly as possible. I cannot give a definitive timetable, but I will undertake to keep Parliament informed in the usual ways.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, for 14 and a half years in the other House, I represented the people of Omagh, and I visited the scene of carnage on the day that the bomb took place. Coming from a family with loved ones brutally murdered, I know the deep anguish and pain that these families have suffered over the years. Sadly, that pain will not go away. Can the Minister assure me that while the inquiry learns the lessons of any failures that may have taken place by security personnel, no focus will be taken from those who planted this bomb and carried out this despicable, murderous act, and therefore that every effort will continue to be made to bring those responsible to justice?
Lord Caine (Con)
I fully acknowledge the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and I am well aware that he has, sadly, during his political and ministerial career—ministerial in a religious sense—had to officiate at funerals and bury many loved ones over the years. On his specific question, as I indicated earlier, the people who are responsible for this vile atrocity are of course the terrorists who carried it out and nothing should detract whatever from that. I concur entirely with his comments in that regard.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I carried out an investigation into matters relating to the Omagh bomb and published a report in December 2001. I very much welcome the announcement of this inquiry and pay tribute to Michael Gallagher and all those who have fought for knowledge of what happened on that terrible day. When I published my report—I remind the House that I had only the powers to investigate the police—I said:
“The persons responsible for the Omagh bombing are the terrorists who planned and executed the atrocity. Nothing contained in this report should detract from that clear and unequivocal fact.”
I repeat that today. I express my sympathy to all those affected by the bomb, because, as noble Lords have said, this is going to be a very traumatic and difficult experience for them, because it will raise again the things that they have suffered for so long.
I shall just ask the Minister a couple of questions. Can he assure the House, because of the questions that have been asked in the media, that this will be an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005? Can he assure the House that the terms of reference will be sufficiently wide and, in particular, that they will encompass all intelligence and information received prior to the Omagh bomb which related to Omagh, and that it will not refer only to—I quote from the Statement—“knowledge of the bomb”? I ask this in light of the fact that detailed information was received on 4 August 1998 by the police that there would be an attack on police in Omagh on 15 August, the day on which the bomb exploded. It is vital that all intelligence is capable of being considered by this inquiry.
Finally, I join noble colleagues in asking the Minister whether—in light of this recognition of the Government’s legal obligations and the fact that those legal obligations did not terminate as a consequence of the Good Friday agreement, nor was it ever the intention of those who entered into the Good Friday agreement that it would effectively act as a statute of limitations in any way—he can confirm that His Majesty’s Government will now withdraw the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It is not compliant with those legal obligations.
Lord Caine (Con)
It is with some trepidation that I rise to answer the questions of the noble Baroness, given her previous role as a distinguished Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland: she probably knows as much about this case as any other living person. In answer to her questions, of course I can confirm that the inquiry will take place under the Inquiries Act 2005. The inquiry will have full powers of compulsion and access to all the relevant material. Naturally, we expect as much of the inquiry as possible to be conducted in public, but as she will understand, some of the material will be of such a national security-sensitive status that it will not be possible in all circumstances.
On the terms of reference, I refer to the targeted nature of the inquiry in respect of those areas where the judge has held that we have not fully discharged our obligations. The final terms of reference are, of course, a matter to be decided between His Majesty’s Government and the individual who chairs the inquiry, but I very much take on board the noble Baroness’s comments about the Northern Ireland legacy Bill, which has been debated extensively in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place produced a report on Omagh under my chairmanship, and I take this opportunity of saluting the courageous persistence of Mr Gallagher and others, which has led to today. I also take up the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. If one had to categorise the Statement, I would say that its hallmark was sensitivity. The problem with the Bill is that its hallmark is insensitivity, and frankly I believe that it is incompatible with beginning this inquiry to continue with the Bill. My noble friend has handled this with extreme care, but will he have a special conversation with the Secretary of State, who made this Statement last week, and say to him, “Really, as far as the legacy Bill is concerned, enough is enough. Let’s start again”?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend for his kind words. He makes his case with customary force and eloquence. Of course, we have yet to complete Committee on the legacy Bill in your Lordships’ House, there is still a further amending stage to come after that, and I remain committed to fulfilling the pledge that I have made on a number of occasions, from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere, to do whatever I can to improve the legislation and to send it back to the House of Commons in a much better state than when the House of Commons sent it to us. I will, of course, continue to have discussions with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State towards that end.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I send my best wishes and support to all the families impacted by the Omagh bomb, many of whom I know very well. They will never forget who it was that planned, prepared and executed the bomb in Omagh on that fateful day. Indeed, the Real IRA planned and prepared for the bomb in the Republic of Ireland and then executed its dastardly actions in Omagh.
In the Statement, mention was made of the fact that Mr Justice Horner hoped that the Irish Government would also undertake an Article 2 investigation into what happened in the run-up to the execution of the Omagh bomb. I am afraid to say that the Irish Government’s record on dealing with legacy in Northern Ireland is at best patchy and at worst non-existent. I have had the great honour and privilege to attend, with many victims’ groups, meetings in the Dáil and in Dublin Castle with various Governments of various different hues. We did receive tea and sympathy; I have to say that we received little else. Will His Majesty’s Government now put pressure on the Irish Government to hold a similar inquiry in the Republic of Ireland? The bomb was planned and prepared in a different jurisdiction, and if we are to get totality of answers for the people of Omagh, then that needs to happen as well.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for her comments and question. She will be aware that, in the course of meeting many victims’ groups in Northern Ireland, I have had similar points put to me, not least by the South East Fermanagh Foundation in the constituency the noble Baroness used to represent in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Others have made the similar points over the years also. My noble friend is right to point out that Justice Horner did express a desire that a simultaneous Article 2-compliant investigation should occur in Ireland. He recognised it was not within the court’s power to order a cross-border investigation, and nor is it in the power of His Majesty’s Government to compel the Irish Government to do so. However, it is an issue which I take seriously, as do many others, and I will raise this again, including when I next see Irish Ministers to discuss legacy matters in Dublin or elsewhere, which I hope to do very soon.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I support this decision while noting, as other noble Lords have done, including the Minister himself, that we cannot fully scrutinise it until we know who the chair will be and the finalised terms of reference for the inquiry. I wish to associate myself with the words of sympathy, support and admiration for the Omagh families, and Michael Gallagher in particular, who tragically lost his son, Aiden, in this dreadful atrocity. They have shown amazing resilience.
I commend this Statement in particular because I think it very fully sets out the history of investigations and inquiry thus far and shares with us the factors which were taken into consideration by the Secretary of State, the department and, I suspect, the Minister who is answering these questions, in coming to this decision.
Following on from the question the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asked the Minister, does the Minister appreciate that the process of thought in this Statement, which inexorably leads to the conclusion that a judicial inquiry is necessary to meet the Government’s Article 2 procedural obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, provides a template for any future legal challenge that will undoubtedly follow the passing and implementation of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, if it passes this House in its present form?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who is another distinguished former Northern Ireland Office Minister. He referred to Article 2 obligations, and of course His Majesty’s Government do take those obligations very seriously and considered them carefully when coming to the decision in this case. I am grateful to him for his support for the decision that has been taken. He will be aware, notwithstanding, that it would simply be impossible to have a public inquiry into every unsolved killing in the Troubles. What we are trying to do in the legacy Bill, as I have explained on a number of occasions, is provide more information about what happened to loved ones, victims and survivors of terrorism. We are confident that the bodies that will be established under that legislation, should it pass your Lordships’ House, would be Article 2-compliant and the noble Lord will be aware that I brought forward amendments in Committee to make it very clear on the face of the Bill that Article 2 obligations would be met. I will continue to look at that issue as it progresses further through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too join in tributes to the families of the victims of the Omagh atrocity, and to Michael Gallagher in particular, whom many of us have met, for his courage and bravery. I also plead that, in all of this, we remember that terrorists were responsible for this atrocity.
I add to the calls for the Irish Republic to be put under pressure to do more in relation to this, and to other areas where the IRA carried out terrorist activity in Northern Ireland and found a safe haven in the Irish Republic for many, many years. I refer to the recent case where the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, which again has been found to be a totally sectarian murder of Protestant workmen by the IRA, has been forbidden from revealing secret Garda evidence about the attack, following special legislation passed in the Dáil to prevent that becoming transparent and open to the public. Many of us are really concerned about the lack of input from the Irish Republic in getting justice for victims. I urge the Minister to continue to press the Irish Republic on this matter.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am of course aware of the case to which he refers. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at the Dispatch Box, to comment directly on a case which is still live and ongoing. However, I do hear the comments of my noble friend very loud and clear and, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, I will raise these issues when I next meet Ministers from the Irish Government.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I join with voices from all sides of this House in welcoming this inquiry and pass my sympathy and thoughts to the families of this horrendous and heinous crime.
In response to a number of questions, the Minister has rightly indicated that the focus should remain: we must not be deflected from focusing on the perpetrators of this evil act. Will he agree also that, whatever direction the inquiry takes, it should not be exploited by some others to try to deflect that focus, either by turning the security forces into scapegoats or by trying to besmirch the bravery of their actions down the years in Northern Ireland?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, who makes a very important point. Of course, the inquiry will be established and set about its work, which it will do thoroughly, and in due course a report will be published. My noble friend makes a hugely important point about the security forces. We all acknowledge that mistakes were made in the course of Operation Banner; I speak as somebody who helped to write David Cameron’s Statement in response to the Saville inquiry in June 2010. However, as I have always maintained, over the course of 30 years, over 250,000 people served in the security forces and the overwhelming majority did so with great bravery, distinction and restraint. I put on record again that, without the service and sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross and our Armed Forces, there would have been no peace process in Northern Ireland, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I remember that terrible day, in particular because I received a telephone call from the office of the then Prince of Wales to check a small historical point with me. It was borne in upon me, as I spoke to one of his Private Secretaries, how deeply the then heir to the Throne was affected by the news of this awful atrocity. I place this before the House today so that Members are aware of how deeply our now monarch felt about that quite dreadful atrocity.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for bringing that point to the House, and it certainly concurs with the experiences of myself and the Secretaries of State for whom I have worked, who will all attest to His Majesty the King’s huge personal interest in, and affection for, Northern Ireland.
Ukraine
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
That this House takes note of the situation in Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, we hold this debate against the sombre and shocking images emerging from Syria and Turkey of the devastating earthquake which has visited such tragedy and suffering on these two countries. I know the thoughts of us all are with the families and citizens who are affected by and in shock from this horrendous catastrophe. That is a horrific consequence of the destructive power of nature, so it is an incredibly cruel irony that we see tragedy and devastation in Ukraine not from the force of nature but because a human being made an avoidable decision to inflict that horror on an innocent sovereign country.
Almost a year ago, President Putin launched his illegal invasion of Ukraine, which was a move that shook the whole world. Putin imagined that Ukraine would fall within a matter of days, but the Russian army completely failed to anticipate how proud, determined and brave would be the reaction from the forces of Ukraine which ferociously resisted Putin’s troops on every axis. We have now reached day 351 of the conflict. The Kremlin’s attack has cost Russia the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers, not to mention a vast quantity of tanks, armoured vehicles, jets and one prized flagship.
Ukraine has retaken more than 50% of the territory lost in the initial chaos of the Russian advance. A merry-go-round of Russian generals have come and gone, replaced with monotonous regularity. Most recently, General Surovikin has been replaced by General Gerasimov, who is derided by some of his own countrymen as the “Plywood Marshal”. Throughout it all, the Kremlin—aided by Iran’s kamikaze drones—has kept up a relentless, cynical and despicable bombardment directed against civilian infrastructure. Thousands of innocent civilians have died in botched, indiscriminate attacks, adding to the charge sheet of the litany of alleged war crimes.
Take last Wednesday evening—2 February—when an Iskander-K tactical ballistic missile slammed into an apartment block, killing three and wounding many more. Separately, in the past few days, we have heard a former Russian military officer admit that Russian troops have indeed tortured Ukrainian prisoners of war, claiming that at one site in southern Ukraine,
“the interrogations, the torture, continued for about a week”.
That is utterly appalling.
Yet despite laying waste to vast swathes of Ukraine and imposing unnecessary suffering on much of the population, Russia has still failed to accomplish any of its strategic aims. In recent weeks, Russia has trumpeted several tactical advances. In mid-January, Ukrainian forces withdrew from the small Donbas salt-mine town of Soledar: the first notable settlement Russia has gained since early July last year. But this was a pyrrhic victory achieved at enormous cost and resulting in several thousand casualties. Human wave attacks were deployed to secure a ruined town inhabited by just 500 people. It underlines the Kremlin’s callous attitude to dehumanise not only its opponents but its own troops, who are quite simply regarded by the Kremlin as dispensable cannon fodder. In recent days, a force of Russian naval infantry further south has also been attempting to make gains near the central Donetsk Oblast town of Vuhledar, south-west of Donetsk city. It is another case of Groundhog Day. Russia makes creeping gains but simply lacks the capability to achieve its strategic goals.
Intriguingly, the Wagner paramilitary group, bolstered by the mass deployment of at least 40,000 convicts, has been prominent in many of these recent manoeuvres. The extraordinary expansion of this group, and the corresponding increase in its public profile, raise interesting questions about the current nature of the Russian state. Wagner founder Yevgeny Prigozhin continues to indulge in the most direct criticism of his military counterparts. It is difficult to imagine that this tension will not implode sooner or later. In a sense, tracking the implications of this war on the dynamics of Moscow’s power structures is as important as following the events on the front line.
For all Russia’s recent tactical advances, winter has imposed an effective operational stalemate in the active areas of the Ukrainian front line. Both sides are now bogged down in attritional warfare that has more in common with World War One. Military casualties on both sides have been high, with each side struggling. We are seeing a Russian security apparatus that is increasingly factional and overstretched. It is highly unlikely that the hundreds of thousands of mobilised reservists have been formed into cohesive formations capable of major offensive manoeuvre operations. None the less, with spring around the corner, there are signs that President Putin is amassing his forces in preparation for a surge in the coming weeks. Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine’s Defence Minister, believes that Russia is planning a major offensive to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine on 24 February. In other words, President Zelensky and the Ukrainian armed forces require the support of their friends in the international community more than ever.
One thing is clear: the UK will remain at the forefront of that effort. It is worth perhaps a brief summary of how we have led so far. Like many, we were taken aback by President Putin’s actions on 24 February 2022, but we were not unprepared. Indeed, since 2015, we had trained more than 22,000 Ukrainians through Operation Orbital following the annexation of Crimea. As soon as Russian boots touched Ukrainian soil, we were again determined to lead the international response. The UK was the first European country to provide Ukraine with lethal aid to help stall the Russian advance. To date, we have donated thousands of short and long-range missiles, Stormer vehicles fitted with Starstreak missile launchers, and multiple launch rocket systems capable of striking targets up to 80 kilometres away with pinpoint accuracy. Last month, we led the world by providing modern main battle tanks to Ukraine.
I know that many noble Lords today will wish to know about the effect of these donations on our own supplies, so it is worth noting that even as we gift capability, we are seeking to restock and replenish. We are reviewing the number of Challenger 3 conversions to consider whether the lessons of Ukraine suggest that we need a larger tank fleet. We are accelerating the Army’s Mobile Fires programme so that, instead of delivering in the 2030s, it will do so earlier in this decade. Subject to commercial negotiation, an interim artillery capability will also be delivered. Furthermore, we are commissioning the backfilling of 155-millimetre artillery shells. In November, we signed a contract for high-velocity anti-aircraft defence missiles to replace the ones we had gifted. On top of that, in the Autumn Statement there was a £560 million increase for our own stockpiles.
Ours is a calibrated response—one that is necessitated by Russia’s growing aggression and indiscriminate bombing, but also intended to act as a force multiplier. The UK’s announcement generated unstoppable momentum, with countries following our lead to pledge main battle tanks to Ukraine. Germany’s decision to send Leopard 2 tanks and the United States’ to send Abrams tanks, coupled with the pledges of Poland, Spain, Canada and France, have enabled us to send a unified signal to Moscow that is more important than any individual contribution. It is a signal that says no one is acting unilaterally and that we are united in helping Ukraine to defend its land and evict the illegal invader.
Let us be clear: in 2023, the UK’s support to Ukraine will remain unwavering. We have already committed to match the £2.3 billion in military aid we spent last year. Yesterday the Prime Minister went further still, not just expanding our training offer for Ukrainian troops to include fighter jet pilots—enabling Ukrainian aviators to fly sophisticated NATO-standard fighters in the future—but offering to provide Ukraine with longer-range capabilities to inhibit Russia’s ability to target civilians and critical national infrastructure while also relieving pressure on Ukraine’s front lines.
Make no mistake: we will continue to use our influence and convening power to keep that global support solid. Once again, we are joined in this great endeavour by our friends in the United States. They have invested approximately $24.2 billion in support for Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s invasion. They have delivered thousands of anti-aircraft and anti-armour systems as well as Patriot air defence battery and munitions, refurbished T-72B tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. As an aside, the other week I met a group of American congress men and women, and I can tell your Lordships that the US absolutely approves of what we are doing. They pointed out to me that in their country those tempted to think that this was a remote European issue have been given a wake-up call. They now understand how the conflict can reach them, not just in the form of hostile aggression but through its wider impacts, including economic fluctuations, energy shocks and cost of living crises.
Many other allies are part of the broad pro-Ukraine coalition. On 19 January, the United Kingdom—alongside Estonia, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, and the representatives of Denmark, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Slovakia—signed the Tallinn pledge to collectively pursue
“the delivery of an unprecedented set of donations including main battle tanks, heavy artillery, air defence, ammunition, and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine’s defence”.
Separately, our international fund now stands at over £500 million. Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Lithuania and Iceland have donated generously, and we shall soon be announcing the first round of bids.
However, our efforts are not confined to supplying aid or raising donations. The United Kingdom will continue to demonstrate global leadership by hosting both the international Justice Ministers conference on war crimes in March and the Ukraine recovery conference in June. We are playing a critical role in training Ukrainian forces too. Besides teaching Ukrainian tank crews how to operate Challenger platforms and how to fight as a formed unit with those tanks, we are providing specialist basic training to Ukrainian recruits. I went to see that happening last week. It was a privilege to be there; it was both inspiring and humbling. The training is excellent and the Ukrainians receptive, quick to learn and agile. So far, we have trained more than 10,000 Ukrainian personnel in the UK. This year, we are doubling down on that success by increasing the number to a further 20,000. If noble Lords want an illustration of international solidarity with Ukraine, they should just consider our partners in this extraordinary training effort: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Lithuania, Norway, New Zealand and the Netherlands.
President Putin’s flagrant breach of international law has forced us to come to terms with a new reality. It has brought the resurgence of state aggression into sharp relief. For the first time since World War II, we have seen the manifestation of an illegal land-based war in Europe: a desperate attempt by one nation to conquer another country’s sovereign territory. However, there have also been a number of other interesting outcomes that President Putin certainly did not foresee, because the 2020s have not proved a mirror to the 1930s. Nations have not been cowed or coerced into staying silent. President Putin wished for a weaker NATO, but NATO is more solid and more determined and—with the anticipated accession of Finland and Sweden—even stronger. Indeed, we will continue to do all we can to ensure that the final hurdles are removed to allow their swift entry into the alliance.
It is equally striking how nations outside NATO’s orbit have also come to the same conclusion: that their interests align and that they too have a role to play in defending international order. Notably, the United Kingdom has once again been instrumental in bringing northern European neighbours together in solidarity under the auspices of the Joint Expeditionary Force, ensuring a steady supply of lethal and non-lethal aid to sustain Ukrainian resistance.
Back on the home front, we now have a clearer picture of the more serious threats and a renewed understanding of the significance of traditional war-fighting capability. We are planning to refresh our 2021 integrated review and Command Paper. This will be an important opportunity to address the hollowing-out of our land capability over many years under successive Governments, to restore our combat credibility, to rebuild our land industrial base and to modernise the whole of defence to confront the threats of tomorrow.
Kremlin propagandists will inevitably paint any support for Ukraine as an attack on Russia, so-called NATO-orchestrated aggression, or even a proxy war. For the avoidance of doubt, the escalation is not happening today. It started in February 2022, when the Russian Government chose to invade Ukraine illegally to pursue their vain imperialist dream. No one who watched President Zelensky give his stirring address in Westminster Hall yesterday can fail to have been impressed by his courage, his indomitable spirit and his powerful conviction that, in his words,
“bravery takes you through the most unimaginable hardships to finally reward you with victory”.
He and his people are an inspiration, and in 2022 they achieved impossible things; but the reality is that bravery and heroism will not be enough against Russia. Ukraine needs its friends to continue upping their support, which is why, in 2023, as the Prime Minister has said, we must seize the opportunity to accelerate our support for Ukraine before Russia tries to recover its equilibrium.
Putin hopes to wear down the West. He hopes our unity will fracture. He hopes we will seek a rapid return to the status quo. However, history has already taught us that you can never let wrong go unpunished because, if you do, you do not know where that wrong will end up. Therefore, we must show the Kremlin the error of its ways, working with our international partners to aggregate our military muscle and diplomatic clout. We must do all in our power to help brave Ukrainians expel Russia from their sovereign soil. Ultimately, as President Zelensky put it so eloquently yesterday, Russia must lose so that freedom will win. I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords—just to pick up that last point—I thought that yesterday’s visit of President Zelensky was a remarkable parliamentary occasion, echoing the leadership that this country showed in World War II, particularly the leadership of Winston Churchill. In that setting, I am very much looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. Standing in his fatigues next to Mr Speaker and the Lord Speaker, President Zelensky’s message was clear: “Do not forget Ukraine or this war in Europe.” As the Lord Speaker said in his thanks to the President, leadership is about visibility, and the President has not been afraid to stand with his people and be where they have suffered most: in the front line.
On the point about visibility, it was also important for the world to see Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak presenting a united front in their determination to help Ukraine defeat Vladimir Putin. Both reaffirmed to President Zelensky their support for Ukraine and expressed sympathy for the horrors suffered by the Ukrainian people. This war must end with Putin’s defeat and Ukraine’s freedom secured.
As the Minister reminded us, this month represents the first anniversary of Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine, which has resulted in immeasurable suffering. Britain is united in its support for Ukraine, and the Government will always have our full backing to provide military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance as it defends itself. However, we also want to see support in the long term, and a move from ad hoc announcements to more systematic assistance. This means setting aside individual announcements, and instead setting out a clear strategy, in partnership with our allies and Ukraine.
Putin’s recent shift to attack civilian infrastructure shows that he has no regard for the rules of military conflict, and it also means that the war is unlikely to conclude in the immediate future. While the UK’s crisis response to Ukraine has been undoubtedly strong—and the Government deserve credit for this—we now need to look towards the future as well. It is on this basis that the Government should consider proposals for a 2023 action plan, encompassing military, economic and diplomatic support. This must include a strategy to ensure a sustained stream of future supplies, and efforts to urgently ramp up our own industry; but it should also encourage our allies to do more. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively about the intention to publish such a plan.
In the immediate term, the Government must also contend with how they can best support the people of Ukraine through the final months of winter. Putin’s illegal invasion has left key areas of the country’s infrastructure decimated, and the attacks on energy and water plants appear to be part of an attempt to freeze the population of Ukraine into submission. I hope the Minister can set out what the Government are doing to support the viability of Ukraine’s energy sector going forward. Can he also set out what additional support the United Kingdom will provide to Ukraine beyond the 850 generators already delivered, and what further measures will be taken to support Ukrainians in the light of these continued attacks by Russia on critical infrastructure?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, reaffirmed, we must remain committed to military support for Ukraine. Ultimately, we must constantly ask ourselves how we can better assist it in winning this war. Immediately following President Zelensky’s speech, the Prime Minister said that the UK’s provision of planes is “part of the conversation”, but that the immediate need is for longer-range missiles and tanks—the noble Baroness referred to this—and that it may take as long as three years to train pilots to use UK jets. He also noted that there are supply chain issues, adding that some of the UK’s aircraft are linked to joint treaties with other countries. The PM said that Britain was only making a different long-term offer on fighter jets, saying that the UK would be
“expanding its training offer to include fighter jet pilots to ensure Ukraine can defend its skies well into the future”.
I know that the United States has been allocating resources to that sort of training. Downing Street said:
“The training will ensure pilots are able to fly sophisticated NATO standard fighter jets in the future.”
What is the timeframe for this? What discussions have taken place with our NATO allies on such a programme?
Turning to next-generation light anti-tank weapons, although I am pleased that the Government have announced that a contract to start replenishing stocks has finally been signed, can the Minister confirm how many other contracts have been signed to start to replace the military aid sent to Ukraine? I heard the confident remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in this regard but it would be good to hear a little more detail to ensure that this is actually happening.
Of course, sanctions are another of the greatest tools at our disposal in supporting Ukraine and holding Putin to account. The Minister will be aware that the US recently imposed new sanctions on Russia, targeting a network accused of procuring military and dual-use technologies from US manufacturers and illegally supplying them to Russia for the war. Given that RUSI has confirmed that UK components are also appearing in Russian weaponry, can the Minister confirm whether the UK is looking to impose similar sanctions? No doubt the Minister will say that he cannot comment on future designations for sanctions, but we want to hear from him that we are confident we can tackle these leaks and breaches of our own sanctions and that we are absolutely determined to work closely with our allies to do this.
On frozen Russian assets, the EU and Canada recently set out a plan to repurpose such assets to help rebuild critical Ukrainian infrastructure and provide much-needed humanitarian aid to the country. Does the Minister have any plans to replicate this, work in tandem with these important allies and engage with the EU and Canada to support those efforts?
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned the growing body of evidence of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. In addition to taking any steps we can to help the Ukrainians, we must consider how we can hold Putin and his regime to account. The reports of new mass graves in liberated areas and increasing evidence of war crimes demand accountability. It is in everyone’s interests that the UK supports all international efforts to document, investigate and prosecute these crimes. I know that the Minister has been committed to this strategy in other international scenarios. He will be aware that, since March, my colleagues in the House of Commons have been calling for a special international tribunal to prosecute Putin and members of his armed forces for the crime of aggression and other war crimes that have been evidenced. The EU backs the plan, as do the Ukrainian Government. Can the Minister explain why we as a country are not planning to support such efforts?
Unfortunately, it is now clear that Putin’s aim is not simply to take Ukraine. His regime has shown that it is prepared to use armed forces in contempt of international institutions and humanitarian law. For this reason, as Putin expands his war effort and amasses further troops, we must also remain alert to the more immediate threat to the United Kingdom and our allies. It is important that our commitment to NATO is unshakeable, and this must be paired with a rebooting our defence plans, as more than 20 of our NATO allies have done. We have heard repeated calls for the integrated review to be reviewed; however, we need not just the review but absolutely clear plans to reboot our defence mechanisms.
If this war is to end, we must make it clear to Putin that things will get worse, not better, for Russia. We must also give Ukraine the confidence it needs by announcing a longer-term strategy. On Britain’s military help to Ukraine and reinforcing our NATO allies on the border, the Government have had and will continue to have Labour’s full support. In standing side by side with Ukraine against this illegal invasion, we are not only reflecting our global values but defending our national interests.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have a full debate on this issue. I welcome the comprehensive introduction from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, with his experience as a former MoD Minister; he will contribute greatly to this House and to this specific debate.
Last year, I watched the full expansion of the 2014 aggression into the invasion of Ukraine from a hotel room in Baghdad, before I flew to Beirut. I knew then what we all know now: that this unwarranted and illegal aggression by Russia against an independent sovereign state would have significant consequences far beyond the borders of Ukraine itself. The horror inflicted on the people of Ukraine—according to the UN Human Rights Office, it has so far claimed 438 children’s lives, among more than 7,000 civilian deaths; and of course, we know that women have been disproportionately affected by this aggression—has been compounded by Putin weaponising grain and food, thereby exacerbating famine in the Horn of Africa, where 5 million children are currently dangerously malnourished, an issue we debated earlier this week. His venally amoral use of the Wagner Group of mercenaries to deploy intimidation, rape and torture across a wider arc in Africa is even worse.
According to the Norwegian chief of defence, Ukrainian losses are probably over 100,000 dead or wounded in defending their country, and for Russia an astonishing 180,000 dead or wounded soldiers, many of whom we know were lied to and misled about what they were fighting for. A year on, today, a Ukrainian MP friend of mine from our sister party, President Zelensky’s party, WhatsApped me a message:
“We have just got information that Russia has started a new attack. It is a hell there.”
It is, and President Zelensky’s extraordinary address to us yesterday captured the totality of the consequences of what I believe will be a failed attempt by Putin to occupy a nation and subjugate its people. Putin wants to be a neo-Russian emperor. He has convinced himself that a Russian empire can only exist with Kievan Rus’ within it. However, he has miscalculated strategically and misunderstood the people of Ukraine to an extraordinary degree.
Like many colleagues, I have visited Ukraine. I have been there three times. The people of that country have a very differing view from Putin of their own future. They want to determine it themselves. Their clear desire to join the EU and to work with us and NATO for security I believe is now, for the long term, immutable. Putin made another miscalculation. A year ago, we could not possibly have forecast the German Zeitenwende, the sea change in Germany policies. We could not have forecast how European energy reliance on Russian gas has moved from 50% to less than 13% in one year—extraordinary changes. I and colleagues from these Benches have been in lockstep with the Government on support for the Government of Ukraine and we have all been impressed, as the Minister said, by the support from the British people for the people of Ukraine, from individual families and communities across all parts of the UK welcoming those in need, through to the Government providing hard military capabilities—“tea and tanks”, as President Zelensky may have put it.
We have supported the raft of economic sanctions and I have debated them all with the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I too put on record my appreciation of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for how he has engaged with us, informed us and been accessible to us. It is an exemplary way for a Minister to operate on foreign affairs. However, we did argue that we needed to have moved faster on closing London’s laundromat reputation. The data from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s Annual Review from the end of last year said that in 2021, £44.5 million of Russian assets were frozen. By November 2022, that figure had risen to £18 billion, showing the extraordinary exposure that the UK had to questionable Russian finance—to which, regrettably, all too often a blind eye was turned. The Government continue to refuse to state who on the sanctions list now had been issued with a golden visa and effectively paid to launder their money through Britain.
We have supported the Ukrainian settlement scheme, but it was only through scrutiny that we found out that this scheme in its entirety will be scored against development assistance—uniquely among OECD countries—meaning that it has been offset by cuts elsewhere. We must be self- aware that these reductions are a part of how Russia is opening what I described in the autumn as a second front in this war, in the east and the global south. I am fearful that the UK is not focused enough now on that front.
Last week I raised concerns with the Minister on the red-carpet treatment given to Sergey Lavrov by our friends in South Africa, and the naval exercises that South Africa, China and Russia will be carrying out in just 10 days’ time. India and Sri Lanka have increased oil purchases, and the gold trade from the east and southern Africa via the Gulf and into Moscow is flourishing. In certain sectors, the rouble is strong. Four years of reductions in UK development co-operation mean something, not just for the most vulnerable people in the world but geopolitically.
We must be self-aware and acknowledge that, while our economic sanctions have undeniably been extensive and in many areas effective, in other areas they have been offset and circumvented elsewhere. As Putin now enters a different phase, of slow, grinding horror against the Ukrainian people, we must also think of how to isolate Russia more. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that the next phase of our sanctions and economic measures must be considered carefully and those measures must be strong. They must also ensure that our work on the second front is considered.
I have no doubt that Putin miscalculated when he underestimated the resolve of the Ukrainian people. He thought that the EU would splinter and that the EU, UK and US would not work as closely as they have. However, he has been more successful in presenting this aggression not as imperial expansion, which it undoubtedly is, but as Cold War alignment. In March last year, 25 African countries either abstained or refrained from voting on a UN resolution to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In South Africa alone, as I referred to, in one minor but telling example, the ANC Youth League sent observers to Russia’s phoney referendum in the four Ukrainian provinces occupied by Russia in September and described the referendum as
“a beautiful, wonderful process”.
From the Sahel to southern Africa, a sweep of Russian malign influence is seen, and, of course, they have their blood-soaked criminal mercenaries to act as a proxy. As I have mentioned in the Chamber before, I have seen with my own eyes the Wagner Group operate in Sudan. I was the first in Parliament to call for that group’s proscription. I did so to Ministers in this Chamber on 25 April, 23 May, 9 June, 17 July, 15 November, 21 December, and again on 26 January. At that time, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said that she would write to me. I have not had a reply yet. Ed Davey asked the Prime Minister about this issue yesterday. This group is a threat to our security and our safety, to British nationals abroad and to our allies. Why have we not proscribed it? Why are we acting so slowly? When the Minister winds up this debate, I hope that he can confirm that we will indeed proscribe this group. There cannot be impunity for the Putin regime’s human rights crimes, nor should there be for his proxies.
I very much welcome the shift in the Government’s position regarding the tribunal that was announced on 20 January, supporting the establishment of a tribunal on aggression. I call again on the Government to add the UK’s support to the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the crime of aggression. It is incongruous that we support now a tribunal under the authority of articles in the Rome statute that we have so far not supported, but the shift in government policy is welcome. As President Zelensky told us yesterday, if we support the rules-based international order there should be no impunity for those who break those rules or seek to circumvent them.
I attended an event supporting the International Criminal Court last autumn and spoke with a Ukrainian MP friend of mine, Galyna Mykhailiuk. I asked her a number of questions during the event about the situation with the people of Ukraine. She was extremely humble. She said, “Can I ask you a question, please?” I said, “Of course”. I thought that it would be about UK support or military equipment and missiles. She said, “Just out of interest, have you ever met the Queen?” I said, “Funnily enough, I have”. She said, “Can I please pass on the condolences of the people of Ukraine on the Queen’s passing?” She then said, “I have to let you in on a secret”—which I have her permission to tell your Lordships. “I watched, with a group of my fellow MPs, the whole of the funeral.” Then she said, rather cheekily, “I missed the plenary of the Parliament and my committee meeting to watch the funeral”. She paused and then said, “I did not see the Windsor Castle part because I had to attend my AK-47 training”.
MPs were told there a year ago that they should expect an imminent Russian special forces attack on their Verkhovna Rada building, where they would be either murdered or held hostage as part of the installation of a puppet regime. They thwarted that and their Parliament carried on. It legislated. Its staff, some of whom were also conscripted to the front, and others, continued to help ensure that the raft of emergency legislation could be passed. It continues to function.
Putin has no feel for, nor knowledge or understanding of, a representative parliamentary democracy—he has persecuted his own opposition at home—but the people of Ukraine do. I hope the Minister will support what I am calling for, which is a nomination process for the Ukrainian parliament to be given the George Medal. That parliament, as an institution, a representative democracy at a time of horror and aggression, has been humbling for all other parliamentarians in the world.
One of the reasons that I feel so humble is that I see that they are managing to do what we, in this building, did 80 or so years ago. On the night of 10 May 1941, a bomb fell through the roof of this Chamber and hit the very spot where I stand. It did not detonate. Bombs did not stop our Parliament from carrying on, and Putin’s missiles will not stop Ukraine’s either.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. While it is his first in this Chamber, it is but his latest contribution to an already long and distinguished parliamentary career.
We are about to reach the ninth anniversary of Russia’s war in Ukraine and the first anniversary of the latest and most violent phase of the conflict, during which the total casualties have run into the hundreds of thousands—a butcher’s bill that will only grow, and grow rapidly, over the coming months. As this reality continues to unfold and the suffering of the Ukrainian people mounts, the question I hear most frequently is: how and when will it end? The answer, of course, is that nobody knows. Just about all wars begin and end in politics, and this one is no different. Eventually, there will have to be a political conclusion, but that appears to be a long way off and it does not imply, as some seem to believe, the appeasement of Russia.
In thinking about what it might imply for the near term, it is worth taking a step back and reflecting on broader strategic objectives. The Ukrainians are clear about theirs: the full restoration of their country’s pre-2014 borders, including the recovery of Crimea. The Russians’ position today is less certain. Their initial objective was undoubtedly the removal of the Ukrainian Government and their replacement by a regime friendly to, if not under the control of, the Kremlin. Whether events of the past year have changed this calculus is open to debate, but I doubt it.
Putin is certainly aware that making progress towards his original objective is a lot harder and taking far longer than he had imagined, but there is no reason to suppose that he has given up on it. To the contrary, there is much evidence to suggest that he is doubling down on his original intent.
As far as the UK is concerned, our strategic objective must be to ensure that Putin’s aggression is widely perceived to have failed; that such illegal assaults on the international order are seen as not just very costly but unlikely to succeed. But I believe we should go further. As I observed last week, in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, Russia’s war in Ukraine is being spearheaded by the Wagner organisation—a group that has at the heart of its activities terror, torture, murder, rape and all other forms of brutality. A supposedly civilised world should not countenance the existence of such a force, and we should seek to eliminate its presence from the wider international scene.
From looking at these strategic objectives, it is apparent that they differ markedly. That is unsurprising in the case of Russia and Ukraine, but it is also true with regard to the UK’s aims and, I suspect, those of many other countries that support Ukraine. This makes it very difficult to see what shape a long-term political solution might take. However, there is far less uncertainty about the near term. This is because, if Putin’s aggression is to be widely perceived as having failed, Russia must end up in no better a position than when it started the conflict and preferably in a worse one. That means Ukraine recovering its southern coastline and at least some of the Donbass.
Both those outcomes are, at best, some way off, so for the moment we need not concern ourselves about how much further the Ukrainian Government’s ambitions might stretch. That may become a pressing issue if Russian forces are driven back significantly, but there are a great many bridges to cross, both literally and figuratively, before we get anywhere near that point. For now, we should focus our minds and efforts on those bridges, and not worry unduly about what forks may lie along the road in the far distance.
Our immediate priority, like that of Ukraine, must therefore be further reversals of Russia’s territorial gains. But Ukraine’s continued success in this regard relies not just on the sustained valour of its people but on the willingness of western nations to maintain their high level of material support. That, in turn, depends to an extent on the perception of military progress—something of a chicken-and-egg situation.
My conclusion from all this is that the Ukrainian forces will need to make demonstrable gains over 2023. That, though, begs the question of the means required to achieve such an outcome, so I turn to some detailed points and questions for the Minister.
We have seen the very recent, welcome decisions, by Germany in particular, on the provision of tanks to go along with the other armoured fighting vehicles and artillery already delivered and promised. We should be in no doubt, though, that offensive action to retake and hold ground is a very different proposition from mounting a defence against the kind of unco-ordinated and poorly led attack that we saw from Russian forces last summer. Tanks in sufficient numbers will be very helpful in this regard, but the ability to manoeuvre sizeable units with concentrated firepower, to clear obstacles, both natural and man-made, and to co-ordinate different elements, both on the ground and in the air, is a significant challenge to any military. Of course, the offensive forces need extensive logistical support, technical capabilities and, crucially, sufficient weapon stocks. The important aid that we and other countries have given to Ukraine has resulted in a multiplicity of equipment types, each with its own logistic tail and often with different ammunition requirements.
Can the Minister therefore tell the House what assessment His Majesty’s Government have made of the scale of development of Ukraine’s offensive capabilities and, in particular, of its sustainability in the light of the requirements I have outlined above? Is there more that we should be doing to improve the coherence of Ukraine’s capabilities rather than focusing just on quantity?
I turn to the air. It is clear that the continued existence of capable ground-based air defences on both sides has led to something of a stalemate. What advice and aid is the Ministry of Defence giving the Ukrainians to help them break the impasse, particularly in light of the advantage that air superiority would give an attacking force? I note the Government’s announcement yesterday that the UK will provide fast-jet pilot training for Ukrainians. This may be an important contribution to Ukrainian capability, but training pilots, even advanced training, takes a long time and they need aircraft to fly once they are trained—not that we have much to offer in that regard. Our Typhoon force is already overstretched maintaining the air defence of these islands and flying combat air patrols over NATO nations bordering the conflict.
Can the Minister explain how this initiative will fit into Ukraine’s broader operational plans? Is it intended to bolster the military effort in the present conflict or is it part of the longer-term development of the Ukrainian armed forces? Can he also say what impact this new undertaking is likely to have on our military? Given the signal failure, over the past few years, of the military flying training system to deliver sufficient capacity to meet the RAF’s needs, only compounded by the recent problems with the engine on the Hawk T2 aircraft, how confident is he that it can now rise to such an additional demand? Is this not yet another example of the stripping out of our military capabilities, which has gone on for so many years, coming home to roost? Until now, the Ukraine war has largely focused attention on the paucity of our weapon stocks, but this latest initiative highlights a much deeper and wider problem of capacity. Will the revision of the defence Command Paper address this?
Finally, I turn to an issue already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and very ably highlighted yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, in the briefing on Ukraine that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, kindly arranged for us. Outside of the NATO area, Russia seems to be having considerable success in the battle of the narratives. This has important implications for the longer term. In the Middle East, Asia and Africa, the danger posed by Russia and the plight of Ukraine are widely misunderstood. There is indeed sympathy for Russia, which is supposedly facing encirclement by a hostile and aggressive NATO. I know that the Minister understands the importance of countering this narrative, but can he reassure the House that the Government are working hard with allies to develop a co-ordinated and sustained response? We may not be able to win over everybody, but at the moment we are winning over far too few.
The conflict in Ukraine continues to throw up many complex and difficult questions, but this is a time for clarity. We should not expect the war to be decided this year, but it will be a decisive period in determining whether both we and Ukraine are able to achieve our objectives. With that in mind, we should bend every sinew to promote Ukrainian military success over these crucial months.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, it is rather humbling to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I also welcome my noble friend Lord Soames and look forward to his maiden speech.
As everybody has said, after 12 months of conflict, death, destruction and huge suffering, everybody is wondering how long this war will last and how it will end. At the beginning of the war, no one believed that Ukraine could outlast the might of Russia. President Biden even offered Zelensky and his Government exile in the United States. Zelensky’s famous refusal,
“I need ammunition, not a ride”,
and the amazing resilience and courage of the Ukrainian people that followed, stunned the West. Helping Zelensky contain Russia’s aggression soon turned into a proxy war for the West.
Since then, as we heard earlier, the West has provided a massive amount of military and economic support. With Germany’s recent agreement to release the Leopard 2 tanks, more than 300 heavy tanks will be delivered to Ukraine by European countries, while the USA will provide 31 Abrams tanks. Yesterday our Prime Minister announced that Britain could also provide fighter jets and train Ukrainian pilots.
Unsurprisingly, Zelensky and the West believe that Ukraine can win the war outright. But Putin too believes that he can win the war outright. He has shown no sign of intending to stop the war, scaling down his demands or looking for a way out, let alone making serious proposals for peace. For Putin, this is a crusade. He and his siloviki—men of force, mostly ex-KGB—are in an existential struggle against the West. For Putin, as much as for them, it is a matter of life and death. There is no chance to back down now and, if Putin goes, they too lose everything. Their only interest is to keep their wealth, and they are too afraid to raise their voices and criticise Putin anyway.
A recent report published by the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service concluded that we should not expect Mr Putin to give up on his faltering war, and should bury any hopes of a successor toppling him anytime soon. The report goes on to say:
“Putin is playing for time, believing that Ukraine and the West will wear out before Russia.”
Ukrainian intelligence services, as the Minister pointed out, believe that Putin is planning a major counteroffensive, maybe as early as on 24 February to mark the beginning of his “war against the Nazis”.
The Russian army may be disorganised and the number of deaths, injured and deserters may be in the region of 200,000, but Putin has a large reserve at hand. There are three times more Russians than Ukrainians. This is reminiscent of Stalin during World War II; the Germans would kill 10 divisions, but 20 would resurge. Putin’s war stock is vast, while the delivery of western tanks may not arrive in time for the upcoming battle—and let us not forget that Russia is one of the world’s two largest nuclear powers.
Dr Kissinger recently questioned whether we were sleepwalking into a conflict similar to World War I, which none of the European leaders would have entered into had they foreseen what would follow. The President of Croatia—a NATO member—criticised western nations for supplying Ukraine with heavy tanks and other weapons, saying that it will only prolong the war and adding that it is “mad” to believe that Russia can be defeated in a conventional war.
I am enormously proud of our Government’s unwavering support and of the lead role they have taken immediately, not only in military aid but in economic and humanitarian aid and in their diplomatic efforts and successes with other countries.
However, in view of Putin’s revisionism, and Russia’s nuclear weapons, oil and gas, skills in cyber technology, and its proximity to Europe, I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify exactly what our strategic aim is and say how we can achieve it. When we look at Russia, we can be clear about its strategic aim—which is possibly also to take control of the nuclear power in Ukraine. Ukraine’s strategic aims are also clear but can all the NATO nations have the same aim? How can we ensure that we work together to make a safer future for our country and the Ukrainians?
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, who has worked hard as the Prime Minister’s envoy on Ukraine. It is also good to look forward to the maiden contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, who is not only an old colleague and friend but a former Minister for the Armed Forces, with a distinguished record that was only enhanced by him being denied the Conservative whip in the House of Commons before he came here.
The most famous expert on strategy during the Second World War was Sir Basil Liddell Hart, who once wisely said:
“The profoundest truth of war is that the issue of battle is usually decided in the minds of the opposing commanders, not in the bodies of their men.”
Therefore, the question for us is: given that Vladimir Putin, in his own mind, made the decision to invade Ukraine, ignoring the advice of his military experts and recklessly misreading the intelligence on the resistance of the Ukrainians, can we change his mind? I believe that we can and that we must do just that. Getting into the mind of someone like President Putin is not easy, even for me who dealt with him personally 20 years ago in what now seems to be another universe. But I offer to the House some recent examples of the kind of mind shifts among authoritarians that might just give us an indication of where we could go in the future.
The first example is the decision of President Xi of China only a few weeks ago to abandon overnight the draconian lockdown policy on Covid. Even an authoritarian in a country such as China will watch public opinion closely, and he could see that the ground was moving—and fast. My second example was less than a week ago. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran, a notably repressive regime, decided without notice to release thousands of prisoners who had defied the law on headdress. Even the Supreme Leader could see that the ground was moving against the regime. With women’s demonstrations escalating all the time, the mind of the commander was changed as a consequence. My third example was the exit by the Soviet Union in February 1989 from its disastrous invasion and intervention in Afghanistan. In the Kremlin, they understood that they were losing the war, the casualty list was producing a massive backlash among mothers and it was costing an already troubled economy a substantial amount of money. So, without any off-ramp being offered, no face-saving formula being available, they ordered their troops simply to come home. My fourth example to the House is 4 June 1989, when Solidarity was elected the Government in Poland. On that day, there were 55,000 Soviet troops in Poland but the Soviet Politburo ordered them to stay in their barracks. It could see the writing on the wall, that the ground internationally was moving and that its mind had to change—and it did so.
What, then, will it take to change Vladimir Putin’s mind without, as it happens, the advice to him of a politburo, a parliament or even a security council? The answer is: primarily by the determination of the West to stand by the territorial integrity of Ukraine and its people. Only by the united resolution of the countries of the free world insisting on the right of Ukraine and the Ukrainians to live as they want will the mind of Putin change when he sees that he cannot succeed. That unity of western Europe was Putin’s first serious miscalculation and so, too, was the renewed link between Europe and the United States. Both must be reinforced.
We must give President Zelensky, who inspired us all yesterday in Westminster Hall, the tools to defend his nation. The main thing, however, is to give long-term commitments to providing help. Piecemeal decisions do not have the same effect on the Kremlin as our united promise to continue providing the missiles, guns, ammunition and training that will help Ukraine to throw out the invader.
It is a brutal fact that the people of Ukraine are fighting for their lives, their country and democracy, but they are also fighting for us. It is again a brutal fact of the new world that Vladimir Putin has created that our front line of defending Britain is no longer the white cliffs of Dover or the north German plains but the mud and blood of the Donbass in eastern Ukraine. We must make sure that that front line is defended with vigour, determination and total resolution. That means that the Government must make a difficult but necessary choice to spend the cash, replenish all that we have sent to Ukraine and restore the defences of our own country. We can all now see the threat to us that is on display in technicolour in Donetsk, Luhansk and Mariupol. There is absolutely no excuse possible for skimping on the defence of our nation and our people. The first and overwhelming duty of any Government is the protection of the nation, and that duty cannot and must not be avoided.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I start with a couple of declarations of interest. I am one of the elected vice-presidents of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and I work very closely with our five sister parties in Ukraine. I am also a former trustee of UNICEF UK, and I am vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue.
It is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. His decades of experience and strategic view have given us a hopeful speech about changing mindsets. The House should be grateful for that. The only issue I have is that one other factor is beginning to emerge, which is the Russian people themselves. However downtrodden they are, however much protesters are imprisoned, however much Navalny and his Anti-Corruption Foundation and our sister party Yabloko do what they can in a country where it is almost impossible to speak up, it is now becoming clear that the Russian people are concerned about the number of deaths and beginning to understand that things are not as Putin has told them. Let us hope that that continues to grow as well.
I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. I had the honour of meeting his mother on a number of occasions over 30 years at Churchill College. It is delightful to welcome yet another Soames into your Lordships’ House.
I will focus on the extraordinary cross-party political co-operation, not just in the UK and Ukraine but in many parts of the western world that have come together to try to turn the tide on Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I will illustrate that with one example, that of removing landmines. I will also focus on Ukrainian children abducted and forcibly adopted by Russia.
But first, I echo the points my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed made. Our Ukrainian friends are extremely keen that the UK looks at Russian assets, not just those of oligarchs and individuals who are in power but those of the nation itself. I gather that £58 billion of central Russian assets are held in London. We need to go beyond targeting just individuals because at some point, I hope very soon, we will have to find the resources to help Ukraine rebuild. It and the West should not pay for that; the aggressor should pay.
I mentioned that I work with our sister parties in Ukraine. There are five, but two are particular key: Servant of the People, or Sluha Narodu, which is obviously in power and led by Zelensky, and Golos, which is led by Kira Rudik as leader of the opposition. The example of cross-party co-operation is so evident when you talk to any MP in the Ukrainian parliament, because one thing they all do is come together. Their debate in parliament usually universally accepts that there is one priority role. Kira, who is also a vice-president of ALDE alongside me and has become a friend, uses her role as an international ambassador to go wherever she is asked by her country to speak about its priorities and concerns. She is an example to us all.
It was Kira who, in May last year, contacted me to ask whether the UK could provide support for landmine clearance and ensure it arrived as soon as the Russians had vacated Donetsk and Luhansk, which they were just in the process of doing. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and to Amanda Milling, whom I wrote to at the time to ask whether we could ensure that specific resources were available. I have worked somewhat with MAG over the past year. The one thing that still concerns it, despite everything that has gone extremely well, which I will come back to in a minute, is that there will still need to be considerable mine-clearing resource available in Ukraine as we move forward. The Government have done the right thing and not let it impact on landmine clearance that the UK funds elsewhere in the world. Will the Government continue to ensure that there are enough resources? I would like to point out the level of mine clearance elsewhere every year. My noble friend Lord Purvis spoke about the issues in southern Africa, and the numbers there are astonishing. In Somalia I think it is about 70,000 and in Myanmar it was 98,000 landmines last year alone. The numbers across the world are good, and this is something that the UK should be proud to do.
The key issue that I wanted to raise is that, now that the Mines Advisory Group and the Halo Trust are in touch with Ukraine, they have managed to work with a united Ukrainian Government. Every department that had to give permission to work with them has done so and did so quickly, within three to four weeks, and they are training their own Ukrainian people now to clear mines as well, which is something that both MAG and the Halo Trust do in every country that they go into. We know that the number of Russian attacks mean that there is a significant and serious problem that is continuing to grow with landmines and other things that can injure people, so I hope the Minister can give some reassurance on that.
My other focus is on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I note that Russia signed it in 1990 just after it was first launched, so there are other things that Russia has signed but chosen not to be party to. Articles 6, 11, 19, 21 and 38 are vital when it comes to protecting the children of Ukraine, both in terms of simply being victims of war in areas where there are attacks and, particularly, in relation to children who are being adopted. Article 21 says that adoption must be safe and lawful, and that every adoption must prioritise the child’s best interest. That has not happened. It is now thought that over 13,000 children were forcibly removed from Ukraine by Russia, and some 2,000 are completely untraced. It is astonishing that the Russian media have promoted the fact that they were proud to take those children from those regions, saying:
“More than 1,000 babies from the liberated Mariupol have already found new families … More than 300 babies are on temporary maintenance in specialized institutions of the Krasnodar Territory and are looking forward to meeting their new families”.
This is the straightforward abduction of children of one nationality who are then moved to another country. It must be stopped. When the time is right, these children must be reunited with their birth families.
I shall end on some of the issues in UK civic society, where extraordinary things have happened. First, we need to pay tribute to those families who have hosted Ukrainian families; to the many schools that are taking in, right from day one, Ukrainian children and making sure that they can settle in; and to the many Ukrainian families working together to make sure that Ukrainian heritage is upheld and supported while the children are abroad, not just in the UK but elsewhere. I have seen friends running vans of goods, sometimes specialist goods such as pharmaceutical goods, to Ukraine as they are needed. As a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group, I find it notable that the national fire chiefs have had four convoys of firefighting equipment, including fire engines, that have already gone to Ukraine, and further trips are planned. These are not things that get national press in the way that day-to-day war does, but it shows us that in this country we have come together as best we can as ordinary people to try to play our part.
I was talking to Kira Rudik in the period between the Queen’s death and her funeral. I had just had a family dinner with my stepmother and my mother-in-law, both of whom grew up in the war, one in the Blitz and one in a northern city where there were daily bombings. Both of them said that the pictures from Ukraine were reminiscent of their childhood and that, in the early days of the Blitz, they all thought that things would end fast, but they did not. That is the big message from our own generation who have witnessed this at first hand. We must be there to help Ukraine every step of the way for however long this trial takes because we know that we can come out the other side of it—as we did—but we have to do so as a united world to stop Russia’s continued aggression.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who brings great focus to a number of very important issues concerning the Ukrainian scene. I also look forward with warm anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames.
I wonder if President Putin ever heard about the principles of war before he launched his special operation. Most important of these principles is:
“Selection and maintenance of the aim”.
His aim was clear: to make all Ukraine again part of Mother Russia. He had established to his satisfaction that China would be supportive, while many in the third world might see his special operation as no part of their business. Eastern Europe is a far-off land and for some—for example, South Africa—a developing friendship with Russia was important.
Probably, there was also an expectation that Russia would soon succeed, as it had with Crimea. Then, after diplomatic tantrums, apoplectic condemnations and some more useless sanctions, Russia’s conquest would become accepted—in which case, why side with others against Russia? Almost 50 countries either abstained or did not choose to vote on the United Nations Assembly motion seeking to condemn Russia’s aggression. In some parts of the world, criticism of Russia is thus more nuanced—sympathetic, even—in spite of that totally unlawful behaviour, as indeed outlined by the Minister.
A year on, Putin has not changed his strategic aim. His claim last September that Kherson and much of the Donbass were now part of Mother Russia underlined his continuing strategic aim. Russia is expected to launch a further offensive. Will this one take the form of shock and awe, one wonders, with massive use of airpower? Russia has that ability, although it has been noticeable—even surprising—how little attempt it made at the outset, or in the past 12 months, to establish air supremacy in its classic form.
Putin’s military commanders will be instructed this time to use all means, short of nuclear weapons, to defeat the Ukrainians. But at the back of their minds must be a fear that NATO would take advantage and maybe use the conflict as a pretext for advancing further east. We know that is not true, but truth is not a feature of Russian thinking or practice. They employ untruths—blatant lies—and will assume that NATO would too. A chasm between cultures is there. It exists.
How much, then, will Russia keep in reserve against a fear of NATO attack? That must affect its decisions about a shock and awe air-led assault and other advances further into Ukraine. Occupation would require stationing forces to keep Ukrainians under control; that too must be planned for. Will production fully match its high rates of ammunition consumption? In sum, it is a difficult operational and logistic balance to strike, but I expect Putin to try to strike it.
Another great principle of war is “maintenance of morale”—that is, on your side, along with the destruction of the morale of your opponents. Here, one must hand the winner’s cup to Zelensky. His leadership of his country stands with the likes of a Caesar or a Churchill. Putin’s leadership, too, depends not just on the rigours of an authoritarian regime but on inspiring Russians that his cause is noble. However, when it comes to those engaged in the actual battle, differences in morale are striking.
Ukrainians have been given astonishing leadership from the top, and they have responded magnificently. What could be more inspiring than when, as has already been mentioned, at the start of the conflict Zelensky was offered a safe flight and responded, “I don’t need a ride; I want more ammunition”, or his message and the symbolism yesterday in Westminster Hall? He is going to need more and more ammunition and much other support for his military. His plea for fighter jets, which will take time to implement if agreed, means he is up for a long struggle. Will the many new Russian troops, freshly conscripted and exposed to brutal conflict, feel as inspired as the Ukrainians? No way.
Finally, faced with further assault, the Ukrainians stand firm; they do not fold. What then? If they do not just hold ground but gradually force the Russians to retreat and give up more and more of the country they occupy, even Crimea, Putin must face the truth: he has not achieved his aim. He must fear, however unreal, that behind any Ukrainian success, NATO would choose to venture even closer to Moscow—even further than Sweden and Finland joining NATO. That is a position unacceptable to Putin. In his eyes, it would directly threaten to destroy his Russia. How would he respond if he were to be booted out of Ukraine? That is the big unknown for all to ponder. I hope, even now, that we and our allies are in deep deliberation and gaming these future issues.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, like others in this House I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for tabling this debate. I wish to convey the apologies of my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, having recently travelled to Kyiv, wished to take part in this debate but is detained by the business of the General Synod. He will follow the deliberations closely in Hansard. My most reverend friend and several others from these Benches took time away from the General Synod yesterday and were delighted to join Members of both Houses to hear the President of Ukraine address us.
I count it a privilege and not a little daunting to precede the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, whose insight and wisdom on the matters before us are truly formidable. On behalf of the Lords Spiritual, I look forward to listening to and learning from his contributions to the work of the House in the coming days.
I would like to explore some of the issues which have arisen in recent weeks concerning how we assist Ukraine militarily while ensuring that we avoid strategic miscalculation. There can be no doubting the illegality, immorality and brutality of the Russian invasion. Nor can there be any doubt that Ukraine has a legitimate right to self-defence and to arm itself with the necessary equipment to do so. The military, financial and political support NATO countries have shown Ukraine since the start of the war has been just, necessary and proportionate. It is surely right that, as the war progresses and the early predictions of Russia’s swift victory prove ill-judged, our support for Ukraine grows significantly. The recent announcement that NATO countries will send tanks to Ukraine, a decision that would have been seen as taboo this time last year, has already given way to fresh debate on whether Ukraine should now also be supplied with fighter jets and longer-range missiles.
Such is our support for Ukraine that this is no longer being seen as a war solely between Russia and Ukraine. That is hardly surprising given that many western commentators now openly call for Russia’s complete defeat in Ukraine, either to bring down the evil Putin regime or to press for the decolonisation of Russia. Yet we need to be careful that, as the war progresses, our objectives do not shift from helping Ukraine defend itself to more comprehensively defeating Russia. Neither should we wishfully assume that a post-Putin Russia would see the country pathway seamlessly to democracy. In the meantime, we need to be reassured that we are not depleting our already diminished military resources, and we should strengthen our capacity for future defence without delay. Putin needs to see that we are serious in our preparedness for any widening of the conflict, should that be needed. This surely now requires a robust financial plan for immediate and medium-term increased defence spending and a strategic defence procurement plan, especially in the light of the sudden shift in security priorities because of the heightened threats in Europe.
Additionally, there can be no reduction in the need for supporting those fleeing the trouble in Ukraine. The initial early public support for the refugees was remarkable, and the government scheme very welcome, but more of the elderly relatives are now starting to come, and they have been harder to house. People in my diocese have found that there is also a particular problem for those leaving their host families to be able to find sufficient resources for a deposit for rented accommodation. We cannot keep taking from the international aid budget; we need a budget more in keeping with the fact that we are, in many ways, strategic players in a proxy war—a war that will need a long-term, committed response.
However, as we and our allies continue to support the people of Ukraine to defend themselves, how do we ensure that we do not become overconfident in our supply of advanced weaponry or so convinced by the rightness of our cause that we find ourselves in direct confrontation with Russia? There are significant cultural, religious and historical antecedents that need to be understood as having value in themselves if Putin is not simply to exploit those very things to bolster his increasingly costly war by framing western aggression as an attack on all that is instinctively and proudly Russian. In this, there is a propaganda war that we may not yet have properly addressed. I believe that we should, therefore, not defer from the Prophet Micah’s call to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God. That should not soften strategic or military resolve to reply to violent aggression, but it may help, in the process, to avoid lapses of judgment caused by conflict fatigue. Indeed, it ought to stiffen the moral imperative to continue resisting such a grotesque evil, even though the financial and more tragic human costs may continue to increase.
In his response, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether there are limits to the military support that Britain is willing to provide to Ukraine. Is there a clear set of criteria against which such decisions are being made? I would also value clarity from the Government as to what success looks like. We have pledged to help Ukraine win and to provide it with the weaponry to do so, but as an alliance we remain undecided on what victory means or looks like. What will territorial integrity look like? Would a post-ceasefire and internationally supervised referendum in parts of Donbass and Crimea be respected by all sides and sufficient to end the dispute over the territories? Are we looking to supply weaponry so that Russia can be evicted militarily from all of Ukraine, including Crimea? Or do we want Ukraine to be able, credibly, to threaten Russia’s control of Crimea in order to strengthen Kyiv’s position in any future negotiations?
The Foreign Secretary is right to say that we cannot
“allow this to drag on and become a kind of First World War attritional-type stalemate”,
but we need to be careful that such understandable frustration does not lead to mission creep and, with it, further unnecessary escalation.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his very kind words. It is difficult for me to adequately express the great sense of honour that I feel in rising to make my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House.
I start by thanking your Lordships for the generosity of the welcome that I have received, including some very kind words today, and expressing my particular thanks to Black Rod and her staff, Garter, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the IT wizards, the doorkeepers and attendants and, of course, the police, for their kindness and patience in steering me about the place. My thanks also go to my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Benyon for generously agreeing to present me to this House; to the Government Chief Whip and her excellent office; and to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham than whom there could be no better, no more sympathetic and no more knowledgeable mentor.
My first impressions, after a very few weeks here and as a former Member for 35 years of the House of Commons, are that your Lordships’ House is a highly successful but unsung institution, quietly and effectively getting on with vital, detailed, irreplaceable work of scrutiny, complementing but not rivalling the House of Commons. This week alone it has been a great privilege to listen to the ebb and flow of passionate, well-informed argument by some of the most distinguished and eminent Members of your Lordships’ House on two Bills of absolute profound importance to this country: on Monday, the debate on retained EU law and, on Tuesday, on matters touching on the fundamental liberties of the people of this country in the Public Order Bill. It has become clear to me very quickly that your Lordships’ House has a membership of often extraordinary wisdom, expertise, knowledge and experience, and I feel deeply privileged and very humbled to be part of it.
There could hardly be a better day for this House to take stock of the situation in Ukraine after the extraordinarily powerful and symbolic visit to London by President Zelensky and his inspirational speech to both Houses of Parliament. His leadership of Ukraine, as Moscow has sought to collapse his country as an independent and democratic state, has been heroic and exemplary and was brilliantly and movingly expressed yesterday.
I think it fitting to pay tribute to former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who immediately grasped the significance of President Putin unleashing a war on our European continent without any provocation or credible excuse. He rightly said that this country and its allies could not and indeed would not allow the values of democracy and freedom to be snuffed out, and made clear the United Kingdom’s policy. He said:
“Now we have a clear mission: diplomatically, politically, economically and eventually militarily, this hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/2022; col 564.]
I also congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, whose drive and leadership in the equipping and training of the Ukrainian armed forces has been admirable. I pay tribute to the tremendous skills of those members of the British Armed Forces, of all three services, who have been and are training our Ukrainian friends. As a former Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I have always been very aware of how exceptionally skilled the services are in their delivering of these training programmes. They are probably the finest training organisation in the country.
As we witness the unfolding reality and costs, in both men and materiel, of high-intensity conventional land warfare in Ukraine, it has added to the grave and now widespread concern that this country needs to pay a great deal more attention to defence and to sustaining our capabilities. Frankly, it is no longer possible, in my view, for defence to be reduced to an almost discretionary budget. I strongly believe that we need to reverse the slide in defence spending and to recognise that unless we invest at scale, we risk being left behind—very left behind—by the United States and, indeed, outgunned by other European states.
We all know that there are grave dangers ahead—the war in Ukraine is not the only challenge we will face. There are the global ambitions of China, including as a military power; serious difficulties in the Middle East; and instability in Africa and elsewhere. Further, I strongly believe that we need to pay the most careful and detailed attention to shoring up other areas, such as the Balkans, where Russia exhibits daily its malign intent. We need to concentrate on this with the same clarity, focus and decisiveness as we devote to Ukraine. We should most definitely not underestimate the danger of the fracturing of western resolve. We must ensure that there are no doubts about our staying power, our determination, our resolve and our unity. Your Lordships will be very aware that the President of China will be watching with great interest and care as he makes his calculations about Taiwan.
Finally, I support a sentiment expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who I was with yesterday on a very helpful Zoom call briefing with the Ministry of Defence, and expressed in an earlier speech by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and yesterday by my noble friend Lady Helic: that we need urgently to address the lack of understanding—other noble Lords have also mentioned this—of Ukraine’s position in Africa, South America, the Middle East and India, where Russian propaganda seems to have been, in some places, dangerously effective. This should, in my judgment, be a priority for the Foreign Office.
Our country can and should be proud of the role we have played in supporting Ukraine, and we must continue to be absolutely steadfast in our support in every way we can. It is worth remembering that Ukraine is one of history’s great survivors: two world wars, Stalin’s famines, the Great Terror, the Chernobyl explosion and finally a decade of subversion and occupation by Russia, followed by a full-blown invasion. The terrible lessons of history teach us that Ukraine is surely in need of all the help we can muster. I look forward to playing a further part in these debates and to continuing to learn, as I have done in the past few weeks, from your Lordships across the House.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to follow the maiden speech of my noble and long-standing friend Lord Soames, which contained much wisdom, as we have just heard. It was a very fine speech. I remind your Lordships that my noble friend, throughout the whole of his career, has been a beacon of balance and common sense in a world plagued by distorting polarisation and extremism, and has enormous experience, including his time as a highly successful Defence Minister. In my view we are indeed lucky to have him with us. We should all listen very closely to what he says, especially on these intractable world issues, which seem remote to some but in fact affect us all, our future and our children’s future.
This dreadful war is being fought on three fronts, if not more. There is the battlefield war, where we are now being told to expect an imminent and major Russian assault, and maybe some nasty blows. How this has come about, I do not know. They will be full of cunning—full of Russian maskirovka, as they call it—and difficult to anticipate. There is the war of sanctions, finance and trade, and especially energy trade. I am very glad to see the resuscitation of my old department, Energy, which will help to handle the very difficult problems lying ahead. There is the shadowy war of cyber and intelligence, fake news, and attempts at demoralisation and undermining civil order.
On the battlefield, I hope the enthusiasm with which we all greeted President Zelensky in Westminster Hall yesterday lunchtime will now be followed not just by tanks—that is good—but by much longer-range missiles, helicopters and advanced drones, which are improving technologically all the time; and, from the United States, if we can help and support them and jog them along, F16s. Without these coming—and coming in time—I foresee a prolonged and bloody stalemate at best. Even then, much more will be needed on other fronts as well.
I am going to focus on the other front where there could be a breakthrough: via sanctions and economic pressures, and Russian trade isolation. The question is, have sanctions of all kinds worked so far, and what more could be done? The answer to whether they have worked is, awkwardly, yes and no. On the “no” side, the Russian economy is not yet crippled and Putin has not withdrawn; on the contrary, he is gearing up for new assaults. The rouble is stronger, not weaker, than at the start of all this. The $60 cap on Russian oil, along with insurance sanctions, is not much different from what Russia was getting anyway, and Russian oil and frozen gas are pouring into Asia at a discount, benefiting hugely countries like China, which I cannot believe is something we intended or wanted. A lot of this oil is being moved illegally by so-called ghost fleets, evading Western eyes. As a result, Russian crude exports have surged enormously this last month, even if their revenues have not. The reality is that half the world is not playing the Western game, which means that the sanctions system is being undermined constantly.
On the other hand, turning to a more optimistic stance, Russian GDP is heavily down, some say by at least 15%. There is a massive disinvestment and capital flight, where people can get their money out—and they will find the means to do so. The Russian budget deficit is up to 6% of GDP and, much more encouragingly, Europe is now in far better position on energy resources than last year. Gas storage facilities are almost full, except, regrettably, here in the UK, where we are still arguing about who should pay for the storage we should have had from the start. Overall, Russia has much less leverage on western Europe today than it did a year ago.
The issue now is: should the wider world try to tighten sanctions further and, as some suggest, make the oil price cap much lower still—say, $35? Would that really begin to limit Putin’s capacity to wage this war? It is a very difficult call, with events often backfiring and unfolding in the opposite way from that intended. Yet it is here, in this sphere of economic pressures, with the major political consequences that could follow inside Russia, that the real weak point could lie.
Whatever happens on the battlefield now, the best supporting strategy could be to aim at increasingly isolating Russia, as the unquestioned pariah in the comity of nations, from its markets, from its arms and component suppliers, from investors, from so-called neutrals, even getting China to back a little further away from its old ally, as has been hinted at by others. Remember, China is scared stiff that Putin will go nuclear and ruin its world business and recovery from Covid, as backchannel discussions with the Chinese are confirming all the time. Please remember also that China now accounts for 30% of all world manufacturing.
If we could weaken Chinese support; persuade India—which my noble friend Lord Soames rightly mentioned—to come round, despite its long-standing reliance on Russian goods and arms; and persuade our 55 like-minded fellow Commonwealth members to stand firm, that would be a real strategy. We could then take a bold leap internationally which might help to break the deadlocks on the ground which will otherwise develop. This should be the overwhelming and priority task for our diplomacy and national security strategy but, quite frankly, attention on this external aspect has been rather on the slow side and, from my point of view, far too weak from the start.
When Russia’s brutal invasion began, we found that half our Commonwealth friends did not even see things our way, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, rightly reminded us. We then found that our supposed friends in the Middle East and the Gulf—who are always claiming such close relations with us—still wanted to keep in with the Russians and that OPEC had other priorities than easing our unbearable gas and oil costs by quickly pumping more oil, as it could well have done. Those countries were looking a different way altogether.
Things are now easing a bit. In 2023, there is every chance that energy prices will come down—what goes up does come down in an immense cycle of investment in the energy field. However, this is where we should press much harder, building relations, mending fences and using the international influence and powers of persuasion which were always available to us, and always here, but which we neglected. We should now use them much more vigorously.
Whatever the resistance of the brave Ukrainian soldiery, it is only by leveraging up a solid world front all around against Russia and by intensifying internal hardship and anger inside Russia that the pressure on the Putin gang, or on Putin himself, might break the stalemate, force Russian withdrawal and begin Russia’s return to sanity as a nation in the comity of nations. That is the brutal truth. The fight continues on the ground, but the more it can be reinforced by these other strategies, the better the chances are of—as Zelensky himself said yesterday—
“victory over the very idea of the war”,
and the better the chances are of the closure of this unjust, unjustified and barbaric conflict.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Soames, to his place. We go back a long way—30 years in the Commons. I recall that when he and I were on those Benches, he always did his homework.
There is feedback on the line at the moment.
I have been a dissenting voice on this issue on a number of occasions. I support NATO, and I have supported wars in central Europe, the Falklands, and even Iraq, which I argued for in Washington—but this is different. If we had troops on the ground, I would be loyal, but we do not. We are fighting a proxy war. To date, 8 million have fled the conflict, with 6 million internally displaced.
I believe that a series of miscalculations and missed opportunities have provoked a worldwide economic crisis that could have been avoided. I confess that I have no practical hands-on experience of foreign policy management, but I have followed in detail developments in foreign affairs over three decades. In my analysis, Russia’s oil blockade response was predictable, as was its impact on the oil price and the explosion in wage inflation. Both have consequences. The people paying the price are the unemployed, the poor, the rent and mortgage payers, the elderly poor and those struggling on marginal incomes. The impact on those with resources has been minimal. Millions in poverty now rely on friends, food banks and social centres while the stock market booms.
In truth, the world is changing. New alliances are being forged; trading patterns are changing; Russia is forging stronger trading links with China, India and parts of Africa. These changes have consequences for our alliances and trading patterns in the longer term. I ask myself: are we getting it wrong? I go back to a time of hope, when my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen met Putin in October 2001, following the final years of Yeltsin’s presidency. It had ended in an atmosphere of suspicion, following years of argument over NATO’s expansion. It is that which stands at the heart of today’s impasse. Russia had been humiliated with a collapsed economy and a loss of strategic influence. Genscher, as early as 1990, had recognised this and assured the Russians at Tutzing that there would be no NATO expansion to the east. Baker, to assure volatile rocking public opinion, gave similar assurances to Gorbachev. Indeed, it was Gorbachev’s willingness under duress to show flexibility in response on NATO that cost him the leadership in favour of Yeltsin.
Yeltsin himself showed huge statesmanship in seeking to square the circle, but he too fell when he could not deliver, giving way to Putin—his protégé. As Yeltsin had made clear in the arguments over Ukraine and NATO, the loss of Ukraine would upset the balance in former Soviet states, between Slav and Islamic nations, creating an Islamic majority, most of which carried an overlay of debt. We should at least try to understand the background.
However, the Russians then sadly made the catastrophic mistake of meddling in Chechnya—again, the Islamic factor. In doing so, they played right into the hands of the later expansionists. On reflection, I believe that we misread the problem. My own two speaking visits to Moscow during that period left me with a clear impression of Russian fears. In the Second World War, we lost 500,000 dead; they lost 25 million—50 times more. Nearly one in four Russians died. Surely that provides us with an explanation for Russia’s obsession with the external threat, which Putin is now ruthlessly using to justify his response to NATO expansion. I ask colleagues: are we really listening to their concerns? No. Do we ever stop to consider the impact on Russian public opinion of prospective NATO status for a ring of states, from Finland in the north to Georgia in the South—hitherto non-nuclear, neutral states—pointing nuclear weapons at Russia? No.
What of the Azov brigades, with their historic connections and their impact on Russian public opinion? Why have we compromised Germany into supplying tanks in the face of German public opinion, ever conscious of Russian memories of World War II? By our actions and inactions on all these counts, we are ignoring the credibility of a brutal Putin-driven Kremlin propaganda machine within Russia, exploiting these matters.
Where do we go from here? I believe we need to set out our bottom-line war aims and feed them into Russia, using every propaganda tool available and challenging disinformation, using the written word, telecommunication from satellite links, the internet, audio communication in all its forms, intel and the underground media. We should be proposing a settlement that avoids humiliation of a proud nation. We cannot blame the Russian people for the sins of a brutal, cruel leadership that keeps them in information lockdown and ignorance of the truth.
We need to bypass the Putin machine, and talk of a settlement based on, first, a ceasefire and withdrawal of all Russian and Ukrainian combat forces, including the Asov battalions, from the Donbass; and, secondly, the recognition by Ukraine of separate regional devolved status under Ukraine sovereignty of the Donetsk and Luhansk, one of which is majority Russian-speaking, the other not. Then we need the reversal of Ukraine’s decision to ban the official use of the Russian language in the Donbass; an agreement on Russian access to arrangements for the Crimea; and the rejection of any NATO application by Ukraine under an agreed review timetable of up to 20 years—or earlier, depending on the negotiations. Finally, we need the retention of non-nuclear barrier status under the agreed review timetable.
In closing, I must express my admiration for the Ukrainians, families and military alike, and their belief that their strategy is right. They have been prepared to lay down their lives in the face of escalating levels of brutality. I argue not with their laudable objectives in pursuit of liberty; I argue only with the detail of the strategy that they have set out to pursue, and warn of the real dangers of escalation, perhaps nuclear, for the whole world.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I very much regret that I cannot accept either the analysis or the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. However, I know from personal experience that he is a man of principle and commitment; I must say, I very much admire the fact that he has consistently argued against the overwhelming opinion of support for Ukraine and what it is doing in both this House and the other place.
It is a particular pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Soames. His lineage is beyond reproach; likewise his contribution to this debate. I look forward to hearing him again, not least when we are both members of the International Relations and Defence Committee where he will, I am sure, make a much-valued and well-informed contribution.
On analysis, it seems to me, perversely, that Ukraine presents both certainty and uncertainty. We see daily certainty on the part of Russia’s illegal brutality. Reference has already been made to Russia’s aim in the debate, but I would put things slightly differently: it is clearly to dismantle the state of Ukraine, destroy its infrastructure and eradicate its identity. Ukraine’s aim is to survive. That is an uncertain aim, not least because it has lost 40% of its economy and 25% of the value of its currency. It has also given up 15 million refugees and we see its infrastructure being destroyed daily. Russia, on the other hand, is certain in its conduct. Ukraine is uncertain in its future. The only thing that they have in common is the fact of the casualties—the dead and injured—the precise numbers of which are not being revealed but are certainly estimated to be very substantial indeed.
Out of that, the conclusion is inevitable: to survive, Ukraine must win. On the other hand, leaving aside the possible political and other consequences for Mr Putin, Russia can afford to lose. Its economy has survived sanctions with a little help from its friends—albeit with damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out. Its infrastructure is untouched. Its alliances have survived. Its statehood has suffered nothing. It is still proving an obstacle to the activities of the Security Council of the United Nations.
Let me put my conclusion a little more dramatically. Ukraine must win or be destroyed. As well as that, and of equal importance in the long run, is that if the credibility of NATO is to be preserved, Ukraine must not be destroyed. This involves the continued supply of top-quality equipment to Ukraine. However, top-quality equipment comes with some obligations. It requires top-quality maintenance and top-quality training. If these things are necessary for the proper use and taking into action of tanks, they are so much truer when we consider the possibility of fast jet aircraft. Let us remember that the older the aircraft, the more demanding the maintenance.
I question whether the United Kingdom has sufficient aircraft to release fast jets while maintaining the defence of the home country and fulfilling our obligations to NATO. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referred to the combat air patrols. I add that we maintain a flight in the Falklands for obvious reasons. I add that the Quick Reaction Alert, based at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby, necessarily requires the presence of Typhoon aircraft. I am still tempted to call it Eurofighter, but in the interests of unanimity I will call it the Typhoon.
Notably, the Prime Minister has promised pilot training but not aircraft. That is a well-informed decision. I have sought to raise in writing with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who will close this debate, that there are some legal implications to be drawn from Russia having used an aerial bombardment of drones armed with missiles to mount indiscriminate attacks on infrastructure and citizens of Ukraine, contrary to the principles of humanitarian law. If it could be established that the manufacturers of these drones and the suppliers in Iran knew what they were likely to be used for and the extent to which they would breach the principles of humanitarian law, liability could be attached to them also. The issue is worth investigation. Without sounding too dramatic, I rather think that the principle was established at Nuremberg.
This issue will not be resolved by economic sanctions or diplomacy. It will be won or lost on the battlefield. That is the imperative for the supply to Ukraine of the means to win. This is a bloody war, and we are in for the long haul. I leave your Lordships with not a prediction but a possibility. In the event that Mr Putin were successful, might not triumphalism encourage him to turn his attention to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? If Mr Putin were defeated, for his own survival he might then be tempted to turn on Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. If that were his conduct in either circumstance, we most certainly would be in for the long haul, because that would trigger Article 5.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, I sometimes hear noble Lords complain that people outside your Lordships’ House do not pay enough attention to what is said inside it, but I assure you that, today, one part of our external audience is listening very carefully: the Russian embassy in London. People there are not listening because they want to hear the strength of support for Ukraine or because they are looking for arguments to change their President’s mind. They are looking for evidence that we are not united, that there is division in the United Kingdom and that there is hope for Russia and its propaganda. I fear that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will be the one on which they focus most, but I hope that the first secretaries in the embassy are honest enough to report that the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, much better reflected the mood of the House.
The day after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February last year, we had a debate. The atmosphere in the House was uncertain, even fearful, because back then we could see, more clearly than we do now, why President Putin thought he would succeed. He thought that he was confronted by a divided West. He knew that we had failed to respond adequately to the invasion of Crimea in 2014. He thought that his back was covered, and that China and the South would support him; that his army was the best in the world and would arrive in Kyiv in three days; and that his opponent was hollow, and Ukraine was a corrupt country with an elite who was mostly in his pocket and a President who was a clown.
The few days after the invasion were more difficult than we remember. Things were touch and go. We did not know whether the Ukrainian army would hold or whether Zelensky would rise to the task. Already, in those first days, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, reminded us, Zelensky showed his mettle. When offered a route out, he said:
“The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
After nearly a year, we look back and see that Putin miscalculated in everything and in some things comprehensively and disastrously. First, the West is not divided. It has come together as never before and is supporting Ukraine to the hilt. The weakest link in our chain was supposed to be Germany and, even though it took some time to get going, it is with the programme. Remember, a year ago, Nord Stream 2 was about to be commissioned. The Russians thought that the Germans could not do without their oil and gas and that, however reluctantly, they would acquiesce. That did not happen. Nord Stream 2 is now mothballed indefinitely. A year ago, Russia supplied about 40% of Germany’s gas. Germany managed to reduce that to zero by September last year, so Germany has retooled and the West is in a similar place. The West is hanging together.
Secondly, Putin thought that Russia’s traditional partners would be with him, but China, frankly, is not. China has taken this opportunity to benefit from cheap, discounted Russian oil and gas. It has not done anything practically to support Russia; this is key. I learned over my career to disagree rarely and gently with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, but I think that in diplomatic terms Ukraine has also scored a triumph in the South. The Security Council of the United Nations cannot function in these circumstances because Russia has a veto. But the General Assembly is still working, and in the resolutions that come to it, Ukraine has attracted 140 positive votes—141 altogether supporting Ukraine. Russia, by contrast, has attracted four: Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Eritrea. I submit that that is a measure of success; although there is no doubt more we could do, the international community, including the South, is more sympathetic with Ukraine than it is with Russia.
Thirdly, on the excellence of Russian forces: they are not excellent. They are losing the fight on the ground; they made some initial progress but, as the Minister reminded us in her opening statement, Ukraine has already recaptured 50% of what was taken in those early weeks. Russia’s forces are demoralised and badly equipped; they are going through their weaponry at a rapid pace. The only place that is resupplying them is Iran; it causes trouble but will not strategically affect the picture. As we all know, this was supposed to be a special operation. This was supposed to be wrapped up quickly, but the Russians had to conscript people. The moment they started to conscript, we saw the weakness. More young Russian men left the country than were conscripted into the Russian army. Russia’s army is not doing well.
Fourthly, and lastly, Ukraine was already a country. It had been independent since 1990—an independence recognised by Russia. But countries gain their national identity in phases; war is often the crucible in which a national identity is forged. That is what has happened in Ukraine in the last 12 months. A country that may have been a bit too much on paper is showing itself to be vibrant and determined, and it is doing this under the leadership of an amazing President: a man who, on paper, was not at all equipped to do the job he has to do, but a man who has risen to that task magnificently. I will gently disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Soames about yesterday’s visit; it was not symbolic but was purposeful. He had an agenda, and although he was addressing us in Westminster Hall, he was also appealing over our heads. My favourite line was when he said:
“In Britain, the king is an air force pilot and in Ukraine today, every air force pilot is a king.”
This was the prelude to asking us for fighter jets. Although we are hesitating, and I can see reasons to hesitate, I can also feel the national debate moving ahead of us.
So what are we going to do? In order for Ukraine to win, which is in our collective western strategic interest, we must do everything that we can to support it. The military training is vital. The tanks are important. The jets, too, will be important and we can take the risk. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, was talking about forward defence. Right now, Ukraine is our front line, too. What is done in Ukraine is done for our defence too. What we do there contributes directly to the defence of the United Kingdom. What is supplied to Ukraine is fulfilling a national purpose. We can take some risk because it will help us.
Also—this, I admit, is a personal calculation—the Russians are completely extended in Ukraine. They do not have the option to strike anywhere else. They cannot hit the Baltic states right now because they have nothing with which to hit them. Another little piece of the Russians’ miscalculation was as regards NATO. The only thing stopping Finland and Sweden from joining today is Turkish hesitation, but that will be overcome. We collectively need to do all that we can to help them.
One other thing that President Zelensky said yesterday, which received less interest, was the value of preventive action before armed conflict starts. One of the most important things for him was the training of Ukrainian forces in the UK, which started under Prime Minister Johnson. This meant that, when things kicked off, they had sufficient resilience to resist. Zelensky’s challenge is to expand that sort of assistance, and yet the DAC in Paris and our development community is resistant to the idea that military training can be a proper subject for overseas official development assistance. It would be good to take up his suggestion and reconsider that resistance.
Lastly, there are the ultimate objectives, which are all about Ukraine. The ultimate objective does not touch Russia, and that is important to acknowledge and repeat, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham did. We are not at war with Russia. We are not going to touch its territory and there needs to be clarity about that. Once Ukraine has won its war in its territory, that will be enough.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on behalf of the two Greens on these Benches. I am sure that that is a first. It was a good speech and I thank him. There was just one jarring note, which was that after 35 years in the other place the noble Lord had no understanding of the value of us—how wonderful we are in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps he can take that revelation back to his former colleagues in the other place and explain just how valuable we are, and what a wonderful job we do. I also very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. It was impressive for him to speak for that long without notes. It was very good.
On the issue of the Russian embassy listening, it is a real pleasure to think that it is showing a lot of interest in what we are doing here—more, obviously, than at the other end. I tweeted yesterday about the speech that we had heard and the President’s visit. It was remarkable that within moments abusive tweets were directed back at me. They were abusive towards me, the President, Ukraine and the Green Party. It struck me that most of them were anonymous with few followers. I do not know how many noble Lords are on Twitter, but that sort of thing—the lack of followers and anonymisation—is often from bots, people who do not exist. That suggested that the tweets were from fake accounts and were probably pro-Russian propaganda. They have failed. I am sure that they are doing their best, bless them.
Ukraine has presented a persona for the President and the country right from the start of a united Government, of opposition and bravery. Even the look of the President has been very carefully thought through, wearing his military colours and always speaking out and being heard by the people, with clear updates on the war. Ukraine has allowed journalists to report from the front lines but also in towns and cities. That sort of thing has given us a very positive image of Ukraine and its President. If any noble Lord has not watched “Servant of the People”, which is where the former actor Zelensky showed us what he could do as President of Ukraine if he ever got there, I really recommend it. When I see him now, there are still times when I see “Servant of the People”.
Since Russia began its illegal and, I hope, futile war, it has weaponised energy supply. It has tried to punish Ukrainian society in many ways, and those indiscriminate strikes trying to hit energy supply have definitely been part of it. Hitting the energy infrastructure has meant that innocent civilians have not only died but gone without heating and water at a terrible time of year—the winter is very hard there. NATO has placed much emphasis on the continuation of military supplies. Although new Challenger, Leopard and Abrams tanks provide some hope for Ukraine possibly to repel a spring Russian offensive, they do very little to keep women, children and old people from freezing to death.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, outlined that the West needs to think long-term. That is not easy to do when events are happening so fast, but we have to do it. Just as Truman engineered the economic revival of post-war Europe through a comprehensive plan, the West needs to devise a green Marshall plan—a strategic plan that offers Ukraine the economic capability to secure its survival. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a very good speech as well. She actually stole my thunder—so thanks for that—because an energy-secure Ukraine is perhaps Europe’s best safety net against future Russian aggression.
However, the West cannot simply throw money at the problem and potentially burden Ukraine with debts that it cannot pay. Green planning and investment must be at the heart of Ukraine’s reconstruction. Ukraine has set a target of sourcing 25% of its total energy generation from renewables by 2035; it currently has 15%. Solar infrastructure projects must be built in southern Ukraine, where solar irradiance is highest, and, of course, wind farms.
I have not been to a war zone, but I worked as an archaeologist at Axum near Eritrea in the 1990s when the civil war had paused temporarily, so I know the difficulties that a local population can face after war and the sort of assaults individuals have to face—violence, rape and torture. The hardships they face after the conflict has stopped are sometimes almost worse, because they do not have anything else to distract them. In Eritrea at that time it was very hard to eat. I was not very fat to start with and I lost half a stone within a couple of weeks, simply because we could not feed ourselves—and we were the privileged people. The Eritreans wanted us to be there to excavate Axum to find out even more about their heritage, but we could barely get enough food to survive ourselves. I was a vegetarian when I went there, but when I left I had eaten a lot of goat—boiled goat at that—which I would not advise anyone to do.
All the infrastructure and rehabilitation is put at risk by a major obstacle: landmines. Ukraine is littered with them already. Ukraine’s Government estimate that 160,000 square kilometres of land is contaminated with landmines. That is astonishing, and of course the actual figure is likely to be much higher because it is difficult to see things that are buried underground. Schools and local infrastructure cannot be physically built in such a dangerous environment; it renders any plan to reconstruct Ukraine futile. As much as the West might fund Ukraine’s military defence against Russia’s invasion, it needs to simultaneously fund and support the demining effort with equal conviction. The US has already pledged $89 million for demining, but Ukraine needs much more financial support on this front because demining is labour intensive and extremely expensive.
Given the enormity of that challenge, demining has so far been more of an afterthought than a central priority. The UK can help by directing funds and equipment to the demining effort. It should use the British Army’s training facilities here to train Ukrainians in demining procedures, and it should send a fleet of demining machines. Demining the areas where the urgently needed energy infrastructure can be built should be a priority today rather than later, to help a green Marshall plan to be implemented as soon as possible.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, particularly in her suggestion that it is not too early to start thinking about the long term. She is quite right.
I say to my noble friend Lord Soames, who is no longer in his place, how much I admired his contribution to our discussion. I know we will have many more quality contributions of that kind from him, and it is a great pleasure to have him in our House.
A lot of wise things have already been said in this debate. We have reached the point in our discussion where much of the important ground has been covered one way or another by previous speakers. I intend to be brief.
I think there is widespread understanding that we are at something of a turning point in this war. The bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people and their leadership was exemplified by President Zelensky in his remarkable performance yesterday, crucially underpinned by the military assistance given by the allies. That has led to a level of Ukrainian success in the field that has come as a fairly nasty shock to the Russians; the situation on the ground is not one that they either wanted or expected. However, when they gear up for the next offensive, they are not likely to make precisely the same mistakes. It seems to me that they will be better organised and their attempt at combined-force operations will be much more effective. General Gerasimov, who is no fool and whose prestige is now directly engaged, and for that matter Putin, even though his position is not necessarily in danger, must be conscious of the damage done to their reputation for competence. There is not a lot more that they have to claim in that regard. All those factors mean that we shall see a different quality of military performance when fighting really resumes. Economy is not going to be the Russians’ main consideration; I think they are going to throw everything they have at it, so the challenge to the Ukrainian forces could be formidable.
HMG have given real leadership in supporting Ukraine’s military capability. I commend the Government on the absolutely consistent and strong role that they have played, frequently being the catalyst for action by allies that might not otherwise have occurred, or certainly not have occurred in sufficiently good or timely a way as has been the case as a result of the actions of our Government. Perhaps we are at another of those turning points in the equipment debate, now that the UK has undertaken to train pilots. This is against the background of the rather curious charade which has been played out over previous weapons decisions—I take tanks as an example—whereby the allies start out by saying that a given weapon or munition is either too escalatory to risk in the theatre, too sophisticated for the Ukrainians to master, or insufficient in supply or inappropriate. There were all those things and you could not tell, frankly, whether they were real reasons or excuses but they then vanished at the 11th hour.
This game of red lines being put in place, defended and then lifted at a late hour is a rather odd way of going on. I hope that we can, as an alliance, do less of this in future. There is clearly an important decision to be taken about air power and I hope that the Minister, when he speaks, will be able to respond to the question of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup: where does the UK place its action in offering training for jet aircraft? Is it going to be followed by supply and do we reckon that it is part of a short or immediate response to military need, or is it actually related to a much longer view of the kind of armament that Ukraine will need? It sure is going to have to be an armed country when the war comes to an end.
Turning to the post war for a moment, one has only to think about the consequences of not helping Ukrainians to defend themselves successfully to realise how important that task is. There will be no acceptable basis for ending the fighting if Russian forces have not been driven from Ukrainian territory and are still occupying it. If there is no end to the fighting, there is no basis for negotiation—and no negotiation means no legal basis for security in Europe. I take issue slightly with my former colleague the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, when he says that it is all about Ukraine. A great deal of it is about Ukraine but it is also about European security, and that is why its fight is our fight. It is about European security and the whole of our continent. Clearly, we therefore have to be in a position not only to secure the future of Ukraine as a free and democratic country but to secure a continent in which we can live in reasonable stability.
I want to use the word “peace” but I have a very unhappy feeling that the Europe we will inherit after the end of this war is not going to be quite as peaceable or relaxed, if I put it that way, as the political climate that we have enjoyed since the fall of the wall and German unification. It seems that we are going to be in a more militarised continent, one where our defence spending will be at a higher level on a sustained basis. That will be so for not just this country but the whole of the alliance. We will be coping with an aftermath of decisions and difficulties. This poses the question: are we moving towards an attempt—with success, I hope—at once again resuming co-operative security in Europe, or will we be dealing with a Russia that is contained and where the objective of the exercise is to prevent more damage rather than to return to any kind of active or positive relationship? These seem to be some of the choices that we are going to have to confront.
There are questions of what happens to sanctions, over what period they can be lifted and how we balance the need to demonstrate that there is a cost of war to regimes like Russia’s against the issue of the long-term future of the Russian people—who are also victims of the actions of their leadership. These are going to be very difficult issues. It will behove us to start thinking about how we handle some of them and laying out some of the options for ourselves, because we may have to make very difficult choices and we need to be united about them. There would be nothing worse than the West falling apart when it comes to trying to deal with the consequences and the aftermath of war.
To conclude, I agree very strongly with those who say that the Ukrainians’ fight is our fight because their security is part of ours. While they make the sacrifice with their lives, the least we can do is offer our maximum support to help them towards their success.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. I agree with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that it is essential that we plan for the longer term. I believe that in Euro-Atlantic security—strategic stability in the space between Vancouver and Vladivostok—now is always the time to plan for the longer term. In the past I have been critical of people not thinking in those terms. To some degree that may have contributed to where we find ourselves today.
It was a privilege to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. I congratulate him on an excellent and characteristically robust speech. It was informed, wise and delivered exceptionally well. I think the best I can say for him is that in that speech, and otherwise, he has earned and deserves the ear of your Lordships’ House.
I find myself for the second time in a few weeks embarrassed and apologetic to be in a position where I know that, as I am contributing to a debate on a Thursday afternoon, it is improbable that I will be here for the winding up if I hope to get home today to Scotland. Today it is a function of the addition, at relatively short notice, of important business to the list. It is also a function of the increasing unpredictability and lack of capacity of the transport systems to Scotland. I know I am not the only Scot in your Lordships’ House today who is suffering to some degree because of this. In any event, I explained my problem to the Whips’ Office, my own Whips and both Front Benches. I am immensely grateful for the generous way in which they responded.
As the US State Department, among many others, predicted, winter has brought with it a relatively static front in eastern Ukraine along lines largely unchanged since that extraordinary Ukrainian counteroffensive in September. However, we must guard against complacency, and many speeches have echoed that. Troop movements over the last few days indicate that Putin is moving his planned spring offensives forward and we must expect an intensification of fighting in pretty short order. If the WhatsApp from the friend of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, proves to be correct, that order may be shorter than many of us expected. Although the front is relatively static for the moment, we must ensure that this does not result in any abatement of focus from the NATO powers.
This debate gives us a welcome opportunity to remind ourselves of the ongoing consequences of Russia’s unprovoked aggression. Russian forces continue to occupy more than 100,000 square kilometres of Ukraine, around 15% of its total territory. Fierce fighting continues in Bakhmut and elsewhere, and civilians continue to die on a daily basis. On 14 January a missile struck an apartment building in Dnipro, killing at least 46 people. It was deliberately targeted there. On 29 January at least one civilian was killed in strikes on Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, which has been under constant attack since the invasion began. On 1 February a Russian missile killed at least three people in Kramatorsk, a city in the Donetsk region.
Noble Lords will recall the profound trauma this nation experienced on 7/7, when 52 people lost their lives to co-ordinated and malign terrorist activity. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that more than 7,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed by Russian activity since February last year, with many more thousands seriously wounded. That is equivalent to 134 7/7s, with no end in sight. It is a daily experience for the people of Ukraine.
Human Rights Watch reminded us:
“Russian war crimes began literally from day one”.
Russian cluster munitions hit a hospital and a preschool on 24 February last year, the first day of the invasion. The European media director of Human Rights Watch asserted last week:
“Russia has committed more atrocities than all the human rights groups in all the world could ever have the capacity to investigate.”
I make these points as a reminder that the front line becoming static does not in any way mean that the horrors of conflict have begun to dissipate. Civilian lives, and those of soldiers, are still being lost every day. That fact should act as a constant spur to action, ensuring that we continue to give Ukrainian forces what they need so that they, in turn, can continue their efforts to repel Russian aggression.
I will also mention the situation of Russian conscripts. In many cases, they are young men who have no desire to threaten Ukraine and are being compelled to enlist for service through a mixture of intimidation, avowedly prescriptive legal pressures and crude propaganda. They are Putin’s victims too, as are their families and loved ones.
What of the broader strategic picture? Last week Putin reached into his quiver of bizarrely inapt historical parallels and compared the Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine with the Battle of Stalingrad. It is evident that his faltering offensives, undertaken without provocation, bear about as much similarity with the Soviet Union’s heroic rearguard action as they do with the battles of Jutland or Thermopylae. But his recourse to historical parallels, however tenuous, usually tells us something about his intentions, as it does in this case. Noble Lords will recall the essay he produced in 2021 entitled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”. Academically, it was valueless and reminiscent of the work of David Irving in issuing a miasma of pseudo-scholarship to conceal its central immorality. But it made plain his ambitions, including his belief that Ukraine and Belarus have no right to exist and his desire to reshape Eurasia accordingly. What might his evocation of Stalingrad tell us? Coupled with his stated desire to broaden the parameters for the next wave of conscription, it may suggest that he is preparing the ground for an attritional conflict and that he is preparing the Russian nation’s psyche for the reality of a lengthy struggle, costing thousands of lives, to be pursued even where progress is minimal or non-existent.
In a previous debate in your Lordships’ House on this subject, I echoed all the wise senior military officers I have met in my engagement in these issues, two of whom have already spoken in the debate. I said:
“In modern warfare, there is no such thing as a conflict that can be won by purely military means. The best that combat can offer is to fashion a context within which an acceptable settlement can be reached.”—[Official Report, 1/12/22; col. 1956.]
When we are asked to justify our support for President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine, I believe an answer is that we, together with NATO allies, are determined to allow him the scope to shape a context within which this conflict can be ended on terms that are equitable for Ukraine and on a scale commensurate with its sacrifice. We know that ultimately there will have to be a set of terms to which both Ukraine and Russia will be prepared to accede if this conflict is to end. The timetable and context of those negotiations is a matter for President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine. But our military and humanitarian support gives them the opportunity to resist the use of unprovoked brutality and to avoid the necessity of chafing under the terms of a Russian-dictated peace, with all the risks of revanchist violence that would engender.
Even as the military challenges continue, we must not fail to consider the different but enormous challenges we will face in assisting Ukraine to rebuild. Figures from Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index show that endemic problems with corruption remain, with Ukraine ranking 122nd out of 180 countries. President Zelensky’s recent dismissal of his deputy infrastructure Minister and a number of regional officials shows that he is aware of this problem and its implications for the efficacy of military and humanitarian support today and for the post-conflict reconstruction process.
In thinking about how our support can be directed where it will do the most good for the people of Ukraine and the most harm to Russian intentions, it would be useful to consider the example of the US, which last month sent its own auditors to Ukraine for just that purpose.
We all want this conflict to end as swiftly as possible, and in terms that reduce the risk of further aggression. I believe that continuing our military and humanitarian support and intensifying it where necessary is the course of action most likely to achieve those aims.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, it is an immense privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I always learn a great deal from him in the field of geostrategy and defence. In fact, I am acutely aware of speaking after so many noble Lords, on all sides, who have direct ministerial experience, as well as noble and gallant Lords who have held senior office as servicemen.
In common, I suspect, with a number of noble Lords, I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine a few times since the invasion. I never fail to be impressed by the cheerful and uncomplaining courage of local people. My last visit was to Odessa and Mykolaiv in September. Mykolaiv at that point was the front line. It was the time, as your Lordships will recall, when there was a lot of talk of the Kherson offensive, but it was a deception—what the Russians would call a maskirovka. In fact, the offensive at that time was in Kharkiv.
This was and is a very Russophone and historically Russophile part of Ukraine. We can see it in the toponymy. Why are so many of the places there called “pol”, rather than “grad”—Melitopol, Mariupol, Sevastopol or whatever? The answer goes back to Catherine the Great’s Greek plan, which energetic emperors had: to try to restore the Romanov claim to the Byzantine throne. She had a grandson who was conveniently called Constantine, and this idea of filling that part of the coastline with Russian settlers as a prelude to taking Constantinople. So, this has always been a Russian-speaking territory and, sure enough, the people there had historically voted for the pro-Russian parties. They were for Yanukovych’s Party of Regions and its various successors—up until the offensive.
I had this conversation over and over again with local people in that part of Russia, saying, “When did you change? Here we are still with a big statue of Catherine the Great and all these Soviet war memorials, and a Russian-speaking population”. Odessa had its own Maidan in 2014 and could easily have gone the same way as Donetsk and Luhansk. It was only the merest chance that it did not. The answer would come: “We had an idea of the kind of Russia we thought we had a kinship with. We did not want to be absorbed by it, but we thought we had a special relationship with the other east Slav peoples. But there came a moment for all of us when it became impossible to sustain that view. For some it was the annexation of Crimea; for some it was when Putin started lobbing ordnance at Russian-speaking populations in southern Ukraine; for some it was when he started firing missiles at our own city. But we have all got to the point where we have been jolted out of our dreams. We have to accept that the real Russia, the Russian we are dealing with, is not the one with which we aspired to have some sort of kinship or special relationship.” That is what makes it so hard to imagine a negotiated settlement from here. There is not a landing zone between the minimal positions of the two sides.
As recently as April, Zelensky was talking about referendums in Donbass, and so on. That is now utterly impossible, given what people have suffered, especially, in his case, the very personal reaction he had to seeing the abominations at Bucha. When you have seen something like that, it becomes very difficult to compromise. How did Yeats put it?
But who can talk of give and take,
What should be and what not
While those dead men are loitering there
To stir the boiling pot?
Just as Ukraine now has minimum terms for settlement, so does Russia. I cannot see any situation where Putin would accept a return to the status quo ante of between 2014 and last year, because that would leave him having to explain why more than 100,000 Russians have died while the economy has been set back a decade and NATO has reached the frontiers of Russia—for nothing. It is all very well people talking of realpolitik. The grand old man of realpolitik, Henry Kissinger, says, “Effectively, Ukraine is now in NATO, so let’s acknowledge that and let’s have referendums in the disputed territories.” Fine, but there is literally no scenario where either side could countenance such a thing.
We in this House might have various takes and modifications. We could say that we could have a demilitarised Ukraine, international observers or a demilitarised Crimea, but it is for the birds; it makes no difference in the world where these things are being determined. So, we are back, I am afraid, to the rather grisly proposition that one side or the other has to win—that the quickest way out of this situation is that one side is defeated and the other can settle from a position of strength. When we put it in those terms, it seems pretty clear who we should want to win. Anything short of a Ukrainian victory is a victory for Putin. If the front lines freeze where they are, Putin wins. If Russia gets to absorb its new oblasts administratively, Putin wins. If the West gets tired, bored or distracted and stops sending ordnance, tanks and planes, Putin wins. If China picks this moment to invade Taiwan, Putin wins. We are in a world of suboptimal alternatives—we have been since 24 February last year—but surely the worst option is for Russian aggression to be rewarded.
Let me answer those who ask why this is our business—not many, I am glad to say, in this Chamber, but there are voices beyond. I am not a great believer in the horseshoe theory of politics, but I notice that these are particularly voices on the far left and far right. “Why is this our fight? It is nothing to do with us; it is all stirred up by NATO,” and so on. I make just two points. First, we may want to be indifferent, but Putin has never been indifferent to us. He has been targeting this country in various ways for more than a decade, and arguably on two occasions carried out what were technically acts of war against us: the attacks that accompanied the Litvinenko and Skripal murder attempts. If you deploy state force in anger in an attempt to kill somebody who is living under the Queen’s peace, that is technically an act of war, so it is not as though Russia was peacefully minding its business and not crossing our radar.
The more direct answer is this. In December 1994, Ukraine was persuaded to give up all the nuclear arsenal it had inherited from the USSR in exchange for an absolute commitment that it would have its territorial integrity defended within its existing frontiers—a commitment guaranteed by the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia. For Russia then to turn around, after Ukraine denuclearised, and invade it must rank as one of the most grotesque betrayals in history. So, as a country with honour, we have no option but to see this as our fight. I do not think we have the option of sitting back and pretending that it is a far-away country of which we know little.
My noble friend Lady Meyer said that if any of the participants in the First World War had known how it was going to end, they would not have joined in. I am sure that is true. None the less, it is worth dwelling on the fact that the two most terrible wars we entered into in the 20th century were provoked not because our sovereignty was threatened or because we had been directly attacked, but because we took seriously our commitment to defend the independence of a friendly country. If we are not prepared to stand for the international order, for the rule of law among nations and for the right to sovereignty of a friendly people, then we are not the kind of country I thought we were.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my noble friend whose extraordinary geopolitical grasp, experiences as an MEP and brilliant journalism give him such insight. We are all always very pleased to hear what he has to say.
I thought the maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Soames was absolutely superb and very powerful. He will contribute a huge amount to this House. He and I were elected to the Commons together in 1983. I was serving as a PPS at the Ministry of Defence when he was the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and he had an illustrious career. Unlike mine, it was not interrupted by losing his seat in the landslide of 1997. He took the good caution to have uninterrupted service and we are very fortunate to have him here.
I agree with those noble Lords who said that yesterday was a historic day, when Zelensky came to this Parliament. The British public have taken him into their hearts, and I thought his expression of gratitude to Britain, for our military aid and our political assistance in aid, was absolutely effusive; it was very impressive. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, that aid has been crucial in enabling Ukraine to defend its borders against this quite atrocious aggression. The NLAWs, the Javelins and now the squadron of Challenger tanks which, along with American M1 Abrams, will unlock the 70 Leopards that are going to be donated by countries such as Finland, Spain, Portugal and Holland. That will mean that Ukraine will have the makings of an armoured division. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the need for logistical support, engineering and mechanical back-up, an all-arms input, and making sure that the problems around interoperability are dealt with, means that there are big challenges. However, I think it is a significant step forward.
As far as aircraft are concerned, I think the training is going to be crucial—I always have huge respect for the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who was station commander at Marham when I was the MP for that area and once took me up in an aircraft, which was one of the most terrifying experiences I have ever had. I suggest to the Minister that there may be a quicker way of getting these aircraft to Ukraine, by making sure that some of the eastern European countries that have Soviet-era aircraft donate some of their existing capability to Ukraine and have that capability replaced by modern aircraft from America and maybe the UK, perhaps with F-16s and Typhoons. That could be a much quicker way of ensuring that they have air cover.
Can the Minister say to what extent have our own supplies and reserves have been diminished as a result of our donations to Ukraine? A number of noble Lords have touched on that already. I know that the Minister of State at the MoD also touched on this, but we are obviously facing an incredibly urgent situation and, like my noble friend Lord Soames and many others, I would like to see defence expenditure increase immediately. If we cannot do that, we should be making sure that we have in place a really well-calibrated replenishment programme. I ask the Minister: if we had to deploy a battlegroup into a theatre now, could it be deployed with the requisite levels of ammunition? What would happen if that battlegroup were engaged in a heavy set of fighting early on; how long would the ammunition, and the back-up logistics, last to keep that battlegroup in place? I urge the Minister to address the point, which has been made by a number of noble Lords, that this could be a really critical, difficult situation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about a green Marshall plan, which is something I think we should all be very cognisant of. We have to look at what will be the massive reconstruction of a country that has been totally devastated. We have heard about the cities that have been caught up in the front line—Kherson, Melitopol, Mariupol, Bakhmut, Soledar—but many other cities, which have not been affected by the front-line fighting as such, have been bombarded with missiles and drones and have suffered horrendous damage.
Somebody told me that Kharkiv has suffered damage to 60% of all buildings and that in one of the oblasts some way back from the front line, something like 90 schools have been seriously damaged, so the necessary rebuilding will be absolutely vast. As the noble Baroness and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned, there is also chronic damage to infrastructure, including power stations, dams, roads and municipal buildings; the list goes on and on. We will need a huge Marshall plan—a plan bigger than the actual Marshall plan. I urge the Minister to play a key part in making sure that HMG are well prepared for this and to be part of a major donor conference that encompasses all the key organisations and forums—the UN, the EU, and indeed the entire western world—to make sure that this plan is in place early on. Can I also ask the Minister what the Government’s thinking is about Russian reparations? Whatever happens, there will be an end to this war. Surely, the perpetrator of these really quite horrendous acts of violence against an innocent country needs to pay serious reparations at the end of the day.
A number of noble Lords have talked about the western alliance; I have been incredibly impressed by how it has held together. I think the Minister, rather than talking about the alliance as such, talked about the “pro-Ukraine coalition”, which is rather a good way of putting it. I do not think anyone expected that alliance to be quite so durable and effective so quickly, building on the military training that had already taken place. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord McDonald—who has far more experience than I have in these matters—was optimistic that the alliance would continue and that the world would carry on in its efforts to support Ukraine. I would be perhaps a little more cautious than that, for reasons that other noble Lords have mentioned, particularly the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Ramstein showed that there were fractures at that juncture. Ultimately, Germany did step up and do its duty, which of course unlocked 70 Leopards from those other countries. The Republicans now have a majority in the House of Representatives, and they have been talking about the importance of Biden not giving a complete blank cheque to Ukraine.
We also have to look elsewhere in the world, such as Africa and the Middle East. This has been said already; I think the noble Lord, Lord Howell, made this point. If one looks not just at those countries one might expect to want to cosy up to Russia, there are others, including the two great democracies of South Africa and Brazil. South Africa recently hosted a Russian naval exercise. I think it is a great pity that, when President Ramaphosa came to this country, we did not have candid conversations with him about the support for the Commonwealth and for those western countries that are part of this pro-Ukraine coalition. In Brazil, the new president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, recently called for “an immediate negotiated settlement”. We have to be very pragmatic about this. The pro-Ukraine coalition is incredibly important, but I think HMG must do more in terms of reaching out to all those countries we are close to, including smaller countries in the Caribbean and Africa, and using all our diplomatic muscle and soft power to make sure that they receive the correct message and are not taken in by the Russian narrative.
No one knows where all this is going to end, and we would be speculating if we tried to make predictions. All we know is that it will go on for quite a lot longer. I take the view very strongly that it is not for us to tell Ukraine what it should or should not do. It is not for us to tell the Ukrainians that they should reach a negotiated settlement. It is not our country that has been attacked and decimated in this way. I am mindful of what Zelensky said before:
“It’s a victory when the weapons fall silent and people speak up.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I want to talk about the wider context for the post-Soviet space, so to speak, for the western alliance and for British politics as such. There has been a certain amount of debate as to when this conflict started. Was it last year? Was it 2014? Was it 2008, with the Russian invasion of Georgia, or was it earlier? In effect, it began with the break-up of the Soviet Union, and the different assumptions and illusions held by the new Government of Russia and the Governments of the other states that had emerged out of the Soviet Union.
One of the most vivid memories I have out of all of this was when, at very short notice, I was asked to join a Harvard University team going out to Kyiv six weeks after Ukraine became formally independent. On the first day of the conference, the new Foreign Minister of this new country came and gave us a speech, which concluded with the wonderful declaration: “Ukraine has two major strategic objectives for the next two years. The first is to join the European Union and the second is to join NATO.” My American colleagues turned to me and said, “You’re answering that, William.” I had to explain that life was not as easy as that.
We all know that we were struggling in the 1990s to explain to the Baltic states, the Balkan states and others that the transition was a difficult one; that corruption was always a problem; and that it takes an awfully long time to institute respect for the rule of law and democratic institutions and to change the old culture, and we have not entirely succeeded.
The Russian Governments who succeeded the Soviet Union have been interfering in their neighbours and former clients almost since the word go. I have been in and out of Georgia on a number of occasions and have seen that vividly. As we are talking about destruction, I remember going to Abkhazia in 2004. Over a third of the houses in Sukhumi had been destroyed. It was absolute devastation. When I went into South Ossetia, we found ourselves surrounded in the UN convoy by little green men who objected to our inspecting the damage in various places.
This is not just about Ukraine, and it has not just happened. When we talk about how we can resolve this conflict, we also have to talk about its implications for Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, potentially Kazakhstan, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Soames, reminded us, Serbia and the Balkans. These are all areas where we have seen active Russian interference, and where the end of this conflict, if it involved a Russian setback, would set off all sorts of other minor earthquakes. It is not totally out of the question that current Russia would disintegrate further. I have been to Tatarstan, and everyone is conscious that there are all sorts of historical tensions, of which those who are there are well aware. Coming out of this conflict, therefore, is not going to be very easy.
We all know also about Russian interference in western politics. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia was very strong on the extent to which the Russians had penetrated the British establishment, including the Conservative Party. The incidents with the Conservative Friends of Russia and all that were not entirely spelled out in the report; let us hope that that is all behind us and that we all understand what we are dealing with.
We should still be worried that in the United States and a number of other countries, there are those on the right who sympathise with autocracy and illiberal democracy. If we were still to be in the conflict in 18 months’ time and the United States was approaching the return of a Republican President, we might find that the demand on European leadership, rather than American leadership, in resisting Russian interventions in Ukraine would be almost heavier than the Europeans could bear. After hearing the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who is a great expert on the American right, I wonder whether he thinks that is a real problem or that the debate in the United States has also moved on and we may relax a little about the willingness of the Americans to stay the course and help to pay for the reconstruction.
We have been discussing in this debate questions such as “How long will the conflict last?”, “How will it end?” and “What objectives are we fighting for?” Yesterday, President Zelensky set out those objectives on a pretty high level. He said that we are protecting the international legal order against a terrorist state and that we must make every effort to turn our achievements into the foundations of the future global security architecture. That is ambitious, and we have not thought much about that yet.
In the 1990s, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, did a great deal on what the post-Cold War European security architecture should be. We never got very far with it, I am afraid. Maybe that sort of question will come back. It will be very difficult for us to explain to the Ukrainian Government that joining the EU is not entirely easy, to dissuade the Georgians and heaven knows who else from wanting to do the same, and to manage the expansion of NATO if it cannot be avoided any further, while also managing the rest of the post-Soviet space. It will all be extremely difficult. We mishandled it in the 1990s, but it was very difficult to know exactly what to do.
I have some sympathy with the agony that the Russians have gone through, coming down from being an imperial power to being simply one of the major nations of the world. After all, Britain has been going through the same process and has been finding it extremely painful. There are those who wish to deny that we are not any longer as exceptional as we thought. I remember reading a wonderful book which used history to justify how exceptional Britain was: How We Invented Freedom & Why It Matters. The American edition was called Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World, so I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has a degree of sympathy with the Putin essay using Russian history to justify his exceptional view of the world.
We and our public have found it difficult to adjust. The Russian population—certainly the Russian elite—have found it very difficult to adjust too. We do not know where this conflict will end. We know that it must end in a reassertion of international legal and political norms, and that does mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, that Russia must lose in one form or another.
Lastly, on implications for British policy, at present we do not have a coherent UK foreign policy. I look forward to the new integrated review because, after the illusions of the Boris Johnson “global Britain” order, we need to redefine. What are the implications for defence spending? Clearly, we must expand spending on defence. Political leadership, which is as important at home as it is abroad, will therefore require politicians to say, “If we are going to spend more on defence and not cut what we are spending on domestic matters, we will have to raise taxes and not cut taxes.” People, such as Liz Truss, who still go around saying that the most important answer to every single question that Britain faces is to cut taxes, may have to be countered.
Then there is the question of domestic policy on energy spending. We know that energy prices are likely to jump up and down until this conflict is over and perhaps for some time after. That also requires political leadership, in explaining to our public that these sacrifices are worth making, and that the domestic and international emergency we are in justifies these sorts of sacrifices and the additional financial burdens that we will have to suffer. We do not know where we are going or how long the conflict will last, but we know that we have to stick it out.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on his maiden speech. I recall that I worked for his father for four years, in the first four years of our membership of the European Communities. I can just imagine his pleasure and pride at his son being the second Lord Soames in this House, in recent times.
It seems a little counterintuitive to identify any positives from the appalling events that have unfolded since Russia invaded Ukraine a year ago, yet such positives do exist and many noble Lords have referred to them. The first and foremost is the heroic and successful response of the people of Ukraine, symbolically epitomised by yesterday’s visit and speech from President Zelensky and by their response to aggression that aimed to wipe them from the map or turn them into a Russian satellite.
Secondly, the robust and effective decisions taken by NATO, ourselves, the US, Germany, France, the EU, the G7 and many others all went far beyond what might have been anticipated.
Thirdly, even our polarised politics have not stood in the way of a united, cross-party and no-party response to the aggression. I add to that the suggestion that the most effective contribution this country can make to deter any aggression against Taiwan is to ensure that Putin’s aggression in Ukraine does not succeed.
I make no apology for returning to some issues that I raised in the debate we held the day after Russia invaded, because they are still very active. Since then, an impressive array of sanctions has been imposed against Russia and there could be more to come, but it has all been done in a piecemeal and ad hoc way. We can be sure that massive efforts are now being made in Moscow, and in Beijing and Tehran, to find ways round or through those sanctions. The future success of this policy depends on effective implementation much more than on finding new sanctions—ones we have not yet found.
We need solid and structured co-operation to counter the efforts of those we are sanctioning to cut off Russia not only from gas, oil and commodity export revenues—they are very important, of course—but from access to sophisticated technology, without which its military-industrial complex will be severely handicapped. During the first Cold War, the West operated effective controls on exports of such technology through a system called CoCom. I would like to ask the Minister what structured systems we are putting in place now, with the EU, the US and the G7, because we need something more than mere improvisation if sanctions are to be fully and effectively implemented.
Secondly, what are we doing to counter the waves of disinformation being put out by the Kremlin and to ensure that ordinary people worldwide, even those under oppressive regimes that limit their access to information, get a chance to hear another version of events?
Well, cutting the resources of the BBC World Service hardly sounds the best move in the current circumstances. I would argue—I have argued this before in your Lordships’ House, and will repeat it now—that it would surely be better for the FCDO to take full responsibility for the World Service, recognising that this is a national foreign policy priority, and to augment its resources. I should add that it is not just a question of saying, as I am sure the Minister will, that they have found a little bit of money here for the Russian service or a little bit there for the Ukrainian service; I am talking about the BBC World Service and language versions which go worldwide, because that is where the damage is being done.
Thirdly, I wonder if the Minister could say what progress is being made to support the efforts of the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor to gather evidence which could lead to the indictment of Russians, high and low, for the crimes being committed by their troops in Ukraine. Can he confirm that that remains our own top priority in pursuing such crimes?
I have to say that I am not very convinced by the arguments in favour of a new and separate tribunal which we have heard expressed in this debate. I believe that it is unnecessary, because the International Criminal Court has demonstrated that it is capable of pursuing command responsibility for crimes that are on its statute book. It is also, I think, undesirable because it will be intensely divisive. There is absolutely no doubt that if we try to establish a new tribunal, we will split the rest of the world and many will not follow. But many of them are already signatories of the International Criminal Court statute, so they do not have to be asked whether they follow it; they are in it. So I do feel that that is not a good way; I would add that, unfortunately, the idea of a new separate tribunal directed against Russia’s undoubted aggression is precisely what Putin needs to feed the paranoia of his people. That is his way of keeping them on board, saying “The West is after me, and it’s after you.” Now, I do not think that it is very wise to feed that, and I think therefore that the pursuit of war crimes through the International Criminal Court is a much better route, but I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that.
Clearly, we have a worldwide challenge for hearts and minds on our hands. No one can have seen the reception of Sergei Lavrov last week in South Africa without realising that there is an awfully long way to go. One key player will be India, now in the chair of the G20, a grouping whose 2022 summit meeting in Indonesia issued a notable rebuke to Russia’s nuclear sabre-rattling. What are we doing to consolidate support for Ukraine when the next G20 summit takes place later this year? What kind of approach are we and our allies pursuing throughout Asia, Latin America and Africa to counter the arguments that are enabling them to sit on the fence and say that it is something that they do not want to get involved in?
Now, this second Cold War—that is what we are in, and NATO is right, in my view, to do all it can to ensure that it is a cold and not a hot war—puts our own security and the defence of a rules-based international system based on the UN charter, over which Russia has ridden roughshod, right on the line, as so many noble Lords have said. The resulting stresses to our economy may be regrettable, but they do have to be borne, in my estimation. They need to be accepted and handled with calm determination not to let Russian aggression get its way.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is always a very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and that was a very wise speech. We should not be surprised, because he is the epitome of the experience and expertise which we often call in aid when we are defending your Lordships’ House. It came up earlier this afternoon because there was a question on Afghanistan, and he revealed that he was serving in Kabul in 1962. That says a lot.
I should also like to say how much I echo those who have paid deserved compliments to my noble friend Lord Soames. That was a magisterial speech and we look forward to many more. He is indeed a very worthy successor to his father. When I was a young Member of Parliament, I went out to be entertained at the embassy in Paris and was given the most wonderful, friendly welcome and the best lunch I had ever had. Then I had the great good fortune of serving for 10 years or so on the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, where his mother was a towering figure and a very worthy leader of that trust.
This is, in a way, a strange debate because it was changed yesterday morning when we all received an email at around 9 am telling us that President Zelensky was going to address Parliament in Westminster Hall. What a speech it was. It was brave, defiant and—as the noble Lord, Lord McDonald made plain in his splendid speech—had a large begging bowl at the end, but we all responded enthusiastically because we were in the presence of a great patriot. He is a man written off by Putin, a comic who turned himself into a statesman and to whom we all owe an enormous amount because, under other leadership, Ukraine might well have ceased to exist as an independent country by now.
We owe President Zelensky a great deal because patriotism, as he was saying in his speech, is not enough: you have to have the ammunition. I am glad we have been able to give him a lot and hope we will be able to give him more, but I hope also that we will have regard to our obligations to our own country. My noble friend Lord Soames was absolutely right in his splendid speech to underline that point: greater recognition of the need for more defence expenditure.
We are facing a terrible task. Look at Ukraine as it was on 23 February last year and as it is today on 9 February this year. All around one sees destruction, desolation, a country that has been robbed of much of its history. The history of a nation is often symbolised in its great historic buildings, museums and galleries. Many have been pillaged and looted and their treasures taken to Russia. Many a historic church and monastery has been destroyed. We are going to need trillions of pounds or dollars to restore Ukraine but we must all be committed to that. Whether Russia pays reparations, as it certainly should, or whether that does not come about, we all have a duty to rebuild, so far as we can, a brave country that must have boundaries no smaller than they were on 24 February last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, said in his very interesting speech that the war will be won on the battlefield. It is rather interesting that we had a politician say that and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, saying rather the opposite: that it will end, as all wars do, with politics and negotiated settlement. That is right, although I entirely understand why the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said what he did, because many have made the point that if Ukraine is defeated, we are all defeated; I have made it myself in past debates. The democratic cause would be defeated. That must not be allowed to happen, not just for us but for our children and grandchildren. They will inherit a difficult world whatever happens, but it will be made all the more barren and bleaker if democracy is on the run.
I will make one or two suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the BBC World Service. I happened to be at the same meeting that he, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others were at last night with the BBC, specifically in the context of Persian language broadcasts. It made the point that it really did not have a budget on which it could rely. Soft power is very important. We have said time and again over this last year that we are not the enemies of the Russian people, and we certainly are not. One thing the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was right to do was to point to Russia’s enormous losses in the Second World War of some 26 million people. They are a brave people and most of them are good people. We have to appeal to them and use every means that radio and modern communications give to us to get the message across: “You are not our enemies. We wish you to be our friends. You’ve never had the benefit of democracy; it’s something you really should have.” We have to get that message across day after day, hour after hour. It is essential.
The other thing we need is a diplomatic offensive. In his very fine speech, the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, talked about the numbers in the General Assembly. He is right that four or five voted with Russia, but others were equally right when they pointed to the fact that India and the South Africans have not taken the side of Ukraine. Two very important members of the Commonwealth of Nations, which used to be the British Commonwealth, have, in effect, sided with the dictator.
We need to have a real diplomatic offensive. We need to try to arrange that all ambassadors be entertained by the Foreign Secretary here in London and, even more important, a meeting to be attended by Members of both Houses of Parliament to underline the unity in this Chamber and in another place. When Sir Keir Starmer and the Prime Minister stood together yesterday, it was a real piece of symbolism. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to it. It indicated that, whatever we might fall out about—as we do and we will, whoever is sitting on this or that side of the House—there are certain things on which we cannot and will not be separated. It would be very useful to have a series of ambassadorial meetings with those countries that are either hostile or wavering to say, “We in this democracy are totally united on this.”
I also think that we and our allies, all the countries of NATO and the European Union, should summon the Russian ambassadors in the countries concerned to say, “We are united. Of course we are prepared to talk, but you’ve got to withdraw your forces from Ukraine before we do.” I do not suggest that this will be an overnight success, but it should be done as a concerted exercise: an increased use of both soft power and diplomatic channels.
There is another thing that we must do, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in his excellent speech. A friend said to me the other day that we must “destroy Wagner”—pronounced as the late composer, which I do not think is quite what he meant. The noble Lord spoke about that dreadful organisation spreading mayhem and indulging in rape and violence of every sort. It must be a proscribed organisation. If nothing else comes out of this debate, although I hope that much will, a pledge from the Front Bench that that will be acted upon would send us all into the Recess feeling a little better and with a spring in our step. Let us hope that when we come back and we mark 24 February, some advance has been made on at least one of these fronts.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cormack and a real privilege to contribute to a debate on such a critical issue of our time.
I confess that although—like all noble Lords, I sense—I was horrified by what unfolded on our screens on 24 February last year, I was originally cautious on Ukraine. Of course we should support Ukraine, I thought, but in moderation, in solidarity, careful not to provoke the Russian bear for fear of the consequences. I no longer hold that position. Others have referred to the torture, the rape and the sheer brutality. In light of the overwhelming evidence of the calculated barbarity that informs Russia’s criminal war strategy, I no longer believe that the position I held is still tenable. As other noble Lords have said, only one side can win, and that needs to be Ukraine. I therefore believe now that the West needs to do everything possible to help Ukraine to win as quickly as possible.
My noble friend Lord Soames, in his powerful maiden speech, reminded us of the “terrible lessons” of history, which of course his grandfather played such a prominent part in shaping, to the benefit of the world. For me, this situation—Russia’s aggression in Ukraine—threatens us as much as did Hitler’s marching into the Rhineland only 87 years ago, swallowing up independent Austria two years later and occupying first the Sudetenland and then the rest of what was Czechoslovakia within a matter of months—and all without a military response until it was too late.
With the luxury of hindsight, we now know that this was a drumroll for another criminal war of aggression. Surely it teaches us both that we need to invest at scale in our Armed Forces, as my noble friend Lord Soames said, and that we do not have the luxury of waiting for hindsight, especially in the much faster-paced world that we live in. In his memorable address yesterday, to which other noble Lords have referred, President Zelensky spoke about the need to defeat the fear of war in order to enjoy peace. As we all know, he thanked us in advance for planes to help secure that peace.
My question to my noble friend the Minister is this: since the Prime Minister has made the welcome commitment that we should train Ukrainian pilots, exactly how far in advance of those pilots actually being able to use that training was President Zelensky thanking us? We talk about ruling nothing out in the long term, but can my noble friend tell the House how long term is long term when Ukraine is being reduced to rubble now, in the short term? I do not know what the Russian is for long term, but I doubt it is a word that Putin uses much in connection with his battle plans in Ukraine.
If, as anticipated, Russia launches a new offensive within the next few days, possibly the next few weeks, how much worse does it need to get—how many of the new tanks that the West is supplying need to be destroyed by enemy fire—before we say, “Actually, let’s commit now to supply the planes to protect them from attack from the air”? Training needs to come first, of course. No one is disputing that, but surely now is also the time to assure the Ukrainians that once the training is completed the planes will be made available, and quickly. President Zelensky told the press conference that some of his pilots have already been training for two and a half years of the three years required.
I appreciate that I am not the only one wondering, if Putin triumphs in Ukraine, how long it will be before the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic and others, including us, are threatened directly as well. I know that the noble Lords, Lord McDonald of Salford and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who is no longer in his place, referred to our front line. If the front line were to shift beyond Ukraine, which it could well do if the Russians actually get their act together, how long is long term then?
We can still avoid the scenario where we come under direct threat, but I believe we can do so only if we act now to give Ukraine what President Zelensky said it needs now. We can tell ourselves that we are the ones doing the protecting and that we can afford the luxury of thinking long term. But what if the reality is different and, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones said, their fight is our fight? What if Ukraine is actually protecting us and time is not on our side?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, yesterday my Cambridge University contemporary and friend Brigadier Justin Maciejewski, the current director of the National Army Museum located next to the Royal Hospital Chelsea, where I was proud to be a commissioner for six years, wrote an editorial. It was headed, “No one wants WW3 but lesson from history is clear: If we want peace, prepare to FIGHT for it”. Justin Maciejewski started his powerful editorial by saying:
“BRITAIN is facing a historic crisis that echoes the build-up to the Second World War.”
I sound like a stuck record, but back in 2019, in the debate in this House marking the 70th anniversary of NATO, I said—before there was any sign of the war in Ukraine—that we should increase our defence spending from the NATO minimum of 2% to 3%. I have repeated this suggestion several times since over the past four years. I also remember very clearly the SDSR in 2010 which decimated our Armed Forces, removing our maritime capability, destroying our Nimrods, removing aircraft carrier capability for years and ultimately cutting the size of our Armed Forces. According to recent reports, our Armed Forces are due to shrink to 73,000—smaller than the number during the Napoleonic Wars over 200 years ago.
I hear of pilots of the Royal Air Force and Navy who have been recruited but are waiting for over two years to even begin their pilot training. I have spoken to one of these individuals. Could the Minister explain why this is happening and how we can get these pilots trained straightaway? It is a waste of young talent. There needs to be an urgency about this.
Yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Soames, said in his outstanding maiden speech, President Zelensky gave an inspirational speech in Westminster Hall. Zelensky said simply that they need aircraft. We were meant to receive 135 F35 Lightnings, the best fighter aircraft in the world, but we have only 48. We need these aircraft more than ever to give us cutting-edge air superiority on a global scale. Could the Minister confirm when we are going to be taking full delivery of these aircraft?
This reminds me of the excellent debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, exactly two weeks ago. In that debate, I asked the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, specifically whether we should give aircraft to Ukraine. If I am not mistaken, I was the only Peer to ask that question. I did not receive an answer and I ask the question again to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, particularly given President Zelensky’s direct request yesterday. Will we, along with our NATO allies, be able to provide aircraft to Ukraine? Additionally, I said, as did others, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that “size matters”. Boots on the ground and critical mass matter. This concept was exemplified greatly during the first Gulf War, when the British Army had over 165,000 full-time troops. At that very time, my late father Lieutenant General Faridoon Bilimoria was commanding the central Indian army, with a total of 350,000 troops under his command.
We must remember that the number one priority of any Government is the security of their citizens. We are sleepwalking into a potential nightmare. The British Army has overall been undefeated for centuries. We have to wake up before it is too late and this changes. When President Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, we did nothing. When he attacked Ukraine on 24 February 2022, he expected Ukraine to capitulate and give up, but the Ukrainian people and army did not.
When I was president of the CBI, I reached out to the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, Vadym Prystaiko, who has become a very good friend, the weekend after the war started. The following Monday, 28 February, at Ambassador Prystaiko’s request I visited him at the Ukrainian embassy. I was introduced to him well before the war by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, with a view to increasing UK-Ukraine trade. At the Ukrainian embassy in Holland Park on that Monday, I learned that Ukraine was not going to give up and was going to fight.
I am proud to say that I managed to rally our CBI members to help. The day after that I went back to the embassy. Sitting side by side with the ambassador in his office with leaders and captains of industry, we reached out for help. That call was immediately heeded. Millions of ration packs for the troops in Ukraine, as well as medical kits and food packages, were sent. Funds were raised over the following months, and all this contributed to the fact that Britain in the past year has been one of the top three humanitarian aid supporters of Ukraine and I am so proud to have been personally, alongside the CBI, part of that support. As a result of this war, NATO is stronger than ever.
On 9 March last year, I was invited by the then EU ambassador to the United Kingdom, João Vale de Almeida, to address the ambassadors of the 27 EU member countries at the EU embassy in Smith Square, round the corner from here. I asked the ambassadors of Finland and Sweden, “Are you now going to join NATO?”, and they both replied, “We are ready to join in five minutes”. President Putin has shot himself in the foot: not only is NATO more united than ever before but it will now be enlarged with two serious and formidable military powers. Those two countries have high-tech and highly advanced manufacturing capabilities and state-of-the-art weaponry, from the Saab Gripen fighters to sophisticated artillery. We should not forget that Finland, with its 1,340-kilometre border with Russia, has the ability to muster several hundred thousand troops from its reserves within weeks.
In the last year, we have all witnessed the amazing bravery of the Ukrainian people and its armed forces. With the CBI, I helped to organise the incredibly moving fundraising event, “Brave Ukraine”, at the Tate Modern in London on 5 May last year, where President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed us live from Ukraine. I stood next to Boris Johnson, our then Prime Minister, who was at the forefront of leading the global efforts. The exhibition displayed, for all to see, the true bravery of the people of Ukraine, which was, and still is, utterly inspirational. It is with real pride that we can say that the UK was one of the first nations to provide initial support and vital weaponry, which has now escalated to other countries joining in the efforts and providing hundreds of tanks.
There has been talk, time and again, of not provoking Russia and of worrying about Russia using nuclear weapons or chemical warfare. Surely, the time has come when enough is enough; it is coming up to one year since this wretched war started. We have had the worst global crisis since the Second World War with the Covid pandemic from 2020 to 2022, two years which brought the world to a standstill, completely decimating economies, including our own, which shrank by almost 10% in a year, requiring us to spend £400 billion to save our economy, businesses and jobs. Instead of the last year being a time of recovery from the pandemic, it has been an extension, if not a complete exacerbation, of the crisis, as the Ukraine war has led to global inflation, energy supply issues and supply chain problems. Most tragically, it has created a food shortage, with the notable prediction by David Beasley, the director of the World Food Programme, that 47 million people in developing nations were potentially at threat of starvation if the port of Odessa was not unblocked, as they were reliant on the grain from the food basket of the world, Ukraine.
In May 2022, Ambassador Prystaiko alerted me to the impending food crisis as a result of the port of Odessa being blocked, due to the war. Following up the next day, and using every opportunity I could, I brought it up in Parliament and I ensured that I brought it up face-to-face with the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, in Berlin, in my capacity as a member of the B7, before Germany presided over the G7. It was such a relief that, thankfully, with the help of the UN and our NATO ally Turkey, Russia finally agreed to the port of Odessa being opened and the grain is now flowing again. Can the Minister update us on whether the grain is genuinely flowing?
As has been said by many noble Lords in this excellent debate, it is clear that Ukraine is fighting not only for its own freedom but for the freedom of us all. All our freedoms are at stake here. As one of my Harvard Business School professors outlined to me in September last year, one solution to end this conflict is a stalemate, in the sense that an effective line of control could exist, with Russia occupying some Ukrainian territory and Ukraine not officially acceding to it—a stand-off with non-stop skirmishes in the years ahead. That type of situation exists in many parts of the world, as we speak. But the best and only solution all round is to help Ukraine win the war, as it would send a strong signal to other countries that the free world will not accept aggression of this kind, will unite and will help the victim not just to survive but, ultimately, to win the war. We have the ability to do that without putting our troops on the ground, as the Ukrainians have shown themselves to be fully capable and utterly courageous, if we just give them the right means to aid their efforts. Why are we stopping now? Why are we hesitating? We should be giving them the fighter jets and missiles they are asking for and the artillery and tanks they need—everything possible to enable them to push the Russians out of Ukrainian territory and out of Crimea. Why are we now holding back? What are we scared of?
If President Putin dares to use nuclear weapons for chemical warfare, will the Minister please assure us that this act will not just be a red line, but a trigger to implement the full force of NATO? This will then be a lesson to other countries, including China, to not even dare to contemplate attacking Taiwan.
Almost exactly a year ago, on 8 March 2022, we had a historic moment in Parliament when President Zelensky addressed both Houses of Parliament in the House of Commons. He ended his speech by quoting Shakespeare. He said:
“The question for us now is, “To be, or not to be”. This Shakespearean question could have been asked over the past 13 days, but I can now give you a definitive answer: it is definitely, “To be”. I remind you of the words that the United Kingdom has already heard because they are important again. We will not give up, and we will not lose.”
He has stuck to those words almost a year later.
Fast forward to another absolutely historic and valiant speech by President Zelensky that we witnessed yesterday, which he delivered to all of us in Westminster Hall, amazingly, in person. He mentioned that he was about to meet King Charles later. As the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, has quoted, President Zelensky said:
“The King is an air force pilot and in Ukraine today, every air force pilot is a king”.
He then presented Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle with a Ukrainian ace fighter pilot’s helmet—a lieutenant-colonel’s helmet—with the compelling words inscribed on it:
“We have freedom, give us the wings to protect it”.
We must do this at once. Let us give them the wings to protect their freedom. What are we waiting for? This particular point in President Zelensky’s speech highlighted the sheer importance and incredible work of air force pilots in defending a nation. I pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Stirrup. It means so much to me as a proud honorary group captain in 601 Squadron of the Royal Air Force.
In his speech yesterday in Westminster Hall, President Zelensky spoke more than once about evil and how evil will crumble. This reminded me of when I was privileged to speak at the memorial service for Archbishop Desmond Tutu laid on by the South African High Commission. I quote Archbishop Desmond Tutu in 1988 addressing the South African Government:
“You have already lost. Let us say so nicely, you have already lost. We are inviting you to come and join the winning side. Your cause is unjust. You are defending what is fundamentally indefensible because it is evil. It is evil without question. It is immoral. It is immoral without question … Therefore, you will bite the dust! And you will bite the dust comprehensively.”
To conclude, looking ahead, the world order has two superpowers that exist right now: the United States of America and China. A third very important and emerging superpower is India, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred. As the noble Lord said, India this year has the presidency of the G20. Russia is not even a top-10 economy in the world. India today is the fifth largest economy in the world; we are the sixth largest. Within 25 years, India is predicted to be the second largest economy in the world with a GDP of $32 trillion.
Today, the Russian army has shown itself to be weak and ineffective. The Indian army is not only one of the largest armies in the world, but a highly disciplined and formidable fighting force, with capabilities growing in leaps and bounds. Our Armed Forces in the UK may be small in number, but we should remember that we have the finest, most respected Armed Forces in the world with our SAS, SBS, Royal Marines, and, of course, our precious Gurkhas.
Our role and aim in Britain has always been, and still is today—even with less than 1% of the world’s population—to remain a global power at the top table of the world and to be closely allied with countries such as India and the United States of America. I suggested a year ago that the UK should join the Quad, along with USA, Japan, Australia and India, thus squaring and circling the world. Does the Minister agree?
When the war in Ukraine ends, it will bring peace and prosperity, not only to Ukraine, but to the whole world. In helping Ukraine, we need not only to continue our efforts regarding the weaponry we have already supplied, but also to up our game immediately. In the words of the Duke of Edinburgh’s motto: “Fortune favours the bold”. Let us be bold right now. We need more troops and to spend more on our defence. I will finish where I started by quoting Brigadier Justin Maciejewski from his editorial yesterday:
“Armies need might and mass to win. That means good weapons, good people and enough of them to be a credible deterrent. Without an effective defence, everything that you treasure is threatened. Defeat in war means you lose everything: no health, no pensions, no education, no safety”.
He ends by saying:
“We need to be prepared, and preparation has a price”.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to engage in a full, non-time-limited debate on something that is an existential threat to the security of the United Kingdom. I very much appreciated the introduction to the debate by my noble friend Lady Goldie. Can the Minister confirm, to be clear, that His Majesty’s Government’s absolute minimum strategic objective is to prevent Ukraine being defeated? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, told us that it is a much more complicated issue than the minimum objective, and we do not know what the long-term objective will be. I think all noble Lords will agree that if Ukraine were defeated, we would have to at least double our defence expenditure, with all the attendant difficulties that would ensue. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, gave us hope and evidence that, at some point, even autocrats have to give up. I will elaborate on why Putin will have to do so .
In state-on-state conflict, success for the aggressor will depend upon either an immediately successful attack, using overwhelming military or political superiority, or enjoying overall strategic superiority in the longer term. By as early as 26 February last year, it was likely that the former was not going to happen, and by 9 March, it was not at all clear that the Ukrainians would ever be defeated. To enjoy overall strategic superiority, an aggressor needs to have a larger population and industrial capacity and economy to match it. Russia’s population is quite a bit larger than that of Ukraine, as my noble friend Lady Meyer pointed out, but Putin is profligate in the way he tolerates casualties, and one should never underestimate the moral component of fighting power.
More important in terms of strategic superiority is the relative size of the economies and industrial capacities. While Ukraine is obviously inferior in this respect, it will benefit from the sum of all the NATO countries’ capacity, whereas I understand that Russia’s economy is only the size of Italy’s and is largely based on mineral extraction. Furthermore, we will not allow the Ukrainian Government to run out of money and we can share the cost of doing that. Sadly, this could make for a long war with much pointless, tragic and avoidable loss of life on both sides—and it absolutely pains me to see the loss of life of civilians and lovely young men on both sides. Of course, this is made worse by the Russian people’s tolerance of pain in order to avoid defeat. Nevertheless, the long-term outcome is not in doubt, so long as we do not give up: Putin’s position is not sustainable .
With one exception that I will come to, I believe that HMG, particularly the FCDO and the MoD, are doing an outstandingly good job. I share the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Soames about my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, in my noble friend’s excellent maiden speech. I admire the way that each decision made by Ministers is very carefully calibrated and calculated: I hope that that answers some of the rhetorical questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria .
I recall that in around 2010, my heart sank when some Cameron advisers claimed that the British Army did not need armoured brigades with their armoured battlegroups. To be honest, these are extremely expensive to operate and maintain, with considerable logistic support required to keep them in operation. We cut them back because we could not afford them—or we thought we could not afford them. The problem is that to attack dug-in infantry without using an armoured battlegroup, with its protected mobility and firepower, is a suicidal endeavour. That is no doubt why the Ukrainians are desperate to create more such fighting units: they cannot afford the immoral casualty rates that the Russians appear to accept in making such dismounted attacks. I point out that for both sides, training for armoured manoeuvre warfare is not quick, easy or cheap, but hopefully we can enable the Ukrainians to be more effective in that regard.
I have heard and read concerns that donating a squadron of Challenger tanks to Ukraine would leave us short. I do not believe anything of the sort; we have plenty of surplus tanks and we can rehabilitate any tanks much faster than we can train the gallant Ukrainian soldiers to operate and maintain them. Challenger 2 is a very complex tank to take into service and sustain. Now that we have managed to get the Leopard 2 released, there are some tricky questions about how to deploy Challenger 2, but I am confident that the Government and MoD will make the correct decisions, and these are not something we should seek to influence.
I echo the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the logistics for this equipment. If Challenger 2 and the AS-90 are to be deployed to the front line in Ukraine, I urge Ministers to obtain categoric assurances from the staff that there will be first-line and second-line maintenance in place within Ukraine, a robust repair loop for engines and main assemblies, and the black boxes that proliferate in armoured fighting vehicles.
It is not clear to me that HM Treasury is fully seized of the strategic objective of at least preventing Ukraine being defeated. How can we be sure that it is not still penny-pinching the MoD? Noble Lords should understand that we cannot determine what our future defence posture should be until the outcome of this war is clear and the lessons have been analysed.
However, I want to refer to a more immediate problem. In order to support government-to-government arrangements, the Ukrainians, through commercial agents, have been buying up private and commercially owned armoured fighting vehicles in the United Kingdom. These vehicles will allow their troops to move around the battlefield with less chance of falling victim to artillery fire or other perils, as I have explained. Every AFV that is sent out provides another group of brave Ukrainian soldiers with the protective mobility they deserve. The Government’s export control organisation has been doing an excellent job of processing the licences for these AFVs, and no doubt it carefully considers all the relevant factors, including where the vehicles are going and, most importantly, where the money is coming from. It obviously has access to all the facilities and capabilities of the state, coupled with the close involvement of the MoD.
Noble Lords will appreciate that locating, purchasing and preparing these AFVs is a specialised business that only a few are effective at undertaking, and only a few have the necessary contacts and facilities. One of these dealers is called “Peter”—that is not his real name, which I cannot divulge for security reasons. I understand that Peter has export licences for at least 100 AFVs. Peter contacted me to ask for my help, because his bank wrote to him on 20 December last year to tell him that his bank account will be closed on 20 February. The bank made it clear that it was not prepared to discuss the matter or say why it was necessary. Peter suspected it was to do with money laundering, because his turnover has rocketed, and he is dealing with Ukrainian businessmen.
I have sought to deal with this matter discreetly and behind the scenes. The major high street bank has been very helpful and, so far as I can discern, it has done nothing wrong and has only been implementing the money laundering regulations. Thus, it would be unfair to name the bank. At a senior level, the bank has made it clear to me that it could continue to provide banking services if it received a letter from a Treasury Minister telling it to do so, or if Peter promised to stop selling AFVs to Ukraine.
I am grateful to the appropriate Treasury Minister for agreeing to have a meeting yesterday about this matter. Unfortunately, within two hours of us feting President Zelensky in Westminster Hall, the Minister was unable to agree to relax the money laundering regulations, even in a specific and minor way. The best advice from the Minister appeared to be that Peter should engage—wait for it—a consultant who would help him be compliant. The problem with that approach is that it is obvious that the bank was unhappy about the Ukrainian businessmen, and it is not clear to me how an expensive consultant can overcome that difficulty. It is also not what the bank thought to recommend to me.
I apologise for raising this matter in such an important strategic debate. However, as matters stand, Peter will have to cease exporting armoured fighting vehicles to Ukraine on or before Monday week if he is to pay the wages to his staff and continue in business. As I understand it, this is because Treasury Ministers believe that the complete integrity of the money laundering regulations is more important than supplying armoured fighting vehicles to Ukraine. The consequence of this will be that some heroic Ukrainian soldiers will die because they have been denied the opportunity of protected mobility on the battlefield. When my noble friend Lord Ahmad comes to reply, can he confirm that refusing to relax the money laundering regulations in the way I have suggested is the settled policy of His Majesty’s Government?
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I feel that this debate has begun to justify the generous tribute to your Lordships’ House paid by my noble friend Lord Soames in his powerful and memorable speech. Perhaps the most intriguing aspects of Putin’s special military operation in Ukraine are how he dared to start it; why it so rapidly became a military humiliation for Russia; why the disastrous strategic, economic and human consequences for Russia were not anticipated; and why it will almost certainly—it certainly should—result in the end of Putin’s rule in Russia.
The relationship between Russia and Ukraine this century has been one of suspicion, resentment and hatred, and the seeds of this were sown by Stalin a century ago. On 7 August 1932, the Central Committee of the USSR ordered that the Soviet theory of the collectivisation of agriculture be imposed on Ukraine. The Holodomor, which involved deliberate starvation as a form of genocide in Ukraine, led to the death by starvation of over 3.5 million people by April 1933. Some claim that as many as 10 million people died. It involved Soviet enforcers seizing all grain and livestock from farmers. Collectivisation was well described by Robert Conquest in his book The Harvest of Sorrow, published in 1988, with his conclusion that,
“in any future crisis in the USSR, it is clear that Ukrainian nationhood will be a factor and a vital one”.
On 9 April 1933, the British embassy in Moscow received a desperate appeal from Ukraine, which said:
“England, save us who are dying of hunger; help us get rid of the Bolsheviks”.
Sadly, there was no response.
By July the Soviet intelligence service, OGPU, had turned into the much-feared NKVD, with Yagoda—later executed, of course—in charge of it. In November 1933, famine arrived in Russia following collectivisation and the implementation of Stalin’s call for the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. On 25 July 1934, your Lordships’ House debated famine in the Soviet Union. Looking through the debate, it seemed to me that our Foreign Office was more anxious than anything to avoid criticism of the Soviet system. But that was then: the new shadow of fascism had emerged, even more threatening and dark than that of communism.
History has taught us to be clearer and bolder. In September 1936, the even more feared Yezhov took over the NKVD, launching Stalin’s great terror, with 1.5 million people arrested, of whom 44% were executed. Yezhov was shot in February 1940. In May 1937, Stalin started his purge of the Soviet army. The first bunch were shot in June and, by November, most military commanders were dead. Perhaps that explains the huge loss of Russians before the Nazi invaders were defeated.
Russia’s military has never lacked numbers, courage or endurance, but they have seldom had the training, leadership, equipment, logistics, competence or professionalism needed in a modern army. The result of this has been demonstrated in Ukraine over the last 12 months, with Putin making frantic changes of military command, moving from one general to another. How has he survived the humiliations he has brought upon his country?
To protect the leader, the shadow of the secret police has always dominated everyone in Russia, but Putin has gone one bit better. Since the end of the USSR, the Russian Federation has become largely Christian. Putin himself is a churchgoer. He has, from the start, had spiritual blessing for the Ukraine operation from Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, who leads the Russian Orthodox Church. A 2020 survey by the American Government estimated that 63% of the population are Orthodox believers, so the Church endorsement may help explain the continuing public compliance, if not support, for Putin’s war. Surprisingly—no, not at all—Patriarch Kirill, who is now 76, was a KGB agent from his youth. The Swiss Government have recently declassified their police archives on Kirill to show that in the 1970s, as agent Mikhailov, the young priest was the KGB’s man in Geneva, and he represented the Russian Church on the World Council of Churches.
I understand that, generally, there are 10 clinically accepted indications of the personality default known as psychopathy. They include behaviour that conflicts with social norms; disregarding or violating the rights of others; an inability to distinguish between right and wrong; difficulty with showing remorse or emotion; a tendency to lie often; manipulating and hurting others; disregard toward safety and responsibility; expressing anger and arrogance on a regular basis; and a tendency to engage in behaviour that is reckless or impulsive or may lead to harmful consequences. I suggest that Putin ticks half those boxes.
Let us hope that, with our undaunted support, President Zelensky can save Ukraine from Russia—but I fear that it may need the Russian people to save the world from President Putin.
Lord Risby (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the speech of my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Soames on his excellent maiden speech. I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was a Minister in the MoD. He was extremely successful and popular, largely because of his amazingly good judgment and common sense. Those characteristics will, I know, inform our discussions in the months and years to come.
It was my role in the other place to take through for the Opposition the legislation to enlarge the European Community, which was unanimously agreed. I say this only because, at the time, I had some remarkable conversations with an exceptional individual who was the Polish ambassador. On a number of occasions, he said clearly to me that we needed to provide a pathway for Ukraine to come and join the family of European nations; and that, if this did not happen, a certain other country would inevitably interfere. That is exactly what has happened, of course; his words were of great prescience.
I have been to Ukraine on multiple occasions, having in the past chaired the British Ukrainian Society for some time. I should declare an interest. For more than a year, I have been much involved with a new think tank, the Council on Geostrategy. We have done much work on Ukraine; we wrote a paper before the invasion as we were already alarmed at the anarchic environment in the Black Sea being created by Russia.
No country is more committed to the freedom of the seas than ours, as we have demonstrated by Royal Navy activity in the Black Sea. Given our current considerable credibility, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, when this horrific war ends, we should promote and encourage much closer co-operation among Black Sea states—particularly given the critical importance of Ukraine as a food exporter with huge energy exploration potential and the importance of the Black Sea as a central gateway between Europe and Eurasia, underpinned by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Montreux convention?
Ever since the construction of the trans-Siberian pipeline into western Europe, European nations have had to live with the leverage provided by Russia’s energy exports. This has created inordinately high dependence and, at times, unacceptable supply abuse, with the price of energy before and after the invasion being determined by political judgments, not market conditions. Of course, this has all funded Russian aggression and expansionism. It is insufficiently known that Ukraine has the second-largest gas reserves in Europe and holds equivalent to 27% of the EU’s gas storage capacity. It has huge potential as a reliable and diverse energy provider, enhanced by more integration of the Ukrainian energy sector with Europe, to our mutual advantage.
As many of your Lordships have said, we do not know when this terrible conflict will end, or on what basis, but your Lordships will welcome the hosting by the UK and Ukraine of the Ukraine recovery conference, drawing international support and building on the Lugano principles, which takes place in London in June. All of us will want Ukraine to embrace formally the Euro-Atlantic defence and political umbrella, but the cost of reconstruction will be enormous, and Ukraine itself will need to undertake reforms, particularly on the rule of law, which it is already addressing.
In July 2020, the Lublin Triangle was agreed between Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine, at the heart of which is the creation of a zone of security and prosperity, linked to Euro-Atlantic alliances and strengthening military, cultural and political co-operation. In this spirit, in 2022, ahead of the invasion a trilateral memorandum of co-operation was agreed by the Foreign Ministers of Poland, the United Kingdom and Ukraine, to demonstrate a commitment to further strengthen strategic co-operation and engagement. With considerable support and encouragement, think tanks in Warsaw and Kyiv and ourselves will be meeting this month in Warsaw to take matters forward.
This trilateral could play an instrumental role in the post-war reconstruction effort and in putting Ukraine more fully on the track towards Euro-Atlantic integration. In the longer term, the trilateral initiative could assist Ukraine towards a platform where the three countries work together to secure economic and geopolitical objectives, especially as Poland’s role in the European Union becomes more significant.
I echo the powerful words of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. When we reflect on post-war reconstruction, let us not underestimate the huge depth of the problem. More than 20,000 Ukrainian children have been taken from their families and orphanages and sent to Russia. The terrifyingly traumatic experiences of children will require special educational responses. On another level, reports suggest that mined areas are now equivalent to the size of Great Britain, and the clearing will be a huge undertaking, so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Can my noble friend please give consideration, during the important reconstruction conference in London in June, to issues such as this being discussed too? This should be an integral part of the successful reconstruction and recovery of Ukraine that we are planning.
Finally, I add my support for a clear mechanism to punish those who initiated this war in such an atrocious and shocking way and to seek reparations for the totally unjustified invasion on the people of Ukraine.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is commonplace to thank whoever has initiated the debate and very often to thank all the speakers for a wide-ranging debate. On this occasion, we certainly must thank the usual channels and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for moving this debate today. Two weeks ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, had his debate on defence, there were calls from both sides of the House for a debate on Ukraine. Nobody could have predicted quite how timely the debate would be. Waking up yesterday morning and hearing on the news that President Zelensky was going to be in Parliament, in person, was quite extraordinary.
It has been a wide-ranging debate but, as the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, said, those people who might be watching from the Russian embassy are really looking for divisions. In his opening words, my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed pointed out that the Liberal Democrats are in lockstep with His Majesty’s Government and the Official Opposition. When speaking on defence matters, it often feels that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I are simply rehearsing the same lines, precisely because, on so many defence issues, we are all singing from broadly the same hymn sheet. We are committed to His Majesty’s Armed Forces and we acknowledge the debt that we all owe them. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine, we particularly acknowledge the training that is going on to support Ukraine and its valiant servicepeople.
So my first point is on the importance of support from all political parties of the United Kingdom. It was notable that the Conservative Benches picked up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, about a green Marshall plan. There is a great deal of unanimity across the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was a lone voice. It came from a genuine place, but most Benches do not really agree.
This important debate is about Ukraine, but also about much wider issues of European security, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, stated, essentially the frontiers of British security are no longer the white cliffs of Dover or even Germany; we are looking to the blood and mud of the Donbas.
This debate is about the effects on the United Kingdom and our security, and it fundamentally matters for a reason that was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere. Ukraine is not just a country in the middle of Europe to which we have no obligations. It is not a NATO member nor a member of the European Union, but we agreed the Budapest memorandum and to support the security of Ukraine. It is vital that we do so. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, reminded us, one of the things that has been so clear over the last 351 days is the commitment and resilience of the Ukrainian President and the people of Ukraine. To stand up against Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion for almost a year, to keep fighting and to keep coming to remind the West of the importance of supporting Ukraine is incredible.
But we have to be honest. President Zelensky has not managed to persuade all the West or all the free world of the importance of standing up for Ukraine against Russia. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, pointed out that very few people in the United Nations voted to support Russia. That is true, but there have been numerous abstentions or countries that simply were not present to vote. That is significant and we are talking about very influential countries that are listening not just to Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, but to Russia. They include, as my noble friend Lord Purvis pointed out, South Africa, India and other Commonwealth countries.
One question I have for the Minister to answer in his winding-up speech is on the conversations His Majesty’s Government are having, with our Commonwealth partners in particular, to explain the importance to freedom and democracy globally of supporting Ukraine. We need to make absolutely clear that this is not about some sort of neocolonial western support for Ukraine; it is about the rule of law and democracy.
So, what conversations are being had? I did wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, with his extensive contacts with South Africa and India, might also be working with His Majesty’s Government to see how persuasive we can be. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has been very persuasive—not in the Chamber today but elsewhere —in explaining how the message that we all understand implicitly in your Lordships’ House has not necessarily reached the hearts and minds of many people. That is partly because of the Russian disinformation machine—and that goes to discussions maybe in southern Africa or in India, but also other countries in eastern Europe. We like to think that the EU, NATO and the United Kingdom are speaking absolutely as one on the issue of Ukraine, and broadly speaking they are, but some of the disinformation going into eastern Europe is being propagated by Russia. It is not supportive of Ukraine, for very obvious reasons, so there is a whole campaign that we need to wage not just to persuade Vladimir Putin that public opinion in Russia is changing—although if the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is right, that would be a very welcome way forward—but for hearts and minds generally.
We also need to think about expectations in the United Kingdom. This time last year, when we had the debate after the invasion, I remember suggesting that if we had sanctions, as we now do, we needed to be very explicit to citizens of the United Kingdom about the economic consequences we would all have to face. Those sanctions might be against Russian oligarchs—here, I agree with my noble friend Lady Brinton—but they should also hit all Russian assets.
But the consequences of sanctions have domestic implications as well, and I am minded to reinforce that point looking at today’s newspaper headlines. The headlines are all about yesterday’s visit from President Zelensky, and his message could not have been clearer: “wings for freedom”—give us fighter jets, not just help with training. The Daily Express and the Daily Mail, on their front pages, are not saying that President Zelensky says this; they are saying, send fighter jets to Ukraine. Are His Majesty’s Government in a position to do that? If they feel they are able or could be in a position to send fighter jets in addition to tanks, there will be consequences for our own defence budgets.
At the start of today’s debate, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked what contracts have been signed to ensure that we have the equipment we need, as we are supplying Ukraine. I would reinforce that question with the question I raised, along with others, on Monday with the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, passed it on to the noble Lord—about F35s. There are questions about British defence capabilities. From these Benches, we absolutely support the considered approach taken by His Majesty’s Government, in particular the nuanced approach of Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence. But if we are going to give further support to Ukraine, we also need to make sure that our defence budget can manage that. Capabilities matter.
Finally, I support the comments of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Purvis of Tweed in discussing questions of accountability, the questions that will be raised at The Hague and what support His Majesty’s Government are going to give to ensure that there can be a tribunal to bring to account Vladimir Putin, his forces and anyone else who has been perpetrating war crimes of the hideous sort we have heard about—rape, the abduction of children and the targeting of civilians in Ukraine. Those are all things we need to be thinking about in the longer term, but we need His Majesty’s Government to be clear about the strategic approach in 2023 and moving forward.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we have had some important and informed contributions from many noble Lords across the Chamber. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the usual channels for ensuring that this debate could take place over a long period and not be curtailed to a couple of hours. Given the significance and importance of this issue, the Government are to be congratulated for enabling the debate to happen this quickly. Given the significance of what happened yesterday, it was also fortuitous.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for the informed remarks that started this debate so well. However, it would be remiss of me not to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and welcoming him to the Chamber; it is nice to see him here. I think he got here under better circumstances than me. We are all delighted he is here for all sorts of reasons, not least his informed opinions, his general courtesy and, obviously, his lineage, which brings an important historical perspective. But in his own right, he has added considerable knowledge and experience to this debate, and he will no doubt do so in many other debates going forward. We are pleased that he is here with us, and I wish him good luck with his contributions in this House.
I also want to start from the point of view of unanimity, which is extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and my noble friend Lord Collins talked about the importance of symbolism. The television pictures that are beamed around the world and seen in so many countries are particularly important in these circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and my noble friend pointed out the importance of the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak being seen alongside Sir Keir Starmer and other leaders of our political parties. That is of huge significance and shows that, although we obviously have some questions for and points to make to the Government—as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has rightly just done—that is done on the basis of unanimity. I take the well-made point of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald: this is an important debating Chamber, one of the most significant in the world, alongside the other place. An incredible number of people watch our proceedings. It sometimes does not feel like that, but it is watched by significant numbers of people across the world. It will be being watched and analysed for any sense of difference between us— and there is none.
Perhaps I may say one thing as an aside. We heard the lone voice of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It is good that in our democracy, someone can stand up and say something, even if they are a lone voice. He was heard with courtesy and respect. I think I am right in saying that no one here agreed with him, but he had a right to say it. That is important, because there may be people listening in countries whose parliamentarians would be arrested and imprisoned if they expressed a view so contrary to that of their Government. My noble friend has an absolute right to say what he said. I totally disagree with him but that is not the point. In one sense—and the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, has more experience of these things than me—that symbolises what the conflict is about. This is an important conflict between those who would undermine democracy and those who would stand up for it.
It was a truly historic moment yesterday when so many of us gathered together to hear the inspirational words of President Zelensky—an occasion when he came to thank us, to ask for our continued support and to mention the need to provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs. It was also to restate what this battle, this conflict, this war is about.
I start my remarks by reiterating the importance of ensuring that Putin does not succeed. We can once again be proud that our country was among the first to support, and remains at the forefront of supporting, this battle for the rule of law and for the principle that force and aggression cannot be allowed to prevail. Our stand with Ukraine is for democracy, human rights and justice. This country has a proud tradition of standing up for those principles with our friends and allies, and we will do so once again in Ukraine as we have done so many times in our past.
It is a battle that is well understood not only here in Westminster but across our country. As President Zelensky will have witnessed, there is immense good will among our people to stand firm with the people of Ukraine. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham highlighted that point, as did many others, including the noble Lord, Lord Risby, just now. The British people understand that it is not just us in Westminster who believe that this is important; they understand that the Ukrainian fight is our fight, that their battle is our battle, and that the battle for democracy and freedom in Kyiv, Ukraine and beyond is the front line for us as well. It is a struggle for democracy and is therefore our struggle.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, Putin believed the West to be weak. He believed that we would cave in, that we would not stand with Ukraine, that we would be frightened and intimidated. He made many miscalculations but this was clearly one of the biggest. Instead of dividing us, we are more united than ever in our belief and our desire to see this through. We will do all we can to see it through.
Let it be seen that we will stand up against aggression, intimidation and those who undermine the rule of law not only here in Europe. As others have said, this has lessons for us in the rest of the world as well. Tyranny, oppression and dictatorship cannot win, and our fight in Ukraine sets out to prove that.
We must redouble our efforts, act even more urgently and respond quickly to new threats from Russia, supporting Ukraine in every way we can. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out some of the difficulties. I do not know how the Minister will respond, but there is clearly a need for urgency and for things to happen as quickly as possible. The Challenger 2 tanks must get there quickly, and training must happen and new demands must be responded to as quickly as possible. The Government will need to explain to us how they will meet these new demands as urgently as they can.
We also need to consider what the review of our independent review should say. We were going to cut the number of our battle tanks; that was in the review. Clearly we must now review that. We were going to undertake other changes to our equipment. We have said that technological improvement is more important than mass. The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Craig, will know far better than me that the Typhoon is a brilliant aircraft, and the F35B is great, but what about the mass of aircraft? Is there more we can do to have more of this equipment in the short term? If we give aircraft or other equipment away, how do we replenish it quickly? Where will it come from? You cannot build a tank or an aircraft in a year. If we want to up our supply and capabilities, how are we going to do that?
Those are the questions that the Government need to answer. As the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lords, Lord Soames and Lord Bilimoria, pointed out, they are important considerations for us. What does that mean for a defence budget? There will have to be a debate about what it actually means and the difficulties of that. If we want more money, where will it come from? Are we going to have a sensible debate about how we achieve that? Again, those are matters for the future, but a debate and discussion will have to be had.
There are many other things that could be said. I join my noble friend Lord Robertson, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lords, Lord Soames, Lord Hannay and Lord Howell, and many others in hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, can say something about this issue in a few minutes: there is a real problem about explaining in other parts of the world what I have just been saying about what we are doing with respect to Ukraine. It is not just some dictatorships in Africa; we have problems with India, Israel, South Africa and other countries that may not be against what we are doing but are certainly not keen advocates of it and worry about it. How are we trying to deal with that, discuss it and win the narrative?
Although I cannot remember which noble Lord raised this, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that the idea that we should cut the BBC World Service is a very bad one. At a time when the dissemination of accurate information across the airwaves in different languages to different people is so important, the idea that that is not an absolute priority, at what is a minimal cost, beggars belief. I know the Minister will not be able to answer that now, but I ask him to take it back.
I finish where I started. Their battle is our battle. We are proud to stand with the people of Ukraine. The unity of this Parliament is something that should resound right across Europe and certainly in Moscow. There is no difference between us. We are prepared to see this through, and we will do so.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for yet another great example of your Lordships’ House at its best. Undoubtedly, the issue of unanimity and being at one resonates.
I agree with the contributions from all Front Benches paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Goldie for opening the debate; her usual style, aplomb and detail set the tone for our debate. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis—contemporaries of mine, if I can put it that way, when it comes to issues of foreign affairs—for their strong support, and we have seen, from the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the strong alignment between us. It is important that, when the world looks at the UK on issues such as standing up for the rights of a sovereign nation, we speak with one voice.
I fully accept the point that that is not without challenge to the Government of the day. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that it is right that we will have people who challenge, whether outside these Chambers, through our press, our people, our opinion-formers, agencies and NGOs about our Government or our country doing more, or indeed within this Chamber. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. On this particular issue, if we look at the contributions made over the last year then we can perhaps see where the noble Lord is coming from, but it is right that in a free and open democracy all views are heard.
In thanking all noble Lords, I first and foremost wish to thank my noble friend Lord Soames. It is often said that the contributions in maiden speeches should be measured and informed, hopefully, delivered with expertise, a nice sprinkling of wit and a dose of wisdom. My noble friend’s contribution reflected exactly those qualities and he brings a remarkable insight and expertise. It is right, on the day after the President of Ukraine visited the United Kingdom, not only that we are having this debate but that it marks the occasion of my noble friend’s maiden speech. I look forward to working with him closely not just on Ukraine issues but across the foreign policy and defence agenda. I thank him for his continued support in this regard.
I also associate myself totally with my noble friend’s remarks about the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. While changes have happened, I have been one of those Ministers who have had the occasion to be around a while. I worked directly with the former Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary. Various issues come to mind, but one thing was very notable back in 2018—my noble friend Lord Hannan made this point: it should not be news that Russia targets countries. When we had the CHOGM in London in 2018, I remember that the Salisbury incident happened between the agreement of the communiqué and the meeting itself. Theresa May was Prime Minister and we were given quite straight directions that we needed to include language on Salisbury in the communiqué that came out of CHOGM. I saw Boris Johnson at his best then; I worked closely with him and directly with key Foreign Ministers from across countries to ensure that the language could be amended. Anyone who has worked over many years on different communiqués knows that is a task and a half. To get a number of countries to agree at that time when they were sitting on the fence, or perhaps not in agreement because of their association and relationships with Russia, was a tall order but we achieved it in 48 hours. I fully accept the points made about the principles and importance of diplomacy, which I will come on to.
In underlining my strong support, I also align myself with my noble friend Lord Soames’s remarks about our Secretary of State for Defence. Given the challenges that were put down, he has also been at the forefront of ensuring that we responded with the necessary agility. Across the different Foreign Secretaries I have worked with at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, we have done that with the requirements of Ukraine at the forefront. Those who perhaps still question and challenge whether Ukraine recognises that need do nothing more than listen to President Zelensky’s incredible and memorable speech yesterday in Westminster Hall.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham asked, “Where does this go? What is the United Kingdom’s position?”. I am sure that all noble Lords who spoke from the Front Benches would be able to align themselves with it. We have reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity within its recognised borders, as well as its right to pursue its own security arrangements. Our military support to Ukraine is enduring and we will continue to support it across all three domains, be that land, sea or air.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, had to leave—I thank him for advance notice of that —but he mentioned, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, did, that ultimately agreements and political settlements will be reached in this respect. We are not in that position at this time but we saw how, right from the start, President Zelensky put down his 10 principles for peace. We have been working with key partners and directly with Ukraine, and we in the United Kingdom align ourselves with it totally. Whatever agreement is ultimately reached must be reached with our strong support, but led and agreed by Ukraine.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, talked about the start of the conflict nine years ago. It is sometimes reflected that had the international community reacted differently in 2014 to first the invasion and then the annexation of Crimea, things would be different. But as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out, Russia’s intentions were clear prior to that, as we have seen through its continued attacks on the sovereignty of other nations, including what we saw in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia prior to the attack on Ukraine. Therefore, we must remain resolute and absolutely committed to ensuring that Ukraine prevails.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford talked of the need to ensure that our war is not with the Russian people. It is not, but we have seen from Mr Putin a suppression of his own communities and people right from the start. The continued arrests and detention of people such as Mr Navalny underline what he thinks of his own people. When we saw early protests in cities across Russia, simple things such as young girls and women appearing with flowers in city squares were shut down. This is a man who does that to his own people. Our fight is not with the Russian people. Our argument is not with the Russian people. We stand for the very freedoms and democracy that I am sure all Russians desire.
My noble friend Lord Hannan and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in his very insightful contribution, said that Ukraine must win and cannot be destroyed. My noble friend Lord Hannan said that Russian aggression cannot be rewarded. I think we all stand by that.
In paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Meyer for her early engagement with the Ukrainians, I recall on a personal note—which also speaks to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made—that we have worked with Ukraine over a number of years. It may surprise noble Lords that my first visit to Kyiv was as Local Government Minister. I was asked to visit Ukraine to ask about how local government structures could work within the emerging government. It seems like a long time ago. I returned in 2019 to represent Her Majesty’s Government, as it was then, during the inauguration of a certain President Zelensky. Only about three or four countries were represented at ministerial level. In a few short years, things have changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about changes in systems and issues of corruption. It could be argued that President Zelensky’s election reflected the fact that people within Ukraine wanted change. It is important that we stand by Ukraine at its time of need on defence, humanitarian and reconstruction requirements, but we are also in there for the long term in ensuring that Ukraine can rebuild itself and its governance structures.
Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, asked, “How long is long term?”. The enduring reflection I can make is that our participation in alliances such as NATO indicate our strong long-term commitment, irrespective of which Government of what colour is in control of the United Kingdom. It is important that we stand by our obligations.
We have stood by Ukraine, and President Zelensky indicated that with his strong words yesterday. We pay tribute to all Ukrainians for their courage, determination and ingenuity and to the unbreakable friendship and ties between our two countries. As we all heard, President Zelensky thanked the United Kingdom for standing with Ukraine from day one. He also thanked us for our grit and international leadership in this respect. It is important that we are unrelenting in our continued support for Ukraine.
I welcome the wise words and the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who spoke with great insight and expertise. He reminded us that the world has changed from the time of the Second World War and the international institutions that were created. We live in a very different world. War is not just, as we see unfolding in Ukraine, traditional and conventional battlefield wars of tanks and air. We also see a growing area of cyber challenge. We need to be firmly aligned and work with our partners to ensure that responding to the cyber challenges posed by Russia and other state actors is part and parcel of ensuring our defence.
As we heard from my noble friend Lady Goldie earlier, Ukraine’s heroic armed forces have already recaptured thousands of square miles from the Russians, driving them out from more than half the territory they grabbed last year. As many noble Lords pointed out, Russia did not expect that that would continue. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, with whom I have had the pleasure of working on occasion over a number of years, rightly highlighted that Mr Putin got it wrong. He felt that this was a short intervention and that the world, perhaps based on history, would not stand by Ukraine, but he was proved wrong. Our continued resilience and support for Ukraine at this crucial juncture is extremely important. I share totally the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins: that those responsible for war crimes and atrocities should also be held accountable, a point made by several other noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Risby highlighted the appalling and abhorrent activities of the Russian forces. Ukrainian children in their thousands are being taken from their families and sent to orphanages in Russia. That is pure abduction of young children, and an attempt to terrify a whole population and the next generation of Ukrainians. Therefore, we condemn Russian atrocities, including the alleged abductions and deportations of innocent Ukrainians, and will hold Russia to account. On 16 June, the UK announced a new wave of sanctions, including against the Russian Children’s Rights Commissioner on that issue. I look forward to engaging directly with noble Lords on the important issue of accountability, which I will discuss in a moment, particularly in the areas for which I am responsible in government, such as crimes of sexual violence in conflict. Tragically, that abhorrent crime is again surfacing very clearly in Ukraine.
I turn now to military support. I assure my noble friend Lord Soames, with whom I have been delighted to work over a number of years, that the strong co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is very clear. He rightly pointed out that Russia’s threat does not end in Ukraine. Our commitments through NATO, as I have seen myself during visits to places such as Estonia, demonstrate the strong capabilities of our military. They need to continue, and we are committed to that.
My noble friend Lady Goldie and I visited the Balkans, where we saw the rising tide of nationalism, fuelled by Russian support and the likes Mr Dodik, who has also been sanctioned by the United Kingdom Government. It was very clear to both of us, as we saw in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially in the Republika Srpska entity, that that nationalist element was surfacing again in a way that no one wants to see, and which ripped that country apart previously. So, as was pointed out very ably by my noble friend Lord Hannan and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, we must be very mindful that this is not just about Ukraine but other countries as well.
I turn now to how we will ensure we are providing enough military support. Last month, my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary announced our most significant military support package to date. Ukraine urgently needs heavier, more modern equipment to expedite success. As many noble Lords alluded to, this package includes fourteen Challenger 2 tanks, a training package and artillery, which will further strengthen Ukraine’s capabilities. It means that, importantly, our Ukrainian friends can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. Our friends in NATO—the United States, France, Canada, Poland and Germany, among others—are following our lead and sending main battle tanks to Ukraine, which is a very important development. We hope that this combined effort will encourage further military support from other partners.
Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced plans to expand training for the armed forces of Ukraine, from land to sea and air, including fighter jet pilots and marines, as part of a long-term investment in their military. The United Kingdom’s surge of military equipment to Ukraine aims to give Ukrainian forces the upper hand on the battlefield and to limit Russia’s ability to target civilian infrastructure.
I turn now to the issue of fighter jets. Your Lordships’ House is at its best when we hear two noble and gallant Lords—the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Stirrup—commenting specifically on capabilities and capacities. This Chamber is like no other because of our insights and experiences. Our commitment on fighter jets is that, with our partners, we want to ensure as best we can that Ukraine is equipped to defend its sovereign territory, and that the capabilities we provide meet the tactical demands of the conflict as they evolve, hence our recent decision on battle tanks.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, raised specific questions on aircraft. I know that my noble friend Lady Goldie will write to him on specific numbers, et cetera. On the point that he raised on the initial F35s, I think 30 of the 48 have already been delivered and a further 18, which amounts to the 48 he mentioned, will also arrive in tranches.
On the more specific and higher-level number—a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—my noble friend Lady Goldie intends to write to noble Lords on some of the specific questions also raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.
On the issue of defence capability and replenishment, which was raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, my noble friends Lord Bellingham and Lord Soames, and others, the Defence Secretary has announced his intention to publish an update on the defence Command Paper in the spring. I believe it will be after the Spring Statement. It will address the issue of the Armed Forces and set defence on a path to remodernisation by 2030.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, on this issue of replenishing military aid, asked about contracts. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised this. The MoD has engaged fully with industry allies and partners to ensure the continuation of supply to Ukraine and that all stocks are replaced as quickly as possible. We have rapidly and effectively adopted our procurement process to reflect the urgency of the situation. A replenishment team has now been established at the newly formed operations directorate and a number of substantial contracts—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins—have already been placed to directly replenish UK stockpiles. These include Starstreak missiles and lightweight multi-role missiles as well.
My noble friend Lord Bellingham and other noble Lords asked about replenishment. It is right, of course, that we are supplying Ukraine, and replenishment is important. I believe his question was about our ability to continue to fight. The ability to conduct high-end war-fighting remains at the core of the British Army, including remaining in and leading the contribution to NATO and the ability to field a war-fighting division. The Army has two deployable divisions: first, the UK division, which provides a wide range of capabilities, at home and overseas; and, secondly, the Army’s primary armoured war-fighting force. The British Army holds forces at various levels of readiness to ensure that we can defeat a variety of threats at home and abroad. I am sure we will continue to be asked questions on this and my noble friend Lady Goldie looks forward to engaging with noble Lords on this.
My noble friends Lord Bellingham and Lord Shinkwin asked whether British capability can deploy an armoured force. The short answer is yes. The flexibility remains very much for an agile force. I know that noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, in particular, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—have expressed specific concerns. I assure noble Lords that we stand very ready. Of course, I share the view that has been expressed by several noble Lords that the first duty of the Government is the security of our own country and citizens.
On the specific question on eastern European planes, which my noble friend Lord Bellingham asked, and decisions to provide support through individual agreements with other countries, the United Kingdom remains supportive of nations providing fighter jets to Ukraine and will continue to work with international partners in this respect.
On the issue raised by several noble Lords about the training of pilots, as the noble and gallant Lord said, training takes time. He is right: these are complex pieces of military equipment, and the pilots will need to spend a certain amount of time before they are trained up on how to deploy these NATO jets. It speaks to the point that we are in it for the long term. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones said, the expansion is not just about providing the immediate capability and requirements to Ukrainian forces. It is also about taking a multi-year approach to ensure that Ukraine has the military means and skills for generations to come—the threat will not cease.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
Will the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, respond, perhaps later, on the delays in the training of our own pilots, which is a point I raised?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I believe that is something we are very up to date with: there is no challenge in the area of training, but my noble friend will write on the specific point that the noble Lord raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, also raised the issue of drones and Iran’s role. This has been a really worrying development. We were all very aware of the threat of Iran towards destabilisation, the tragic consequence of which has now extended not just to the region in which Iran is, but to Europe as well. We of course strongly condemn what has happened in this regard and we have also, as the noble Lord will be aware, sanctioned several individuals and businesses responsible for supplying drones.
My noble friend Lord Attlee asked about support for Ukraine, and I thank him for his kind remarks. We have already committed more than £6.1 billion of economic, humanitarian and military support to Ukraine and the Prime Minister has pledged—something that was appreciated and welcomed—that the UK will deliver 14 Challenger 2 tanks to the Ukrainian army. My noble friend pressed me on a meeting he had with Treasury colleagues on the issue of money laundering and raised a specific question. I am sure my colleagues in the Treasury will follow up on that with him but, while I recognise my noble friend’s desire to do whatever it takes to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs, it is also imperative, as other noble Lords referred to, that we do not weaken the country’s defences against issues of illicit finance, money laundering and corruption that can end up financing Ukraine’s enemies. We need to be very focused on that.
Moving to the issue of diplomacy, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, among many others, raised the importance of this role. In particular, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, on this. The Prime Minister and President Zelensky discussed a two-pronged approach to the UK for Ukraine. In this regard, we remain very resolute in ensuring that military equipment and support is provided.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones and Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Risby also talked about the importance of our continued support on global mine action. I put on record my deep thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, in this respect. We have had discussions about the important role that particular agencies play, whether in Afghanistan, as we have seen, or indeed in Ukraine. The focus on de-mining is a key priority for the FCDO and will remain so. The FCDO has a £2 million agreement with the Halo Trust—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, works very closely with that trust. We are also providing de-mining equipment and training to these state emergency services as part of a £14.5 million contribution to the multi-donor partnership fund for building a resilient Ukraine, and providing a further £0.6 million to UNDP to support co-ordination in this.
On the issue of diplomacy at an international level, the Prime Minister has offered the UK’s backing to President Zelensky’s plans to work closely towards a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, James Cleverley, as well as myself and others, are regularly in touch with Foreign Minister Kuleba in co-ordinating activities. The Foreign Secretary was in the United States and Canada only last month, meeting counterparts to discuss going further and faster in Ukraine, and the Defence Secretary has been in Poland and Germany recently, making progress with further donations and international co-ordination. Almost a year on from the invasion, there is a strong alliance internationally and a resolve to continue on this path.
My noble friend Lord Soames raised the important issue of India, as did other key contributors. We continue to have very open and candid exchanges with India. Of course, from a historical perspective, India has relied on a defence partnership with Russia. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, will testify, it is important as we look at a broader and stronger alliance with India that we also look to see how trust —and co-operation—from both sides can be further strengthened, particularly when we see yet wider threats in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. India will be a key strategic partner here, and we need to see how we can further strengthen that relationship. On the issue of India’s abstention within the United Nations, for example, India has given its reasons for that.
On the issues raised about South Africa, we know that Mr Lavrov is on a charm offensive across Africa—he has been into the Sahel recently as well—offering Russian support. There is a clear diplomatic effort to win further support. It was extremely worrying, as I said from the Dispatch Box, seeing what happened in South Africa, as a Commonwealth partner.
This comes back to a point that I raised at CHOGM 2018, and in CHOGM 2022 we had the same challenge again. I sat in the Foreign Ministers meeting when we needed to agree a communiqué with language on Ukraine, which a number of countries objected to and it was a hard challenge. However, through our diplomatic channels we achieve success in that regard, but we need to remain very vigilant and focused, so I accept the points that were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, as well as those made by noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others. My noble friend Lord Howell talked importantly about the Commonwealth partnerships in this respect also.
My noble friend also mentioned the need to build relationships, and we are doing this within the context of the UN and not just the Commonwealth. As the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, pointed out, there were three votes at the United Nations General Assembly. In the first, on 2 March last year, 141 states condemned Russia’s invasion—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked how we can increase the isolation of Russia diplomatically. In the second vote, on 24 March last year, 140 countries joined the humanitarian resolution. On 12 October, 143 countries condemned Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory.
I can share with the noble Lords that we are currently working with international partners ahead of a UN General Assembly resolution and UN Security Council meeting to mark one year of the war on 24 February. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will attend that Security Council meeting. As the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, reminded us—and, having been involved with these matters, he speaks from great insight and experience—it is no easy task getting these numbers within the context of the General Assembly, and it is a hard diplomatic lift. I pay tribute to our diplomats around the world who have acted admirably, notwithstanding the challenges they face in ensuring we continue to build and have these strong alliances.
I accept the point that there were about 40-odd abstentions, but we have seen certain countries shift. I can share with noble Lords that, for example, the UAE has shifted its position in the UN Security Council. I was recently engaging with Kuwait, and we have also seen Kuwait now providing humanitarian support.
On disinformation—I am conscious of time; I could continue for another half an hour but will not do so—these issues are very much high up on our agenda. I accept the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and have shared her experiences, which show what can happen through social media and other actions when people speak out and the disinformation campaign continues. I hear the points made about the BBC World Service, but we have allocated additional funding. I saw the strength of contributions in that regard in the earlier Question today.
We have stood by Ukraine very strongly when it comes to humanitarian support. For the longer term—a point made by several noble Lords—we have included £1.35 billion in lending guarantees through the World Bank and the EBRD, £100 million in direct budgetary assistance and £220 million of humanitarian support.
A number of other questions were raised. In the interests of time, I must beg the noble Lord’s indulgence on the issue of the use of frozen assets, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
On the support we have given for the winter challenges, we have allocated a further £12 million to the World Food Programme. On sanctions, I know noble Lords are very seized of this; I have been providing regular briefings and will continue to do so.
On the Black Sea grain initiative, we have seen good progress; the next renewal date is March 2023, so we are right up against it—it is normally on a running cycle of 120 days. But we need to ensure that we remain focused and build further support for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked rightly about ensuring effective monitoring and closing down loopholes. Of course, we have the OFSI here in the UK, but we need to work with international partners to ensure that we cut down those who are seeking to circumvent sanctions. I cannot speculate on the issue of proscription, but the issues raised on the Wagner Group have been well received. Noble Lords will be aware of various sanctions we have used in this regard.
I said I would mention the issue of war crimes, and I think it is important to do so. I totally accept the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Browne and Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the importance of this. We are involved at all levels, and we are working very closely with Karim Khan at the ICC. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I have met with him on a number of occasions and will continue to do so. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is also leading a cross-government group in this respect. We will host a major international meeting in March to support the ICC in this endeavour.
The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, raised the issue of the hybrid mechanism. We are also involved with the working group on that. Recently—only last month—the Attorney-General and I briefed the APPG on Ukraine about steps we are taking, and we are working very closely on this.
Finally, we announced at the PSVI conference the new international alliance on preventing sexual violence in conflict. That will be formally launched at the CSW at the UN in March.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There is always more to say, but as my noble friend Lord Cormack quite rightly said, what more can be done? Given the time I have taken, I have perhaps indicated that a lot is being done. Mr Putin has a clear message being sent to him that the world stands united, and we will continue to do so. His disregard for international norms and laws is unacceptable. He will continue, I am sure, in his unprovoked, reckless and destabilising activity, but the ultimate objective must be to remove Russian forces from Ukraine, relinquish his illegal control of Ukrainian territory, and end his barbaric attacks against civilians. Until then, the Government are resolute—I know I speak for all noble Lords on this—and we will continue to support the brave people of Ukraine by ramping up diplomatic, economic and, yes, military pressure on Mr Putin and Russia. We will do all we can to bring about the end of Mr Putin’s invasion and ensure that in 2023 and beyond, Ukraine maintains its momentum, supported by the international community.
In closing, I again recognise the contribution and lineage of my noble friend Lord Soames, so it is perhaps apt to end this debate with a quote from Winston Churchill about a conflict of the past which is very much etched on our minds:
“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts”—
and Ukraine has that in abundance. As President Zelensky himself said yesterday, freedom will win. Slava Ukraini!
China: Governor of Xinjiang’s Visit
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe to an Urgent Question in another place on the planned visit of the governor of Xinjiang. The Answer is as follows:
“We understand from the Chinese embassy that the governor of Xinjiang may visit the UK next week. To be clear, he has not been invited by the Government or to the FCDO, and we have no confirmation that he will, in fact, travel. He will travel on a diplomatic passport and has not been granted a visa. If he does visit, I assure this House that under no circumstances will he be dignified with a ministerial meeting.
China’s actions in Xinjiang are abhorrent and we will not legitimise them in any way. However, robust engagement to challenge human rights violations and to stand up for the rights of the oppressed is at the core of the UK’s diplomatic work around the world. We must be prepared to use diplomatic channels to achieve that end, hence officials would be prepared to offer him a meeting. In line with that principle, there is only one reason why such a meeting would take place—to make absolutely clear the UK’s abhorrence of the treatment of the Uighur people and to say that we will not relent from exposing the horrors to which they are subject. That point needs to be set out clearly to China. It is only right that people responsible for human rights violations are confronted on these issues.
The UK has played a leading role in international efforts to hold China to account on Xinjiang. In 2019, we became the first country to step up to lead a joint statement on China’s actions in Xinjiang at the UN. Since that first statement, which was supported by 23 countries, we have worked tirelessly through our global diplomatic network to broaden the caucus of countries speaking out. Our leadership has sustained pressure on China to change its behaviour and consistently increase the number of countries speaking out. Most recently, our diplomatic effort helped to secure the support of a record 50 countries for a statement on Xinjiang at the UN third committee in October.
We have imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity in Xinjiang, and have introduced robust measures to tackle forced labour in supply chains. We have consistently raised our concerns at the highest level in Beijing. Let me be absolutely clear that we will continue to emphasise at all levels that the world is watching what China’s authorities say and do in Xinjiang. They cannot hide their abuses. The UK and our allies will not turn away.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to the Urgent Question from Sir Iain Duncan Smith. When I read the exchanges that took place, I was particularly concerned about the one between the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Leo Docherty, where the Minister confirmed from the Dispatch Box that Ministers had approved this visit. As Alicia Kearns said, he is one of the masterminds of the genocide in Xinjiang. Therefore, will the Minister tell us at what level political approval was given? What ministerial level was it—was it Leo Docherty, or did it go higher? Was the Foreign Secretary involved in giving this political okay for a meeting to take place? It is really important that we hear a response to that.
May I also ask about the assessment that the department may have made on Erkin Tuniyaz? Why is he so different from Chen, the former governor, who was sanctioned? Again, we need a specific response on that, so that we understand what sort of consistency the Government have on their policy of challenging these huge abuses of human rights in that province.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. In truth, I was not able to hear the full exchange that happened earlier in the other place.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is ahead of the game. I have not yet had a chance to go through it in detail. However, I can say that the governor was not invited to the UK by the Government, nor do we have confirmation that he will indeed be travelling. We understand that he intends to engage in discussions with a range of interlocuters about the situation in that region, but we do not know that.
On the issue of approval, I think that what the noble Lord has said is wrong. I am not suggesting that he is wrong: he may be quoting someone else who is wrong. The visa has not been granted for the visit. If he travels, he will be travelling on a diplomatic passport, for which he obviously does not need a visa. The reality is that we do not know, and the visit might not happen at all.
The noble Lord asked another question. There is consistency in our approach. I cannot go into the specifics about sanctions for individuals—we never do—but, in March 2021, we imposed sanctions on senior Chinese officials and on an organisation responsible for the appalling human rights violations taking place in that region. By acting with 29 other countries on an agreed set of designations, we increased the reach and impact of those measures and sent the clearest possible signal of our concern and willingness to act. The Foreign Office keeps all evidence and potential listings under close review but, as I said, I cannot speculate on who may or may not be designated in future, as doing so would probably reduce the impacts of those designations.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I politely point out to the Minister that that exchange is in Hansard. I am pretty certain that the Minister’s office should have briefed him on the proceedings in House of Commons Hansard so that he was aware of what the Minister there said in reply to the chair of the committee.
Indeed, Mr Docherty said it was the “judgment of Ministers” that this would be an extremely useful opportunity to meet this individual—yes, to pass on strong messages but, nevertheless, I think that senior officials meeting this individual would legitimise his visit if he came. It beggars belief. I will deeply condemn officials from our Government and the European Union if he does come; as I understand it, the visit is planned to be in London then Brussels. This individual is sanctioned by the United States under the Magnitsky system. He was sanctioned in December 2021 because he is linked to the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau. As we have heard, this individual has played a part in the construction of a system of repression in the region, which, as we have debated time and again, has made its people subject to gross human rights abuses.
So far, the Government’s language has been interesting; they say that he will potentially come here on a diplomatic passport. My understanding of the immigration regime is that there is still conditional access for such people even if they arrive on a diplomatic passport. He is not a member of the mission; therefore, it is not an automatic entry. He is a member of the Chinese Government; therefore, his entry is conditional with regard to the Immigration Rules. Can the Minister confirm that? If he cannot do so now, could he do so urgently in writing? I have a suspicion—here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins—that Ministers have the opportunity to block this visit but have decided that they will not take it up. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether Ministers have the ability to state that this person is not conducive to the public good and, therefore, to block his entry.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, before I come on to the specifics, I will take umbrage with the noble Lord. I think that he was a little churlish in his reference to the written record. As he knows, in this place, Ministers stand in for other Ministers at very late notice; if he would like to see my diary for today, I would be happy to share it with him, but there was not a minute wasted dealing with issues that are not absolutely top priorities for the United Kingdom. He would appreciate that were he to take a good old look.
There is no doubt that, if this character comes to the United Kingdom, he will not be doing so to be feted or treated in any way by the United Kingdom Government. The only possible reason for there to be any meeting between him and officials would be so that the UK can again put on the record our views in relation to what has happened on his watch. The UK’s abhorrence at the treatment of the Uighur people is very much on the record. The idea that this measure will in any way legitimise, or amplify the importance of, this governor is absurd. If anything, if there is a meeting of any sort with UK Government officials, it will be for us to be able to issue a public reprimand.
It is worth reiterating that the United Kingdom Government have led international efforts to hold China to account for its violations in Xinjiang. We were the first country to step up and lead a joint statement on China’s human rights record in Xinjiang. We have engaged in a huge diplomatic effort to encourage other countries to join us. Since that first statement in 2019, we—Ministers and officials—have worked tirelessly through our global diplomatic network to broaden that international caucus of disapproval.
We have succeeded, and of course we want more countries to join us in publicly condemning these atrocities in China. However, I do not think that anyone can reasonably doubt the commitment of the UK or the leadership that we have taken in challenging China on these issues.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.
The planned meeting with FCDO officials from this head of a regime which presides over what an independent panel has determined is genocide has caused great concern, not just to the Uighur community and its supporters but to the Hong Kong and Tibetan exile communities. In light of that, Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong made a formal submission to the Foreign Office in November about sanctions against serious violations of human rights in Hong Kong. Can the Minister assure me that there will be a rapid consideration of that report and a rapid response to it?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that there will be a rapid appraisal of, and I hope also a rapid response to, that assessment.
To correct one thing, there is no planned meeting with officials. I am not suggesting that there will or will not be meetings. I do not know. There are no plans for meetings to happen between officials and the governor. If there were meetings with the officials, it would be for the reasons that I articulated in my previous answer. However, based on everything I know—and I will correct the record if I am wrong on this—there are no planned meetings between UK government officials and the governor. I think that is what the noble Baroness said.