House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that Ministers are expected to maintain the highest standards of behaviour at all times in accordance with the ministerial code. Working relationships, including with civil servants, should be professional and appropriate.
Munira Wilson
Civil servants living in my constituency and across the country feel utterly dismayed that their professionalism and integrity are constantly being undermined by statements from serving and former Ministers, repeated attacks on them and, indeed, the Prime Minister’s failure to condemn what was exposed as bullying and intimidatory behaviour. Does the Minister agree that, given the importance of civil service and ministerial relationships and his role in upholding the ministerial code, phrases such as “activist blob” or a “blizzard of snowflakes” are not in keeping with that code, and what will he do about it?
Jeremy Quin
I rather dispute the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. There is and always should be a professional relationship between civil servants and the Government. We should all ensure that we maintain the impartiality, objectivity and integrity of the civil service. We should support civil servants in doing the important job that they do, which includes upholding the impartiality of the civil service, about which the Opposition have a few things to learn.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
My focus is on ensuring that the civil service has enhanced skills to provide all forms of advice where appropriate. However, there is also a role, as there is for other Governments and the private sector, for specialist expertise. Where this represents good value for money in delivering for the taxpayer, we will use it.
Mary Glindon
But with thousands of civil servants—hard-working, experienced civil servants—in the Public and Commercial Services Union having to strike for a fair pay deal themselves, how can the Minister justify hiring expensive consultants instead of using the in-house expertise that there evidently is across our wonderful civil service?
Jeremy Quin
We do make use of that expertise. I am keen to see civil servants providing advice across the full remit of their capabilities. Embedded in civil service learning are modules about consultancy, and we ensure that we use civil servants where appropriate in that area. However, there is a role for specialist consultants and specialist expertise. That can add value for the taxpayer. I used to be the Minister for Defence Procurement, and we would not have ship designers employed in the civil service when there are real specialists out there who are up to date and effective. There will always be a role for expertise that comes from outside Government, as well as using the brilliant expertise of our civil servants themselves.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I agree with the Minister that there is a role for consultants, but the spending on consultants is spiralling out of control. After the scandal of spending waste on personal protective equipment the Government have not taken the action needed. Consultants cost twice as much as a civil servant, yet spending on consultants has been spiralling. The Paymaster General lifted controls on private contracts and on reporting them in February. The Cabinet Office itself is one of the worst offenders for spending on consultants, and Ministers are not enforcing public reporting of departmental spending so that we can find out how much is being spent on consultants, with the Treasury itself being one of the worst examples. Will the Minister commit to cutting the millions spent on consultants where they are not needed and where we can use civil servants instead, and to getting a grip on wasteful Government spending?
Jeremy Quin
I will always endeavour to ensure that no consultant is ever employed where they are “not needed”, to quote the hon. Lady. We always ensure that we use the propositions that represent best value for money —that has to be the basis on which we operate, and we will continue to do so. I remind the hon. Lady that we managed to secure £3.4 billion of efficiency savings across Government last year. We did that by focusing on costs and making certain that we drove them down. We will continue to do so, and we are committed to ensuring that we get best value for the taxpayer.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State (Oliver Dowden)
One of my priorities at the Cabinet Office is strengthening our national resilience across Government. Last month we tested successfully the emergency alert system, a vital new tool to help us to communicate quickly with the public during life-threatening situations, and we will soon publish an updated national risk register to support partners with their resilience plans.
Marco Longhi
The covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine have brought into sharp focus the risks of over-reliance on global supply chains. What steps are the Government taking to secure minimum safe systems for the UK’s food, water, energy and defence sectors?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue. We committed in the integrated review to publish a supply chains and import strategy so that we can strengthen our resilience in critical sectors. We have already developed several sector-specific supply chain resilience strategies and a supply chain resilience framework for the public and private sectors.
Andrew Selous
Our ability to pay for everything we care about as a nation depends on a strong economy. Nowhere is that more important than in our leading industries, such as semiconductors, quantum computing and artificial intelligence, where we have world-leading advantages. What more do we need to do to make sure that we keep that world-class technology and capability safe here in the UK and can pay for everything we care about?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is right that economic security is an emerging challenge in the United Kingdom and across the world; that is why it was so prominent in the integrated review refresh. It is a big area of focus for me, which is why the Prime Minister asked me to chair a new national security committee on economic security to step up our efforts. That committee met last week.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Off the back of reports that Russia is content for its ships to sabotage northern European energy infrastructure, it is more concerning than ever that, despite taking up the majority of UK coastal waters, Scotland does not have a single armoured ship permanently based in its waters. Let us be clear: in an independent Scotland, Scotland’s defence force would recognise and fill those gaps in security. However, in the meantime, what is the Minister’s Department doing across Whitehall to invest in the maritime security of Scotland and Scottish territorial waters?
Oliver Dowden
Of course the maritime security of the United Kingdom is the utmost priority for this Government. We ensure that Royal Naval vessels are available to patrol waters at all times. I would gently say to the hon. Lady that that kind of defence strength would simply not be available—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who has been here much longer than most, should know not to walk in front of a Member when the Minister is giving them an answer.
Oliver Dowden
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just going to say that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) should know that that kind of defence strength would simply not be possible in an independent Scotland.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
In response to the National Infrastructure Commission and the Climate Change Committee stating that the Government must take steps to ensure our key infrastructure is resilient to the effects of climate change, what steps is the Minister taking with Cabinet colleagues to fast-track national adaptation planning?
Oliver Dowden
Our efforts in that area are led by relevant Government Departments. Through the Cabinet Office, I chair the Cabinet Committee on net zero and energy security, which is designed specifically to co-ordinate all the different areas of Government to deliver on our national and international commitments.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
There are increasing concerns about the pace of growth of artificial intelligence, with its potential to penetrate so many areas of our lives and dehumanise our world. It is difficult to see how bad actors will not exploit AI to do bad things, and it is already influencing the character of conflict. Given that there is a lag between the arrival of new technical developments and subsequent regulations passed by this place, will the Deputy Prime Minister consider creating a new role in the Government, a Minister for artificial intelligence, so that Government and Parliament can stay on the front foot in this fast-moving world?
Oliver Dowden
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. There are two elements: the first is ensuring that we are ahead of the game with artificial intelligence and exploiting its opportunities, and that responsibility sits with the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There are also, as he says, major resilience challenges, which fall within my remit as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, ensuring that the United Kingdom is prepared for any threats that may emerge in that area. That is something I take seriously, and we are doing a lot of work on it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the Minister further outline what steps are being taken to develop a measure for social vulnerability as an indicator of socioeconomic resilience and of how risks impact on communities and vulnerable groups, to further guide and inform decision making, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland, whose isolation leaves us more vulnerable than our mainland counterparts?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This is a whole United Kingdom effort. As an example of that, a couple of weeks ago we held in Belfast a major cyber-security conference, bringing together partners from around the world and built on the strength of cyber-security not just in the United Kingdom but in Northern Ireland specifically. It is just one area where we are stronger working together as a United Kingdom.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The National Infra- structure Commission and the Committee on Climate Change have made it clear that there is a significant resilience gap in Britain’s key infrastructure. As we approach the summer, and water shortages loom once again in the face of intensifying climate change across the country, how many of the action points laid out in the resilience framework that the Government published in December have been achieved?
Oliver Dowden
As the hon. Lady will know, we continue to make considerable progress on all the actions set out in that framework. She is right to highlight the challenges that we face in some resilience areas, particularly in relation to cyber-resilience. That is why I am conducting a programme to step up our cyber-resilience, for example by creating a new agency to ensure that we are across the cyber-resilience of all Government Departments and annually appraise them of it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
The Cabinet Office has drawn up guidance to help protect civil service values. Taxpayers’ money should not unwittingly be used to pay for speakers linked to abhorrent organisations or individuals who promote hate or discriminatory beliefs, which could bring the civil service into disrepute. We do not hold a central record of speakers identified as unsuitable, but as the guidance has been described to me as “codified common sense”, I trust that the number will be very few.
Justin Madders
Well, if the guidance is common sense, the Minister will have no problem with publishing it, will he? At the moment, there is Government guidance to ban people from speaking at Government events, but we have not seen it. We do not know who is on that list, and we do not even know if the people on the list have been told that they appear on it. That is more like North Korea, is it not?
Jeremy Quin
I have nothing to hide. If the hon. Gentleman would like it published, I will publish it. It is internal guidance, and it therefore tends to be internal, but I will lay a copy in the Library. He is a sensible person and will appreciate that there are certain abhorrent organisations that we should not pay or give a platform to and cause embarrassment to our civil service or our country. But I will publish the guidance.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On 25 April, I put in a written parliamentary question asking the Minister to publish the guidance. He did not publish it in response to my question. I came here today convinced that I would have to make a freedom of information request to get that guidance. Why, having refused to publish the guidance in his answer to me on 3 May, is the Minister now saying that he will publish it? What is happening here? Why was he unwilling to publish the guidance in response to the normal parliamentary method of putting in a written question?
Jeremy Quin
It may shock the hon. Lady, and I apologise, but I cannot recall her exact parliamentary question. I recall the parliamentary question of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), in which I believe he asked if it was my intention to publish the guidance. It was not our intention to publish it, but I have nothing to hide and am very happy to publish it. It is internal guidance; it will be adapted by different Departments. It is sensible to have guidance to ensure that civil servants know what they should be doing when invitations are issued to people who will be paid and given a platform in, and could cause embarrassment to, the civil service.
Kirsty Blackman
In the response to my written question last week, I was told that the due diligence and impartiality guidelines
“avoid invitations being issued to individuals and/or organisations that have provided adverse commentary on government policy, political decisions, approaches or individuals in government”,
in order to “retain impartiality” in the civil service. That is the opposite of what the Government are asking universities to do in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. Why is there one rule for the Government and another rule for universities? How is it impartial to only allow civil servants to hear speakers who agree with the Government?
Jeremy Quin
I appreciate that the hon. Lady has not had the opportunity to do so, and I look forward to her having that opportunity, but if she were to read on from the phrase that she quoted, which I assume appeared in the press, it refers to “adverse commentary” on Government policy
“that could undermine the Civil Service’s position on impartiality and create reputational damage.”
The guidance goes on to say that it is entirely possible for contrarian views—views critical of Government policy—to be shared with those who are at the point of policy formation. I want my civil servants to be fully informed of the arguments against Government policy. What is not appropriate is to have individuals paid and given a platform to create embarrassment for the civil service and potentially for the UK as a whole.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State (Oliver Dowden)
Last month’s UK-wide emergency alert was the largest simultaneous public message in British history. We reached 93% of eligible phones in the country within three minutes of the test alert being sent from Cobra. The system is now fully operable in the event of a real emergency and is a vital tool in our toolkit to keep people safe.
Dr Evans
I congratulate the Department on conducting a test. What will happen with the 7% who were not reached? Will there be a follow-up test? My right hon. Friend says that the system is fully functional. What kind of things will these tests be used for in the future? Will it be regional, national or local emergencies?
Oliver Dowden
The whole point of having a test is to expose where there are challenges. Subsequent to the test, I met with the chief executive of Three, on which network the principal challenges lay, and I am confident that they have pretty much taken the actions needed to ensure that we will get the fuller coverage that is required. It was a one-off test. I do not see any need for a further such test in the foreseeable future. We will target the system as locally as possible—we can do so at the level of even a mast. It will be used in circumstances where people’s lives are at risk; it is a very high bar for usage.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
During a national emergency, it is the most vulnerable who are likely to be the most in need, but they are also the most likely to be digitally excluded. In the absence of a digital inclusion strategy or even target from the Government since 2014, we do not know where those people are. In response to the test, what steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to ensure that those who are digitally excluded will be better included and reached in a national emergency?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Even under the existing test, we reached 93% of people, so the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom did receive that alert, and by the time we have dealt with the Three issues, it will be a much larger number. We continue to engage with relevant charities and other organisations to ensure that people who still do not have access to mobile phone technology are able to receive appropriate alerts. This sits alongside many other measures that we take to inform people of risks.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
It is a long-standing convention present under successive Governments that outgoing Prime Ministers can draw up a resignation list. Any names proposed are subject to the usual propriety checks.
Gavin Newlands
An Electoral Reform Society poll found that just 7% of people supported stuffing more peers into the Lords in the former former Prime Minister’s resignation honours list, after he had already bloated the Lords with his brother, a Russian oligarch, cash-for-peerages Tory treasurers and now his father. After just seven weeks in office, the former Prime Minister is seeking to anoint her Tufton Street supporters in the Institute of Economic Affairs and the TaxPayers Alliance as life peers. In a cost of living crisis, will the Government listen to the public and block both the Prime Minister’s predecessors’ resignation honours lists?
Jeremy Quin
As I say, this is a long-standing convention that has gone on under successive Administrations. It continues to be a convention. It is typical, according to convention, that the Prime Minister forwards lists on having received them from former Prime Ministers, but only after they have gone through the necessary and relevant checks; that does take place. As the question is about trust in political institutions, may I take the opportunity to congratulate the SNP on finding an auditor that is prepared to work with it and wish the auditors the best of luck in the challenges ahead?
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
All civil servants are required to follow the civil service code, which sets out the four core values, including impartiality. All members of the senior civil service are in the “politically restricted” category, which places additional restrictions on political activity. In addition, there is a requirement that contacts between senior civil servants and leading members of Opposition parties should be cleared with Ministers. The impartiality and perceived impartiality of the civil service is constitutionally vital for the conduct of Government. I believe it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to preserve and support the impartiality of the civil service.
Michael Fabricant
Impartiality must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done. What reputational damage does the Minister think has happened since Sue Gray was in negotiations with the Leader of the Opposition?
Jeremy Quin
It is, I believe, wholly unprecedented. It is particularly important that permanent secretaries, of all people, should conduct themselves in a way such that the impartiality of the civil service cannot be called into question. We should all support them in doing so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) updated the House through a written ministerial statement, and I can assure my hon. Friend that consideration of this issue continues.
Elliot Colburn
The principle of civil service impartiality is important to my constituents in Carshalton and Wallington, and indeed to many other Members’ constituents. I was therefore surprised to receive a set of trolling emails from someone using their civil service email address. Could the Minister outline whether that is acceptable, and—following up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)—what reputational damage does he believe has been done by the actions of the Labour party?
Jeremy Quin
The rules, which I have already set out, along with the fundamental principle that civil servants do not take actions that could lead to their impartiality being questioned by an incumbent Administration—or any future Administration, for that matter—are well known to current permanent secretaries, I am certain. I am sure that is also the case for ex-permanent secretaries, which of course includes the Leader of the Opposition. As I have said, in this House we all have a role in protecting the impartiality and perceived impartiality of the civil service. On my hon. Friend’s specific point, if he shares more details with me, I will happily look into it. It is very important that the impartiality of the civil service is maintained at every level.
Duncan Baker
Although, of course, impartiality and neutrality are important and conflicts of interests must be avoided from a national perspective, we do not talk enough about the situation in local government. Does the Minister agree that local government and local officers must also remain impartial and neutral, and how do we ensure that happens across the country?
Jeremy Quin
I do not want to comment on the specifics raised, because I am unfamiliar with them, but I would say that, in carrying out procurements under public contract regulations, contracting authorities in both central and local government are required to take appropriate measures to effectively prevent, identify and remedy conflicts of interest arising, so as to avoid any distortion of competition and ensure equal treatment of all economic operators.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland recently—
Mr Speaker
Sorry, let us take Clive Efford, who has already started. I will come to you, Mr Wishart.
Clive Efford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister feel that civil service impartiality was compromised in any way by having to deal with the fast track for covid contracts, or by the way in which the Government responded to the accusations of lockdown parties in No. 10 Downing Street?
Jeremy Quin
As to the former, I do not believe so; my understanding is that all the rules were followed in that regard and it was done appropriately. In relation to the latter, that is subject to an ongoing investigation by the Privileges Committee, and therefore I would not seek to comment on it.
Pete Wishart
Mr Speaker, I’ve started, so I’ll finish.
The Secretary of State for Scotland recently wrote to the head of the civil service to say that no UK civil servant should work for the newly appointed Minister for Independence in the Scottish Parliament, even though we have a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament and up to 50% of the people now support independence. Will the Paymaster General ensure that impartiality is introduced by making sure that no civil servant is engaged in any work defending and promoting the Union in the UK Government?
Jeremy Quin
I will not be doing that. I am not familiar with the letter mentioned. We have a Government of the United Kingdom who are proud of the Union we serve. The Government are convinced that we are better together as a country, and I believe that is the view of the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland, as was the case in the referendum, which I seem to recall was a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Our civil servants are impartial, committed and hard-working professionals. They deserve our respect for keeping this country going during the pandemic. Instead, what we are getting from Ministers is unacceptable workplace behaviour and accusations of being responsible for Government failure. It is not civil servants who have put us through the Tory psychodrama and the disastrous Budget, so will the Minister take responsibility for the backlogs that constituents are facing up and down the country and stop shifting the blame on to hard-working civil servants?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Lady will not find me criticising civil servants who are hard-working, who do their job, who are committed and who continue to provide tremendous expertise to our country, but I take issue with her earlier points. We take any allegations of bullying seriously, and we need to ensure that they are all followed up. I do not know if the same can be said of the Labour party—people in glass houses should not throw stones. I think there were more allegations even today about activity inside the Labour party. There was five years of antisemitism that was not addressed, and I do think the Labour party should sort out its own issues before trying to sort out the Government’s.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State (Oliver Dowden)
The UK’s genomics databases are not designated as critical national infrastructure. However, through our recently published resilience frame- work, we have set out how we will work in partnership across all sectors to ensure that they are individually resilient while also fully contributing to national resilience.
Mr Carmichael
I recommend that the Minister reads the speech that Secretary of State Blinken made on Tuesday, in which he outlined the threat that the abuse of genomics databases poses not just to security, but to democracy as a whole. Contrast that with the situation in this country, where we now have a Chinese genomics giant opening a new lab. When are the Government going to wake up to the threat here?
Oliver Dowden
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take these threats seriously. The point about critical national infrastructure is that we designate it in relation to things that are important to the safe and secure day-to-day running of the United Kingdom—literally keeping the lights on. That does not mean that we do not take very seriously the threats he outlines. It is something that I am raising with the Department of Health and Social Care, which is the lead Department for genomics.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
This Government are supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in a variety of ways, from transparently publishing contract pipelines to simplifying bidding procedures. The Procurement Bill, which is making its way through Parliament and will be on Report soon, will create a simpler and more transparent procurement regime that will further open up public procurement to SMEs. The Bill includes a new duty on contracting authorities to have regard to the particular barriers facing SMEs.
Karin Smyth
I am pleased to hear about the Procurement Bill, because small and medium-sized businesses are fundamental to the economy of Bristol South and for jobs. What steps will the Minister be taking to address gaps in the Procurement Bill to enforce payment deadlines and to make sure that filters down through the supply chain to help small businesses in my constituency?
Alex Burghart
I am glad to hear the hon. Lady refer to that, because the principles behind the Procurement Bill for SMEs were given to us by SMEs. We want transparency, simplicity and fairness. On that third point, we are keen to see people pay their bills promptly, so that SMEs throughout the supply chain can get their money when they need it.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government may offer warm words on SMEs, but small businesses need those opportunities to thrive. Let us look at the evidence to see whether those warm words are backed up. In Brentwood, SMEs missed out on £3 in every £4 of viable suitable Government contracts in 2022. In Hertsmere, they missed out on 79%. In Horsham, SMEs got less than 5% of suitable public money. That amounts to £8.6 million. The Tories may talk about being a party of small businesses, but this Government have had 13 years to help small businesses—why have they not?
Alex Burghart
I am very pleased that the hon. Lady has been paying attention in the Committee stage of the Procurement Bill, where she has heard that we have done a great deal of work to overhaul the archaic regime that the EU left us with. It is precisely because of that Bill that small businesses will get contract pipelines, a single digital platform, prompt payments and a single regime that reduces bureaucracy and administrative burdens. With transparency, simplicity and fairness, this Government are delivering for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Mr Speaker
Bob Blackman is not here—he is struck in traffic—but in order for the other two Members to ask their questions, would the Minister answer as though he was here?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State (Oliver Dowden)
The Cabinet Office’s Cobra unit has supported Departments with developing their contingency plans. We have co-ordinated preparedness activity across Government to minimise the impacts of industrial action on public services, but the only way we can truly avoid disruption is for union leaders to return to the negotiating table and work constructively in order to reach a fair and reasonable deal.
Simon Jupp
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Militant strike action causes misery for many people in East Devon, who just want to get on with their daily lives. Does my right hon. Friend agree that minimum safety levels are absolutely necessary to mitigate the impact of industrial action?
Oliver Dowden
As ever, my hon. Friend is totally right. It is completely unacceptable that the people of East Devon can have their lives totally upended by strikes led by militant unions. We of course respect the right to strike, but we have a duty to protect the lives and livelihoods of the British people. That is exactly what this legislation does, and it is a pity that the Labour party will not support it.
Selaine Saxby
My North Devon constituents would also like to get on with their daily lives. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be welcome if the Opposition also called on union leaders to get back around the table and work constructively to resolve these disputes?
Oliver Dowden
I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend’s constituents. It really is incumbent on Labour Members, given their close relationship with the trade union movement, to encourage union leaders to come back to the table, and to support the minimum service legislation to protect our constituents, rather than kowtowing to their militant union paymasters?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
When I spoke to Public and Commercial Services Union workers on the picket line in front of the UK Government building in my Glasgow Central constituency, they told me that they are striking precisely because they want to protect the public services they work in from erosion; to ensure that their colleagues do not see the erosion in pay and conditions that they have seen over many years; and to ensure that they have fair pay and fair wages that they can live on. What is the Minister doing to ensure that they do not have to go out on strike and they can get the fair wage that they deserve?
Oliver Dowden
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has just published the affordability for settlements for civil servants. Remember that this is devolved to each individual Government Department. Of course, I do not dispute for a moment the challenges that people face as a result of the war in Ukraine pushing up inflation around the world, and that is why we have taken action across the board. However, I would say that we cannot allow inflation- busting pay rises, the only effect of which will be to make it harder to meet our target of halving inflation and to make every single person in this country—public and private sector—poorer.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is Government policy to award contracts on value-for-money terms, as is set out in “Managing Public Money”. We always look for the optimum combination of cost and quality over the lifetime of any project. The Procurement Bill will drive value for money by providing greater flexibility to contracting authorities to design efficient, commercial and market-focused competitions, and it removes overly prescriptive rules contained in existing regulations that we would have been bound to if, as the Opposition wanted, we had stayed in the European Union.
Ian Levy
I am fiercely supportive of the project to build a gigafactory on the Blyth estuary, which would provide much-needed jobs for my constituents. However, I also believe in due diligence when spending public money. Would my hon. Friend agree with me that it was a wise decision for the Government to withhold the release of a £100 million grant for this project? The Labour party wanted to release this large sum of public money without ensuring the financial stability of the business, once again spending other people’s money.
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: taxpayer money must always be used responsibly. Unfortunately, the conditions of the grant were not met and therefore no funds from the automotive transformation fund were paid out. We are pleased that Britishvolt has successfully been acquired and we will continue to work closely with the local authority to ensure the best outcome for this sale.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is very nice to take another question from Bristol. Under our rules, Government suppliers are required to report their emissions and commit to the UK’s net zero target when bidding for contracts valued above £5 million per annum. If they fail to do so, they risk being excluded from procurement.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for that response. Around £5 billion a year is spent on public sector food and catering services, and the national food strategy—Henry Dimbleby’s version—said that public food procurement is dominated by a quasi-monopoly, so very big companies are involved. How does that fit in with the policy note on carbon reductions, and are the Government looking to food suppliers through those contracts to reduce their carbon emissions?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady asks an important question. It is true that net zero is a big principle for Government and feeds through into all our work, including the public procurement contract. We have had some important debates around this during the passage of the Procurement Bill.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State (Oliver Dowden)
I want to begin by congratulating Their Majesties the King and Queen on a wonderful coronation weekend. The Government worked hand in hand with the royal household in planning for this historic event, conducting over 20 multi-agency exercises in preparation and hosting the unprecedentedly high number of 95 heads of state over the weekend. It really was a triumph of pomp, pageantry and pride in Britain. In addition, through Cobra we have co-ordinated the longest and largest evacuation of any western nation from war-torn Sudan. As with the coronation, this feat would not have been possible without our public servants, both the armed forces and our civil servants, who worked tirelessly to make both operations a success. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking them.
Marco Longhi
I of course echo my right hon. Friend’s comments about the coronation and thank the dedicated servicemen, police officers and public servants who made it such a success. Does he agree with me and many of my Dudley constituents that we should never be shy about being proud of our country’s fantastic traditions and institutions?
Oliver Dowden
I align myself entirely with the sentiments of my hon. Friend and the people of Dudley, and indeed the people of the whole United Kingdom. We witnessed the biggest military parade since the coronation of Her late Majesty, and it was a spectacular tribute to the values we all hold so dear. It is as true today as it was in 1953: only this country can bring so many people from so many different backgrounds together in celebration and such a shared uplifting experience.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
First, may I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, who is proving that being ginger is no barrier to becoming Deputy Prime Minister? I hope to take his example with me very soon one day, and in the meantime I look forward to facing him at Deputy PMQs to a bigger crowd in the future. I also want to offer my heartfelt commiserations to the right hon. Gentleman, who lost his local Conservative council this week. Those privet hedges of freedom were not quite as secure as he once boasted. Does he think that result is a reflection of the failure of his own local Tory party councillors or the failure of his Government and their Ministers?
Oliver Dowden
The right hon. Lady started off so nicely—you never know, one day the Labour party might even allow a woman to lead it. In Hertsmere and nationally it is the same picture: while we in the Conservative party are focusing on delivering for the British people, Labour is working out grubby, dodgy deals with other parties. We are focused on the British people; they are focused on their own political interests.
Angela Rayner
The only grubbiness that I have seen over the last few years has been about dodgy personal protective equipment contracts. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will start to get a grip of that, because the local elections last Thursday revealed a lot about not only the British public’s rejection of the mess created by the Conservatives over the last 13 years, but the impact of the Government’s new voter ID regulations, which caused chaos and confusion at polling stations.
Oona Preece, a 93-year-old cancer sufferer, was excluded from voting in the local elections last week. She first voted in 1950 and had voted in every local and general election since. Given that not a single person—not one —was prosecuted for voter personation last year, was the Deputy Prime Minister’s policy worth denying people like Oona her say?
Oliver Dowden
Of course, I will look into Oona’s case, but I am not quite sure where the right hon. Lady and Labour Members have been, because I did not find any of the scenes that she describes in my constituency and nor did colleagues across the country. It was competently done, and actually it has aligned us with many other countries around the world such as Canada. It is a perfectly sensible reform.
As for the other invective thrown this way, I say to the right hon. Lady that she should perhaps take the log out of her own eye so that she can see more clearly to criticise us. Until the Labour party publishes the list of meetings that took place between it and Sue Gray, we will take absolutely no lectures whatsoever from it.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
My hon. Friend knows the answer to this question all too well, having been on the Procurement Bill Committee. We are creating access to public procurement for small and medium-sized enterprises as never before. Alas, the Bill will not apply to Scotland because the Scottish Government refused to take part in it. That is a great shame, because it means that small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland will be deprived of the opportunities that those south of the border will get.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
One of the things that depressed me about leaving the Ministry of Defence was the fact that I would no longer be across the Dispatch Box from the right hon. Gentleman and his worthy campaign to make certain that, in defence in particular, orders go to UK companies. He is right, and the Government absolutely accept that many areas of our national life must, for defence and security reasons, be provided by UK companies. However, there are huge advantages to working internationally as well, including in the sphere of defence. He knows the answer: from Typhoon and F-35 to Type 31 orders, we can do both.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Jeremy Quin
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We constantly have efficiency reviews, and those will continue, and we work closely with the Treasury to make certain that the customer on the ground gets the right service and that that happens as cost-effectively as is humanly possible. That is how we managed to get £3.4 billion of savings through the system last year. We will continue to work at it. It is a huge task, but we are absolutely committed to driving those savings and good service for the customer.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Alex Burghart
I am happy to look into the hon. Lady’s suggestion, and I am delighted that she sees our support for local communities and value for money.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I would like to highlight the hard work of local civil servants at East Sussex County Council, Rother District Council and Hastings Borough Council. I do not know their politics, and they have always worked with me in a positive way. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking them for their work locally to deliver services, especially during the local elections last week?
Jeremy Quin
We are all struggling over the opportunity to endorse what my hon. Friend says, because it is absolutely right and we do not say it enough. A huge amount of hard work is done by civil servants at local and national level. We appreciate the work undertaken by them and I very much welcome her bringing it to the Chamber today.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Jeremy Quin
I take enormously seriously what the right hon. Lady says on this issue, on which she has campaigned long and hard and very successfully. We are now in the final stages, as she knows. We have received the second interim report on compensation, which we did not anticipate until February, but it has arrived and I am delighted that it has. It is real stuff to get our teeth into while we wait for the final report. We are doing a lot of work at pace.
To reassure the right hon. Lady, I chaired a meeting with Ministers from across Government last week. I have a bilateral meeting next week and I anticipate having more ministerial meetings, which I will chair, the week after. She has asked me to set out every single internal meeting I have on this subject, which is not normal in the formulation of policy. I do not intend to list every single meeting that I have internally or with other Ministers, but I assure her that we are working at pace to come up with a constructive response to the report.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I join the Deputy Prime Minister in congratulating all those who participated in the magnificent coronation, not least the armed forces, who enjoyed a few rehearsals to get it right and absolutely did so. Will the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs kindly update the House on our manifesto commitment to support veterans who served in Northern Ireland?
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
I pay tribute to all those who were on duty last weekend. When it comes to looking after those who served in Northern Ireland, this Government are committed to fulfilling our manifesto commitment to them. The Government are working hard to ensure that legacy is dealt with in a way that has victims at the centre. The Bill has its last day in Committee in the House of Lords today. We made commitments to our veterans in respect of Northern Ireland and we are determined to see them through.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
A month ago, the Minister came to the House and told us that he was dealing with the contaminated blood report “at pace”. A month later, he has just repeated that phrase. Can he say what “at pace” means and when he will tell us the timescale?
Jeremy Quin
I came promptly to the House to make a statement after receiving the second interim report, and I said then that the Government have always been focused on ensuring a comprehensive response at the conclusion of the inquiry. I also said that that did not preclude steps being taken earlier, if possible. I cannot illuminate that any further, but work is continuing. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that five years of work has been done by an extremely eminent individual, who has produced an extremely good and interesting report. It is for us to work through that, but it does need to be worked through and considered, as is the case with all reports presented to Government. We need to make certain that it is given the attention it requires.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I think it was about 10 years ago that I said to the Government that we ought to have an emergency test and an emergency system, so I am very pleased that we got it up and running and that 93% of people managed to get a signal, albeit that some of us got it one minute in advance of 3 o’clock, which I thought was particularly good. The Minister identified, quite rightly, that there was a problem with the Three network, which is being resolved. Will there be another test to show that at least 99% of alerts are getting through?
Oliver Dowden
I am very happy to grant this to my hon. Friend as his legacy project. I do not believe that we need to have another test, for the simple reason that following my meeting with the chief executive, I am confident that the network has taken the necessary steps to resolve the issue.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My constituent, Brian, lost his mother in 2020. His family is one of far too many who have struggled for years as a result of the contaminated blood scandal. Those families want to see action now, not “in due course”, and “working at pace” does not cut it when it is the pace of a snail. I ask the Paymaster General, when will compensation be paid to all those infected or affected by the scandal?
Jeremy Quin
I sympathise hugely with the hon. Lady’s constituent. That is one of many, many—far too many—tragic incidences that we are aware of in the House. That does not alter the fact that the compensation scheme needs to be done properly and effectively. We need to come back with a solution and an answer to the report, and to make certain that it is done appropriately. As the hon. Lady knows, those who were infected were paid interim compensation last year of £100,000 per person. We still need to work through what the report envisages.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
In response to an earlier question about the emergency test, conversations with the Three network were mentioned. What reassurance can be given to constituents in remote rural areas, including some of my constituents who never received their alert and who are not with Three? I declare an interest: I am a Vodafone customer and my alert went off the next morning, as I was coming up the M5.
Oliver Dowden
All these things point to the reason why we needed to have the test in the first place, which was to iron out these issues. In more rural areas, there are problems with signal, particularly with signal penetrating older houses. The answer is to extend the roll-out of mobile technology further, and the Government have very good plans for that.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Data from 2022 has identified that serving military personnel and military veterans have a high prevalence of mental health disorders, with depression and alcohol misuse among the most prevalent. What steps are Ministers taking to ensure that those personnel have access to the tailored mental health support they require?
Johnny Mercer
The data tells us that people are less likely to have a mental health condition if they served in the military, but of course we take every case seriously. Mental health provision for both those who are serving and veterans has completely changed in this country. Op Courage is the UK’s first dedicated mental health care pathway for veterans, with £22 million a year and 19,000 referrals in its first year, which shows the huge unmet need that the Government are now meeting. The message is always the same: “Come forward, help is available, people do care and you can get better.”
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Has the Secretary of State made any assessment or has he any estimates of the number of people who were turned away from the local elections last week? Does he have a number in mind that would suggest that the policy needs to be looked at again or to be abolished and scrapped, because people did not get the opportunity to vote?
Alex Burghart
This is a matter for the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I know that his Department and the Government will be looking at the after-effects of this major change. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that in my constituency, and in the constituencies of many hon. Members, there were absolutely no problems at the polling booths, despite all the woeful predictions of people like himself.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
May I return to my earlier question? It seems to me that the Cabinet Office is not taking enough interest in food procurement. I urge Ministers to speak to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because we are still awaiting a response to the consultation that closed on 4 September. Part of that consultation was about how we can ensure that the Government procure more food locally and sustainably. Will the Minister assure me that he will talk to DEFRA and try to ensure that that is the trajectory of public food procurement?
Alex Burghart
I am always talking to DEFRA colleagues and always delighted to do so. I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that the Crown Commercial Service is looking specifically at how we can involve small and medium-sized enterprises in public food procurement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State referred earlier to cyber-security. Bearing in mind the fact that Belfast is now known as the cyber capital of the world, will the Cabinet Office and the Secretary of State build on that strong foundation, invest in the existing industry, and allocate the funding to create more jobs and use the highly skilled based that is already there?
Oliver Dowden
At the conference we had a few weeks ago, I was enormously impressed by the strength and depth of the cyber-security industry in Northern Ireland and particularly in Belfast. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government remain fully committed not only to the cyber industry but to Northern Ireland in particular. I am sure that further investment will be forthcoming.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we begin the urgent question, I note that it is highly regrettable that the Government decided not to offer an oral statement on this matter yesterday, given the importance of the announcement. On such matters, full engagement with Parliament and its Committees is essential. Before I call the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I remind the Government that we are elected to hear it first, not to hear it in The Telegraph, and a written ministerial statement is certainly not satisfactory for such an important matter.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if she will make a statement on her failure to come to the House before she made the written ministerial statement on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and the article today in The Telegraph?
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
I am very sorry, Mr Speaker, that the sequencing that we chose was not to your satisfaction. I was—
Mr Speaker
Who do you think you are speaking to, Secretary of State? I think we need to understand each other. I am the defender of this House and these Benches on both sides. I am not going to be spoken to by a Secretary of State who is absolutely not accepting my ruling. Take it with good grace and accept it that Members should hear it first, not through a WMS or what you decide. These Members have been elected by their constituents and they have the right to hear it first. It is time this Government recognised that we are all elected—we are all Members of Parliament—and used the correct manners.
Kemi Badenoch
Mr Speaker, I apologise. What I was trying to say was that I am very sorry that I did not meet the standards that you expect of Secretaries of State. Forgive my language. I have been trying to make sure that I provide as much clarity as possible, so I am actually very pleased to have come to the House to speak on this issue.
I have published a written ministerial statement to explain that yesterday we tabled an amendment to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill that amends the operation of the sunset in clause 1. It is a technical change that introduces to the Bill a schedule of retained EU law that will be revoked on 31 December 2023. The schedule includes around 600 pieces of legislation provided by nearly all Departments, and spans a huge number policy areas. We tabled the amendment in response to concerns raised in this House, and it will provide the legal clarity and certainty that has been called for.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee that the 600 pieces of legislation in the schedule are not the limit of our ambition—neither the beginning nor the end—but over the past year, as Whitehall Departments have been working hard to identify retained EU law to preserve, reform or revoke, it has become clear that time constraints have led to the programme becoming more about preserving EU laws than prioritising meaningful reform. That is why we are proposing a new approach. Had I known the intense excitement that the House would feel about this issue, I would have come running to make sure that the technical details could be investigated by all and sundry.
As I have said, we are proposing a new approach, one that will ensure that Ministers and officials are enabled to focus more on reforming retained EU law and doing so faster. I am pleased to say that the Government have already reformed or revoked more than 1,000 pieces of REUL. In addition to the list of about 600 revocations in the schedule to the retained EU law Bill, about 500 further pieces of REUL will be repealed by the Financial Services and Markets Bill and the Procurement Bill, which means that we will have repealed not 600 but more than 2,000 pieces of REUL by the end of the year.
We are committed to lightening the regulatory burden on businesses and helping to spur economic growth, and our Edinburgh reforms of UK financial services include more than 30 regulatory reforms to unlock investment and boost growth in towns and cities across the UK. Our regulatory reform announcement yesterday set out a long-term plan to improve UK regulation over the coming months. As a down-payment on that commitment, we announced changes that will reduce disproportionate EU-derived reporting requirements and could save businesses about £1 billion a year. That is just the first in a series of announcements that the Government will be making on reforming regulations to drive growth, and in addition to the schedule the powers in the Bill will still enable us to revoke, replace and reform any outdated EU laws that remain on our statute book by 2026. This new approach will provide space for longer-term and more ambitious reforms. Members will no doubt be pleased to hear that it will also mean that fewer statutory instruments will be required to preserve EU laws that are deemed appropriate to be maintained.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend that we will still fully take back control of our laws and end the supremacy and the special status of retained EU law by the end of 2023. That will ensure that we are ending the shadow statute book and the inappropriate entrenchment of EU law concepts in domestic statute.
Sir William Cash
Under the Standing Orders of this House, the European Scrutiny Committee is specifically charged with examining the legal and political consequences of EU legislation. The Committee reported on 21 July 2022 after a five-month inquiry in support of the Bill, which was passed unamended by a large majority in this elected House and by the Public Bill Committee, all of which endorsed the Government’s policy on the Bill.
Since February, the Secretary of State has been asked three times, formally and personally, to appear before the European Scrutiny Committee. Why has she failed to do so? The amendments published today are not accompanied by any explanation to the House—apart from her very short written ministerial statement yesterday and her article in the press today—despite the utter reversal in vital respects of the Bill as passed by this elected House. Why not? The amendments have not been subjected to any analysis or questioning by this House, which is now essential given the fundamental change in Government policy. The House is being treated in a manner that is plainly inconsistent with clear promises already made.
Will my right hon. Friend specifically seek and make arrangements for the immediate deferral of the Bill’s Report stage in the unelected House of Lords, which is due to take place on the 15th and 17th of this month, so that she can come to the European Scrutiny Committee next week and answer our questions—as provided for by Standing Orders—and produce a Command Paper before that Report stage to explain the reasons for these fundamental questions of constitutional importance, which affect all our constituents, all our voters, and the coherence of our statute book and our legal system?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend has asked many questions, and I will endeavour to answer them. I think he knows that he has heard the answers before, but I am nevertheless happy to respond on the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend and I have had many private conversations in which we have discussed retained EU law. He wrote to me about attending the European Scrutiny Committee, and I replied that until the policy was settled I could not attend the Committee but instead could have engagement with colleagues, which is what I have done. I should, of course, be delighted to attend the European Scrutiny Committee. I attend numerous Select Committees in my role not just as Secretary of State for Business and Trade but as Minister for Women and Equalities, and I should be very happy to speak to the Committee, but—no doubt you will sympathise with this, Mr Speaker— there is no point having to talk about policy on the Floor of the House before we know exactly what is settled.
My hon. Friend claims that this is a change of policy, but it is a change of approach. The policy is still the same: we are ending EU supremacy, and we are ending interpretive effects. What we are changing is the way in which we are doing that. We could have ended up with a programme of 450 statutory instruments to preserve EU law. What I have done is respond to businesses in particular, but also to the parliamentarians—including many of those who are chuntering on the Opposition Benches—who have raised concerns with me about how we can have clarity and some transparency. I have shown exactly what we are doing. I have listed all the laws that we are removing. There is a key point to make here. We left the European Union not just to delete EU law from the statute book, but to make our economy better. To do that, we have to reform the laws. If we delete the laws from the statute book, we will be starting from scratch in bringing in the reforming primary legislation. This is a better approach. It was my suggestion to the Prime Minister. I am very pleased that he accepted it. I am very proud to be standing at the Dispatch Box showing that those of us who are Brexiteers can be pragmatic and do what is right for the British people. That is why I am very pleased to be explaining this change on the Floor of the House today.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
What an absolute shambles. I think that the Secretary of State is the sixth different Government representative at the Dispatch Box on this Bill, and unfortunately for her she is the one who will have to hear from us the words that no Government Minister wants to hear: we told you so. We did, repeatedly, as did the Institute of Directors, the TUC, the Bar Council and a host of other organisations.
It has to be asked: why did not the Government listen to those experts in the first place? It was completely unrealistic, reckless and frankly arrogant to think that they could strike 4,000 laws from the statute book in the timescale set out in the Bill. It is no use blaming the blob, the anti-growth coalition or the BBC. This humiliating U-turn is completely down to Government hubris that has found them crashing up against reality, so will the Secretary of State apologise to the entire House, and to all the trade unions and business, legal and environmental groups that were told by the Government that they were wrong?
Will the Secretary of State also apologise for announcing this policy change not to the House but to her friends—or should I say now her former friends—in the European Research Group and to the press? Can she tell us at what point the Government decided on this change of course and on what basis they have chosen the 600 regulations to be removed—or is it 2,000 now, because she mentioned that in her statement as well?
Although we welcome the humiliating climbdown that sees the cliff edge go, the Bill still gives enormous powers to Ministers and at last the cat is out of the bag about what they want to do with them. We are concerned that, although the mode of delivery has changed, the destination has remained the same. That is revealed in the “Smarter regulation to grow the economy” paper released yesterday, which contains a clear plan to water down TUPE and working time rights. We have warned time and again of the threat to workers’ rights in the Bill and in response the Minister said:
“The Government have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, having raised domestic standards over recent years to make them some of the highest in the world.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 144.]
Well, we can strike that from the record, as we can strike the Secretary of State’s leadership hopes. How can a Government elected on a manifesto promise to
“build on existing employment law”
justify an approach that will water down workers’ protections? It just goes to show that you cannot trust the Tories with workers’ rights.
Kemi Badenoch
One of the things that I have found most illuminating about this process is how little those on the Opposition Front Bench understand what we are doing. They simply stand up and repeat their usual talking lines. We have made repeated commitments that we are not watering down workers’ rights in this House. If the hon. Gentleman actually read and understood what we have written, he would understand that we are maintaining workers’ rights but reducing the bureaucracy. That would save £1 billion and is something that both workers and employers want. I know that it is really tough and there are lots of words in it, but the truth is, I say to those on the Opposition Benches, that I can explain it but I cannot understand it for them.
This is a very simple change in approach. We are having the exact same effect that we were always going to have. We are removing more than 2,000 pieces of EU legislation. It is delightful to see those on the Labour Front Bench and the ERG on the same side for once, as they claim to be. If I am upsetting people on both sides, I am probably taking the pragmatic middle ground and I am pleased to be doing so.
There is so much opportunity we can take on EU law reform and that is what this programme is about.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I am not upset? Her description of this change of approach is useful, and it meets many of the criticisms of the unamended Bill. I hope it is successful, and I hope people on both sides of the House and in industry make sure we keep the right bits and drop the bits that are useless.
Kemi Badenoch
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are taking an approach that works for everybody, not just for a particular group. We have to do what is right for business, we have to do what is right for consumers and we have to do what is right for the entire country. I voted to leave, and this is exactly the sort of reform I thought we would make when we left the European Union. I am very pleased to be able to take this through the House.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I confess to being a wee bit conflicted this morning. I led for the SNP during our consideration of the Bill, and my key phrase was, “If you must do this damn silly thing, don’t do it in this damn silly way.” I am at least glad to see that we are doing this in a less damn silly way than we were, although I still disagree with it.
I share the anger that we have heard from Conservative Members. I respect their principle, even though I disagree with it. I do not like what the Bill is trying to do. I voted to remain, I enthusiastically committed to Scotland’s path back into the European Union and I want to see the UK have a close relationship with the EU, but I accept the majority view of this House. The Prime Minister made this commitment and he has questions to answer, because to describe this as a change of direction and a minor technical thing is to miss the point. This is a gross betrayal of the promises made to secure his election, and it is a key part of his personal manifesto. I do not think that betrayal should pass without consequence.
I am glad to see the end of sunsetting, which is a pragmatic change about which I should be glad, but I still do not like the Bill. It can still overrule the Holyrood Parliament on retained EU law, which is democratically offensive. We should also consider the costs of this exercise. What assessment have the Government made of the direct cost to the taxpayer of the work done thus far and now abandoned? I will be tabling parliamentary questions on this, but what wider assessment has been made of the costs to organisations such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland and others in dealing with this uncertainty?
Kemi Badenoch
Again, I think Opposition Members are very confused about what this change is trying to do. [Interruption.] They are confused. The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) talks about certainty, and this is the certainty for which people asked. He talks about a change and a betrayal, and I do not understand where that emotional language is coming from. No work has been wasted. It is the efforts of civil servants that have identified which bits of law need to be repealed and which need to be reformed. There is not enough parliamentary time, given that we have only one full Session, to carry out all the reforms we would like to carry out. If we are to do that, we need to truncate the process to make it about repeal and reform, not about preservation. The Bill, which was meant to be about reform, has turned into a preservation exercise. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Member for Stirling squinting and looking confused, so I am happy to give him a private briefing. This process is technical and complex. I picked up this task in February, and I buried myself in the detail. This will deliver on the Prime Minister’s promises and make sure that we generate the benefits of Brexit.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Well said earlier, Mr Speaker.
I have checked Hansard, and the Bill passed Second Reading in the Commons on 25 October 2022 with a Government majority of 56, and with not a single Tory MP voting against it.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Four of us did not vote for it.
Mr Francois
No one voted against it, Bob. Not even you.
On 18 January 2023, the Bill passed Third Reading with a Government majority of 59, and again not a single Tory MP voted against it. The Bill unified the Conservative parliamentary party on an admittedly controversial issue. It left this House without a single Tory MP opposing it. Why, after it has gone to the House of Lords, have the Government performed a massive climbdown on their own Bill, despite having such strong support from their own Back Benchers? Secretary of State, what on earth are you playing at?
Kemi Badenoch
I have already explained the reasons why we have changed the approach and I am happy to repeat them for my right hon. Friend. He should know that I am not somebody who gets pushed around lightly. The fact is that I went in, looked at the detail and decided that this was the best way to deliver this. I stress again that this was not the Prime Minister’s decision. As a Secretary of State, I have to be responsible and look at what we can make sure is deliverable. This is the best way to get my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) what he wants. It may be different from what was put on the Floor of the House, but if he wants what I want, which is ending EU interpretative effects by the end of this year, ending the supremacy of EU law by the end of this year—[Interruption.] He is not in the room. He is very welcome to send me the list of things that he wants repealed, but this is the way to get it done.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The biggest problem with this Bill is not the haste and chaos that has come with it, the failure to be able to identify what is EU retained regulation or the fact that it risks the Windsor agreement; it is that even with the changes the Secretary of State is now proposing, the Government are giving themselves power over 4,000 areas of public policy and taking back control from MPs over what happens next on them—that has not changed. The Secretary of State says that she is across the detail. Given the attitude that she has expressed today towards this Chamber, the process and the role of MPs, if she is serious about scrutiny and democracy, will she accept the amendment standing in the names of Lord Hope, Lord Anderson, Lord Hamilton, who is a strong Brexiteer, and Lord Hodgson, also a Brexiteer, that will give this place the ability to have the final say, whether laws are being revoked, rewritten or reformed? Will the Secretary of State accept that amendment—yes or no?
Kemi Badenoch
We can always discuss amendments. The ones I am supporting are the Government amendments, which provide the certainty and clarity that Members in both Houses have asked for. What I am doing is a more transparent process that provides a lot more clarity. The fact that everyone can now see all the laws on the dashboards and the things that we are removing shows that we are coming to this process in good faith. I would appreciate Opposition Members doing the same.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
This is very bracing for a Thursday morning, and there is nothing I enjoy more than a good bunfight with a Secretary of State. I say gently that although many of us would have a great deal of sympathy with what the Secretary of State has outlined, it is important to make the point that the manner, tone and approach taken not just by her at the Dispatch Box now, but generally, is much improved, and the House tends to be much more receptive to it, when proper processes are followed and invitations to attend Select Committee are readily accepted. I urge that gently as a lesson that might be drawn from this. If she was at all concerned by the volume of statutory instruments that might be descending upon us, the attendance this morning proves that there are plenty of willing volunteers for such Committees.
Kemi Badenoch
I do not disagree with that, but the statutory instruments that I would want us to be focused on in this House should be the ones that are repealing EU law; all those hundreds of statutory instruments that would have come through were for retaining and preserving EU law. That is not what we said we were going to do, which is why this approach is better. It is faster and it accelerates us towards reform. I do not think anyone in this House can accuse me of shying away from Select Committees, questions or the Dispatch Box. I am always happy, no matter how difficult the questions are, to take the questions here.
Mr Speaker
In fairness, I have had to put the urgent question on.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Despite this screeching U-turn, the Bill still includes a power grab over environmental protections. Living in a nature-depleted country, it really concerns me that the Secretary of State can still change thousands of environmental laws at will, through secondary legislation, without scrutiny. Many of those laws relate to sewage that can be dumped into our rivers and chalk streams and on to our beaches. Will she make a firm commitment at the Dispatch Box today that the Government will not repeal or change any environmental law without due scrutiny by this House?
Kemi Badenoch
Again, these questions worry me, because they show that the process we are changing is not fully understood by the House. [Interruption.] It is certainly not understood by the hon. Lady. I can tell that many others do understand this. The regulations that are being repealed are going on the schedule. If she has a specific one on that schedule that she thinks is environmental and should not be repealed, she should say so. Instead, she is speaking in hypotheticals. She should look at the amendments and what they are doing, and if there are specific things she has concerns about, she can write to me. Claiming that things are being removed without looking at the schedule shows that she does not understand what we are doing.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain whether this abdication to the House of Lords has come about because of civil service idleness or a lack of ministerial drive?
Kemi Badenoch
No, I do not think that it has come out of any idleness. If anything, I would say that the civil servants have been working feverishly on this, and what they have been doing is preserving, not repealing and certainly not getting the reforms that we want. This approach means that they can now do that. I know that it is disappointing, because it is not what my right hon. Friend had wanted; it was not his approach. I have spoken to him about it and explained my reasoning. I do not think that we will come to an agreement on this, but I would like him to understand that I am doing this because I genuinely think that this is the best way to deliver what those of us on the Conservative Benches voted for.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State seems to say that we have intense excitement about being here today and she is surprised. Our law is the basis of our democracy, and the flippant and ill-prepared way in which this has been brought forward is a disgrace; it is not worthy of our Parliament or, indeed, of our country. In the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, we are currently looking at international treaties. It is clear that our system for reviewing and monitoring international treaties per se is not up to scratch, and I hope that the Secretary of State will engage with that process. [Interruption.] She says that there is no time. She is in control of the time in this place as a member of the Government. It is not for me to speak for those on the Labour Front Bench, but I am sure that if there were discussions about giving the decision more time and perhaps to bringing it back, given the changes that are being made, that would be met favourably by Members on the Labour Benches. What lessons is she learning about the involvement of this place in the scrutiny of these treaties?
Kemi Badenoch
It is very surprising to hear the hon. Lady criticise the scrutiny process given that it was brought in by a Labour Government under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The CRaG process on international treaties, which is what she is talking about, was brought in, as I have said, not by a Conservative Government, but by a Labour Government. We are carrying out this process using parliamentary procedure and Government amendments in the House of Lords; we are doing things on the Floor of the House. We are making sure that Parliamentarians have transparency. That is the right way to do it and I will not apologise for that.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for his question and the Secretary of State for her response. I recognise the balance that she is trying to strike within the timeframe. There is a very large number of EU regulations at the Ministry of Justice, and yet we managed to identify more than 60% that could be either repealed or substantially revised within the timeframe. May I gently suggest to her that it would help the House with its scrutiny if a Department-by-Department analysis of what has been identified so far is published? May I also gently suggest that she resist the resistance in Whitehall that suggests it cannot be done. If it can be done at the MOJ, I am pretty confident that it can be done elsewhere.
Kemi Badenoch
That is right. I have published the dashboard that shows all of the laws that have been identified. Some are still, even as we speak, being identified now. The MOJ has done a good job in identifying those that are likely to be on the schedule—the ones that my right hon. Friend is referring to specifically. This is a pragmatic and balanced approach. I urge Members across the House to look for the opportunities for reform. We can hear those on the Labour Front Bench chuntering, but they do not have any ideas. They do not know what they want to do. All they want to do is sit down and complain about what we are doing. They are completely bereft of imagination and any sort of direction or approach. We are the only ones who have a way of delivering for this country, and we will continue to do so.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
What a guddle! This Government amendment does absolutely nothing to address the powers in the Bill for UK Ministers to act in areas that are devolved to Scottish Ministers without consent or scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has made its views clear on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. It has already voted in favour of a motion calling on the UK Government to withdraw it. That is the only way to deal with all of the risks that this damaging, anti-democratic legislation poses. Does the Secretary of State see that, and does she see why it is ever clearer that an independent Scotland in the EU is the only way to secure the best future for Scotland?
Kemi Badenoch
I am trying really hard not to laugh at what the hon. Lady has said. She is in a party that cannot even decide who paid for a caravan and is falling into a complete shambles. How will it in any way be able to do the sort of technical work we are doing? I am working with—[Interruption.] The SNP makes a lot of noise, but the way it is running Scotland shows that Bills such as this are best left in the hands of UK Government Ministers to stop the SNP making a shambles of everything.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The advantage of a sunset is that it provides a sense of urgency. Now there is not one, is there?
Kemi Badenoch
There is still a sunset, and it will end the interpretive effects of the supremacy of EU law. The same number of measures that we were likely to revoke by the sunset will be in the schedule. As I said, the process had turned from one where we were reforming, to one where we were retaining—I know that is what the Bill literally says, but its purpose had been subverted because of the approach originally taken, which these amendments should address.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
There is only one reason the Secretary of State is here: because she was brought here by an urgent question. The idea she is open to scrutiny is for the birds. There is also only one reason she tried to avoid it: because her Back Benchers are so angry. She has managed to divide her party again over the issue of Europe. This change is not taking back sovereignty to this Parliament, which those in favour of Brexit spoke about; it is a power grab by the Executive, allowing them to make decisions on 4,000 pieces of legislation. What will she do to ensure that her proposal has proper scrutiny through Committees and on the Floor of the House?
Kemi Badenoch
The point that the laws that we are not having on the schedule will either be kept or reformed—the reform process will be scrutinised in the House—is one that I have explained before. I am happy to make it again a thousand times if necessary for Opposition Members who clearly had scripted questions, which they have not been able to adapt to the comments made on the Floor of the House. This is a pragmatic approach that brings together people not just across the House but across the country; it delivers on the promises that we made, and I stand by them.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has pointed out, the Secretary of State has been invited on three separate occasions to appear before the European Scrutiny Committee, but for whatever reason has failed to do so. Given the seriousness of the volte-face she has now performed, will she accept the invitation of the Chairman, made this morning, and appear before the Committee next week? If not, why not?
Kemi Badenoch
Because I am in Switzerland next week and in the middle east the week after. As I said to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am happy to appear in front of the Committee, and now that we have a settled policy I will do so.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, this Bill is a shambles and it is felt to be so by my constituents in Putney, for whom this is having real-world effects. Businesses in Putney have seen rising costs and less investment because of the threat of the sunset clause and still not knowing what will be in it. The Government have left businesses across the country high and dry and the Bill is far from oven ready. Can the Secretary of State explain how the £1 billion figure for business savings has been estimated—or is that more pie in the sky?
Kemi Badenoch
You can see a classic example of what I am talking about, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady complains that the sunset would not allow her constituents to know what is being repealed, but the whole purpose of the amendment is for people to be able to see what is being repealed in the schedule. I ask Opposition Members to please read the amendment and wait until the schedule arrives. On what we want to do and reform, the £1 billion savings have been calculated not just by the Department for Business and Trade, but by multiple external organisations that have raised with the Department how the working time regulations could be improved. Those are the benefits we can get from Brexit to make things better, and we will continue to do so.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Replacing retained EU law is both inevitable and necessary now that we have left the European Union, but does my right hon. Friend accept that it is critical that we do so in a way that preserves legal clarity and certainty, which are vital for business confidence? Does she accept that some of us deliberately did not vote for the Second Reading of the Bill because of a flaw in its drafting that did not identify that which was to be revoked, and would have created precisely that uncertainty? Does she accept that some of us are better placed to support the Bill now that that gap is being sensibly and pragmatically filled in—if I may say—a very Conservative and pro-business fashion?
Kemi Badenoch
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: the Bill provides business certainty and legal certainty and removes interpretive effects and the supremacy of EU law, and it will do so by the sunset. Most importantly, it gives us the space to focus on the reform programme, which we announced yesterday and which will deliver the benefits of Brexit.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has explained that the issue is not her U-turn, but that silly MPs on both sides of the Chamber have not properly understood the legislation. Can she explain to this silly MP, in her wonderfully patronising manner, which she has used many times this morning, what would prevent her from making a U-turn on workers’ rights, including holiday and maternity pay?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady calls herself a silly MP; it is not my place to disagree. She asks about the changes to holiday pay. We are just making the bureaucracy easier; we are not taking away any workers’ rights—we have repeatedly committed on the Floor of the House to not doing so. What Opposition Members are afraid of is reform and any sort of change. They cannot envision a world in which anything could possibly be better than the status quo. We are different; we believe in the aspirational approach and ambition for this country. They just want to stay the same and ossify. I will not stand at the Dispatch Box and allow that to happen. We are making changes that will benefit the British economy, British businesses and British workers.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am less concerned with process, and I am quite for pragmatism, but my right hon. Friend has shown a tin ear if she thought for one moment that these changes would not arouse interest in the House of Commons. It needed a UQ to bring her here this morning. Nevertheless, my key question is this: is she convinced that, by this new methodology, the same number of laws will be repealed in the same time as if the pragmatic change had not been made?
Kemi Badenoch
The answer is yes. I wrote back to and engaged with all the Members who wrote to me about this issue as soon as I became Business Secretary. The response had been so quiet that it felt to me very much like a technical change, which is what it is. I am very happy to explain as much as possible on the Floor of the House. But I emphasise that this was my decision; it was not that of the Prime Minister or civil servants. It was me looking at the detail and deciding that this was the best approach because it is how we will get to that number but create more time for reform. It is about accelerating the process. I do not think anyone in this House can claim that I am not a Brexiteer. I stood here less than a month ago talking about how we had successfully negotiated the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the biggest trade deal that we have ever done in this country since we left the EU. That is a benefit of Brexit. I am very proud to continue to do that. This is the best way for us to deliver more benefit over and over again rather than spend our time on parliamentary procedure, which does not mean much to people on the doorstep.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on working at height, I have been trying to get clarity for some time on the very specific Work at Height Regulations 2005. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether those regulations will be included or protected? The assurances that I have had so far have not provided the clarity that the sector needs.
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady will know that I was not privy to those conversations. If she writes to me with the specifics, I should be able to provide an answer. What we have talked about changing is the bureaucracy around reporting, and that does not sound like what she raised.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As a committed Brexiteer, and having voted in the 1975 referendum to leave the European Economic Community, as it then was, I want to see the benefits of Brexit delivered as soon as possible. But I do recognise the concerns that have been expressed to me by businesses in my constituency, and I think the approach being taken by the Secretary of State is the best one. Could she give an assurance that if I or any Member bring forward recommendations for measures to include in the list, she will make those changes as quickly as can be arranged?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. That is exactly what this approach is trying to generate. We need to find the things that we know are holding Britain back, rather than just delete things because no one has found a reason to keep them. I think that if he speaks to businesses in his constituency, he will have many suggestions for measures that may require not complete revocation but reform, and if they are going to be reformed, we need to first keep them and then reform them, rather than first delete them then try to reform them. That is what this approach does.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady is doing herself no favours at all this morning with her patronising and arrogant manner, not just to Opposition Members but also to her hon. Friends. I am all for upsetting her hon. Friends, and it looks like in the eternal struggle between the blob and the Mogg, the blob has prevailed. Is it not the case that, in their haste to create this hard Brexit utopia, reality has finally caught up with them? Does it not look like the Conservative party—this fragile Brexit coalition—is now starting to fragment into its constituent parts?
Kemi Badenoch
No, that is complete nonsense. The hon. Gentleman is talking about what he hopes and wishes would happen, rather than the reality.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I respectfully disagree with my right hon. Friend that this is a technical change, given the different status that retained EU law has in our system, but I look forward to discussing that further with her when she appears before us at the European Scrutiny Committee. In the meantime, can she give the House an assurance that not one jot of the concessions given in the House of Lords over this Bill are anything to do with upholding any commitment made in the negotiation of the Windsor framework?
Kemi Badenoch
I am very happy to say that. I was not involved in negotiations on the Windsor framework, and I have said repeatedly that this is my plan. It is not the Prime Minister’s plan, and it is not the civil servants’ plan—it is my plan. This is me going into the detail and deciding that this is the best way to deliver it. What my hon. Friend says about the special status of EU law is right. That is one of the things that is not changing; that is still ending. The sunset is still there for interpretive effects—for the supremacy of EU law—by the end of this year, which is the big thing we are trying to deliver, rather than lots of redundant regulations, many of which we have already got rid of. I re-emphasise that we will get rid of about 2,000 pieces of legislation in total by the end of this year. The schedule is just the final 600, and another 200 commencement regulations go with them. I think he will be very pleased with the result.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
May I respectfully say to the Secretary of State that I do understand the amendment, and I believe colleagues on both sides of the House understand it? We simply do not agree, and it is an important component of democracy that we respect one another’s right to disagree. If there is any confusion and uncertainty today, it has been caused by the chaotic manner in which this has been done and the fact that the House feels the Secretary of State has had to be dragged here to explain it to us. Does she agree that a situation where the House feels that there will not be an opportunity to debate something as important as this and scrutinise it properly is unacceptable?
Kemi Badenoch
I disagree, because we have debated it. The only change is the use of a schedule. The hon. Lady claims that she disagrees with the Bill. The Bill passed through the House. All that is changing is how we are listing the regulations. The intent has not changed. Of course, I respect her right to disagree, but she is still claiming that the amendment does something it does not, which is why I keep emphasising that I am not sure Opposition Members understand it.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I had the privilege of PPS-ing the Bill when it was in Committee, so I have seen the complexities, the ideologies on both sides of the argument, and the difficulties inherent in trying to get the Bill through. What my constituents and people up and down the country—the vast majority of whom did vote for Brexit—want to know is what the message is for them, as they now have concerns that this could be reneged on.
Kemi Badenoch
I have a very strong message for them. My hon. Friend can tell his constituents that the Prime Minister is a committed Brexiteer, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is a committed Brexiteer, and we are making sure that we can deliver this on time but actually show the benefits of Brexit, not just parliamentary procedure and legislative activity. That is not the outcome that is going to be delivered for the country, it is the process. This urgent question has shown that quite often, we spend too much time on process and not enough on outcomes. This is an outcomes-focused Government, and that is why I have made this change and why I will deliver for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It would seem that there can be movement regarding decisions on EU laws when this Government see fit. Can the Secretary of State outline whether this symbolises a change in policy that will enable the final work on getting the protocol solutions finalised, in order to enable business and trade and allow everyone in Northern Ireland—Unionists as well as nationalists—to operate on an equal footing with those on the UK mainland?
Kemi Badenoch
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that this is not a change in policy: it is a change in approach, using a schedule to list exactly what we are removing. The purpose of the Bill was to remove EU law, and as the process was changing to one of preservation, we have just changed the approach slightly to make sure that we can conclude when we want to conclude, which is at the end of this year, and focus on reform. We are very pragmatic; we continue to listen to voices across the House and across the country. Many of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised are for my colleague the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but he will know that if he comes to me with a problem, I will always endeavour to solve it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Between 2016 and 2019, the Procedure Committee heard regularly about the thousands of statutory instruments that either had to be translated into UK law, repealed, or reformed in some way. The problem that the Secretary of State now has is that by taking the pressure off that timetable, there will be a concern among Members on all Benches as to what happens, after the sunset clause kicks in, to the statutory instruments and other laws that we would like to see repealed or amended. What is the timetable, and how will it work?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that this change in approach actually helps with that. It allows us to continue beyond the end of this year, whereas the Bill as originally drafted meant that if we had not found things, they would just end up in UK statute with no mechanism to change that. I have now created a mechanism for us to continue, but I have also made sure that the time we spend in this House is about reforming and improving, not preservation, because that would just have swallowed up so much time and not delivered for our constituents.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for responding to questions for over 45 minutes.
Business of the House
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read 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)
The business for the week commencing 15 May will include:
Monday 15 May—Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
Tuesday 16 May—Opposition day (15th allotted day). Debate in the name of the Scottish National party—subject to be announced.
Wednesday 17 May—Second Reading of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
Thursday 18 May—General debate on public access to nature, followed by a debate on a motion on access to psilocybin treatments. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 19 May—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 22 May includes:
Monday 22 May—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. Before I go any further, it is good to see the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), back in her place.
The Leader of the House did previously describe her resting face as
“that of a bulldog chewing a wasp”—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 260.]
But can I reassure her royal meme-ness that she looked nothing of the sort at the coronation? She was a symbol of solemnity and the first woman to have ever presented the Jewelled Sword of Offering to a British monarch. Her elegant outfit had nods to tradition, maternity and, as I understand it, her constituency. She diligently carried out her duty with grace and poise. She was a credit to this House as our representative. I wanted to start by making sure that was on the record, but now we will now get back to the jabs.
It was an even bigger achievement given how long the Leader of the House must have been awake the previous night counting all those Tory losses. She must have been worn out, with more than 1,000 Tory councillors gone. It was a clear rejection of the Conservatives and this Prime Minister and his complete failure to focus on what really matters to voters. I am afraid it is time to resume the normal jab, thrust and parrying—a little swordplay thing, there—of business questions, as this Government have a lot to answer for.
One whole year on from the Queen’s Speech, what do the Government have to show for it? People do not have to follow every twist and turn of the Government’s chaotic mishandling of legislation to know that the answer is next to nothing. The Hansard Society, which does detailed, independent research on the workings of Parliament, has said exactly which Bills are lurking down the back of Downing Street’s ever-expanding legislative sofa. Perhaps the Leader of the House could use her new-found swordsmanship to reach down the back of that sofa and hook some of that missing legislation out for us.
Of the 51 Bills that the Hansard Society reminded us have been presented to Parliament this Session, the Tories have so far failed to pass a staggering 29. Only a measly eight from the Queen’s Speech have got through. The Prime Minister has been caught out overpromising and massively under-delivering. He is too busy playing whack-a-mole with the increasing pop-up rebellions from his own Back Benchers, as we just saw in the past half-hour, rather than using the Government’s valuable time in Parliament to address the issues that matter to working people. No wonder they have told the Tories they are a Government with no answers, led by a Prime Minister so out of touch with working people that he is choosing to protect oil and gas profits and non-doms over working people.
Let us take a closer look at the Tories’ legislative logjam, which does not appear in the business statement, but perhaps should have. The Leader of the House could have announced the renters reform Bill that the Government have been promising for more than four years. When I was shadow Housing Secretary—a while ago now— I pushed for it, as well as for ensuring greater protections for tenants during the covid crisis at the time. Labour has long called for particular measures to be included in the Bill, including the banning of no-fault evictions. That is important to people we represent, including those I represent in Bristol West, where renters are paying more for less. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is letting them down. He said the Bill would be finally published this week. Where is it? Is it missing in action? We now hear that it has been delayed for weeks due to “procedural issues”. What does that mean? Is the Housing Secretary about to U-turn again? Is it the Prime Minister about to roll over to his Back Benchers again? Renters deserve better. The next Labour Government will bring in a powerful new renters’ charter to make renting fairer, more secure and more affordable, and that is the difference between Labour and the Tories.
It is not just on housing that the Tories are breaking their promise to voters. They have failed to introduce the transport Bill. They have left the mental health Bill in limbo somewhere, and they have abandoned the Schools Bill altogether. Even their flagship Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is in absolute chaos. Would the Leader of the House like to have a go and tell us what it is about transport, mental health, schools and levelling up that is working so well? Can she tell us which Bills they will get through this Session?
The Tories are out of touch and out of ideas to fix the problems they have created. Where they can be bothered, they are stealing Labour’s plans, but unfortunately watering them down and trying to pass them off as their own. This is no way to run a Government. Last week, Labour gained more than 500 councillors and 22 councils, and we are now the largest party in local government. It is time for a fresh start with a Labour national Government and a new King’s Speech for a new era: a coherent, bold programme of legislation, driven by Labour’s five missions that will make a real difference to people’s lives. That is Labour’s plan.
Penny Mordaunt
Can I start by thanking the hon. Lady for her compliments? I very much wanted to be a Pen the king could rely on at the coronation, but I think congratulations should go to all of us across the nation, and huge thanks to all who took part and all who enabled it to be so successful and safe, including many staff of this House. The whole weekend was a celebration of service, duty and love, and the Big Help Out on Monday saw 6 million people volunteering at more than 55,000 events. I hope they had a wonderful day and will continue to volunteer for their community. I am very proud to have played my part alongside everyone else, and I know the whole House would want to send their good wishes to Their Majesties.
Can I reciprocate and congratulate the hon. Lady, as I understand that her band, the Statutory Instruments, has topped a Twitter poll on musical parliamentarians? I have suggested to the Culture Secretary that this might be a back-up plan if Mae and her team are unable to perform at the Eurovision final.
The hon. Lady mentioned our legislative programme. Last week, the Public Order Bill received Royal Assent, taking us to 19 Bills receiving Royal Assent so far in this Session, with 40 Bills introduced so far. The rented homes Bill is not delayed, and I look forward to the Opposition’s support. It will deliver the Government’s commitment to a fairer private rented sector for responsible tenants and good-faith landlords. The Bill will legislate to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions, among many other measures. I hope that all Members of this House will support it when it arrives, which will not be very long or far away.
The hon. Lady spoke about local election statistics, and I have some of my own for Labour’s performance: mid-term and mid-recovery, zero change to vote share since 2019; zero gains in battleground seats; and, it appears, zero principles upon which to base a manifesto. Labour’s leader has flip-flopped 32 times, broken all of his leadership pledges and had to have 12—and counting—relaunch speeches. To borrow from Eurovision legends Bucks Fizz, he will soon find out that there comes a time for “Making Your Mind Up”.
In contrast, we are focused on delivering for the people of this country on the things that matter to them. On healthcare, for example, against the immense challenges stemming from the pandemic, we have reduced waiting lists of people waiting 18 months or more by 90%. General practice is delivering 10% more appointments a month than pre-pandemic levels. We are on track to deliver our manifesto commitment of 50 million more GP appointments, and we have more staff than ever before. Numbers are up by a quarter since 2019. We have increased pharmacy provision, and this week we are transforming how those services can be used, freeing up even more GP appointments.
What does Labour do for healthcare when it is in power in Wales? Some 40,000 people are waiting more than two years for treatment, waiting lists are four times worse than in England and it is the only place in the UK to have had the NHS budget cut. The gap between Labour’s rhetoric and its record is nearly as wide as the gap between its revenue and its spending plans, currently standing at £90 billion.
Further business will be announced in the usual way.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend note that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade has just told the House, in answer to my urgent question, that despite the very serious constitutional implications that I explained—they were endorsed by many others after I asked the question—she will not be able to come to the European Scrutiny Committee because she will be in Switzerland? What this in effect means, according to the current timetable in the House of Lords, is that she will not be able to explain the implications I set out in my question before the Report stage of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill actually takes place. Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to approach her opposite number in the House of Lords, and indeed the appropriate authorities there, to defer the Report stage, which is scheduled for 15 and 17 May? That Report stage will have momentous consequences if it results in changes to this Bill, which was passed by this House by a substantial majority, which would then be being dealt with by the unelected House of Lords.
Penny Mordaunt
I do understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. The Secretary of State wants to take a pragmatic approach, but I know that he will also have concerns about sovereignty and other such issues. I will certainly speak to business managers and the Secretary of State to ensure that there can be proper scrutiny of these matters, and I assure my hon. Friend that although there are differences on how we should approach these matters, the Secretary of State shares his aim that we should do this well and not miss the opportunities, having left the EU, to modernise our statute book and make sensible reforms. But I undertake to do as he has asked.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
May I add my congratulations to the Leader of the House on her role at the coronation? There was tremendous upper body strength on show there, and with the added strain of having to remain silent virtually all afternoon—so well done, her. Maybe it was a “speak softly and carry a big sword” moment, because it appears that carrying a lethal weapon and wearing an imperial-style outfit now makes her favourite to be the next Tory leader—was it the sword of Damocles she was clutching? I am reminded of that old “Monty Python” skit, though—something about strange women distributing swords being no basis for a system of government.
Did the Leader of the House’s somewhat authoritarian look on Saturday reflect the new and unnerving “Braverman law”, which apparently allows people to be arrested for even thinking about protesting? May we therefore have a debate on the thought police, and on whether guidance for that hastily delivered Act might be tightened up after those recent unfortunate arrests?
Speaking of horrible Bills, I see that Labour, despite the urging of the Archbishop of Canterbury, continues to cleave to this Government’s nasty “hostile environment” policies. Is it any wonder that even after 13 years of perhaps the most incompetent and chaotic series of Tory Governments there has ever been, Labour seemingly still cannot win an outright majority? Yet Labour claims it will not entertain the idea of co-operation agreements with the SNP, despite the fact that we will speak to anyone progressive in order to lock the Tories out of No. 10.
If we had a fair electoral system, parties would often have to work in partnership with each other, as they do in many other grown-up democracies across the world. So may we have a debate on proportional representation and fair voting, so that we can ask why the Tory and Labour parties support the antiquated first-past-the-post system, which prolongs the establishment duopoly we see year after dreary year in this place? Oops, I believe I have answered my own question there.
That is probably just as well, because although we all enjoyed—really—the Leader of the House’s starring role at the weekend, I would once again gently remind her that her day job is to answer for the conduct of her own Government, not simply give her views on the Governments of other countries for use on social media. If she could stick to the day job in this, I would be very grateful.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her compliments, and it is good to see her back in her place. I am very aware that my most successful role in my career to date has been when I have been silent. That has not been lost on me.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of protests. I say to all Members of this House that we make the laws in this place, and we have brought in new measures because we felt that the public need protection from particularly disruptive and dangerous protests, as we have seen in recent events and developments. But the police are operationally independent; they need to use their judgment, and sometimes they will make mistakes, and when they do, as we have seen, they apologise for them. I think all of that is incredibly reassuring, and I would like to place on record my thanks to the police for the difficult jobs they have done in recent weeks, particularly those who were standing for a considerably longer period than 51 minutes—I met a police officer involved in the coronation who was on their feet throughout a 13-hour shift. They do a tremendous job and we owe them a huge debt of thanks.
It is no surprise at all that the hon. Lady should take exception to the result of another referendum we had, on voting systems. But I am genuinely delighted that the SNP has found some auditors. With nearly 2,000 accountancy and auditing firms in Scotland, I was interested to know who it would pick to do the job. Perhaps it would be someone from her constituency, given that Edinburgh is Europe’s second-largest financial centre, second only to the City of London. Yet the SNP had to go to Manchester to find someone willing to take on the task. Presumably she would view that as offshoring.
Perhaps the SNP can now turn its attention to its dire mishandling of Scottish finances and the recommendations of Audit Scotland. I remind the House that the SNP has been forced to raise income tax after a £100 million budget overspend despite this year cutting public expenditure by £1.2 billion. The Scottish people deserve better than that. I know that the hon. Lady and her colleagues did not necessarily celebrate the coronation, but they can learn a lesson from it. Nothing can be achieved with division and hate; the only way forward is service, duty and love.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on her role in the coronation. She is an emblem of dignity, poise and girl power. Her bluey-green coronation dress is a worldwide sensation. King Charles III is revered around the world for his work on the environment, and the UK is a world leader on environmental issues—since 2010, we have cut carbon emissions by more than any other G7 country—so will she make space for a debate in Government time on what we have achieved on the environment and what work is in progress, so that people across the country know that while Conservatives may wear blue rosettes, we also deliver on green?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this matter. She will know that the next questions to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are on 23 May. We were the first major economy to commit to a legally binding target on achieving net zero by 2050 and we fully stand behind that. We have cut emissions by 48% since 1990, decarbonising faster than any other G7 country while also growing our economy by 65%. In 2022, renewable electricity accounted for nearly 42% of our total generation, which is a fourfold increase since 2011. We will continue to make progress on this matter.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business and the Backbench Business debates for next Thursday. One thing we learned at the weekend is that we should not be easily drawn into literally crossing swords with her.
The Backbench Business Committee is soon to celebrate its 13th birthday. I remind Members across the House that we are open for business. We receive, on average, 3.8 applications for Backbench Business debates per week, but over time we have developed into having five debating slots per week, so 3.8 applications is not enough. We therefore welcome more applications from Back Benchers across the House on a weekly basis.
I am grateful that this week we had a bumper bundle of eight applications, so we exceeded the average. Upcoming Backbench Business debates are on: the cost of living for those with disabilities, which will be in Westminster Hall next Tuesday; reducing plastic pollution in our oceans, also in Westminster Hall, next Thursday; and shortcomings of planning in respect to short-term holiday lets, on Tuesday 23 May. We get a variety of applications, but we always welcome more.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the advertisement for future debates. I remind all Members of the House that this is an incredibly valuable tool that we have now been using for 13 years, and I hope that he will organise some suitable celebrations for that landmark birthday. There are many ways in which we can make change and improve things for our constituents. A lot can be done in business questions, but a lot can also be done in such debates when the will of the House is shown and there is cross-party concern and support for particular campaigns and issues. I encourage all Members to make use of this welcome innovation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on her performance at the coronation. The wait for the renters reform Bill seems never-ending. It is important that we get the Bill right, but we are running out of time in the Session, particularly given the queue of legislation in the House of Lords. The other eagerly awaited legislation is the leasehold reform Bill, which has been pressed for in this House for a long time. Could the Leader of the House give us an update on when that Bill will come before us?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Although I will announce business in the usual way, he will not have long to wait for the renters reform Bill. This is an important issue, as are many of the issues covered by the leasehold reform work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been undertaking.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Recent media reports inform us that Vodafone UK and Three are in advanced talks about a merger, but my trade union, Unite, is campaigning against it on two major grounds. First, it could pose a national security risk by giving a company whose controlling family collaborates with the Chinese state an even more influential role at the heart of our sensitive telecoms infrastructure. Secondly, the merger would fatally undermine competition by reducing the number of major providers in the British telecoms market, resulting in substantially higher prices for British consumers. As such, will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on the merger, as it will impact people in each and every constituency across the UK?
Penny Mordaunt
The next opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise this issue with the Department for Business and Trade will be on 18 May, but I know that it will be a matter of concern to two other Departments, so I will write to all of three on his behalf and ask them to contact his office.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I echo the congratulations to the Leader of the House. We will remember where we were during the coronation, but we will also remember where the Leader of the House was, as she proved herself to be the King’s most reliable Pen.
May we have a debate on parking on yellow lines? Someone who parks around Westminster is charged £65, going up to £130. If they park in Bournemouth, it is capped at £35, going up to £70. We do not have the crane lorries to remove cars, and tourists— who are most welcome—have realised that paying £35 on a sunny day’s visit is worthwhile. That is affecting emergency services getting around and is raising concerns from residents. May we therefore have a debate or a statement on gaining parity so that Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council can raise its fines for parking on yellow lines?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I am sorry to hear about the situation in his constituency. Those fines are not to raise revenue but to ensure that thoroughfares are clear for emergency vehicles, as he points out, or for safety reasons to avoid accidents. I will make sure that the Secretaries of State for Levelling Up and for Transport have heard his concerns. He will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities concluded its consultation on reform of the national planning policy framework on 2 March. While the Government work out what they want to do, there are speculative developments in front of planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, which now have to interpret a planning system in limbo. Could the Leader of the House set out the Government’s timetable for responding to that consultation and making any changes? Could she confirm whether the Government intend to allow Members of the House to debate those changes?
Penny Mordaunt
I completely understand the hon. Lady’s point. I know that the chief planning officer and the team at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are always available to advise individual local authorities on such matters. I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard her concerns and will ask the Department to contact her to set out clarity on the timetable.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I add my warm thanks and congratulations to my right hon. Friend, the Lord President of the Council, not only for her starring performance in Westminster Abbey last Saturday but more particularly for the very modest way in which she sought to deflect the thanks and praise away from herself, and towards the thousands of other people who made the day possible, which was a very noble thing to do. As she rightly says, the 7,500 armed forces personnel who took part in the day did a great job, as did the many hundreds of people behind them, as I witnessed in Knightsbridge and Wellington barracks and elsewhere. Does she not think, therefore, that it is time for the House to reintroduce the six set day debates we always used to have to celebrate the work of our armed forces? The job of allocating such debates has now been delegated to the Backbench Business Committee and, although the Committee does a brilliant job, the net result is that there are extraordinarily few debates on the armed forces in this House. Let us get back to the days when the Government gave us Government debates, in Government time, on our magnificent armed services.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I have been looking at this matter. I know that there are key set dates on this issue, including Armed Forces Day, and on other issues, such as International Women’s Day. Of course we want to have such debates every single year, and yet it requires particular Committees to organise them. There are good reasons why we established the procedures that we have and why we lean heavily on the Backbench Business Committee, but I have been making inquiries on this front and I appreciate my hon. Friend’s suggestion.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Homeowners in my constituency have been conned and defrauded by rogue builders. They have lost thousands of pounds and their homes have been left in ruins. The police say it is a civil matter and trading standards is powerless, so their only option is to incur more costs in court. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on why the new fraud strategy does nothing to tackle this type of fraud?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Will she share some more information with my office? The Home Office may not be the Department that is best placed to help her; it may well be the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is responsible for some of the new powers that we have introduced to protect homeowners and those in the rented sector with regard to poor landlords. I will be happy to assist the hon. Lady, and I hope we can help her get this matter resolved for her constituents.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for her magnificence at the coronation. I am disappointed that she has not been asked to reprieve her role on the Eurovision stage, or at least read out the votes of the UK jury.
A less welcome guest at the coronation was the vice- president of China. This week, we hear that a British Trade Minister is feting the Chinese in Hong Kong and the Foreign Secretary is looking forward to a visit to China, as if the Chinese genocide were not still continuing, the Chinese Government were not continuing to flout international law and five Members of the House, including me, were not still sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party Government. May we have a debate on exactly what our relationship is with China going forward, and about making sure that every opportunity for meetings is prefaced by our calling out China’s continued abuses? We need a progress report on what is being done to lift the sanctions on five Members of the House, which is an insult to this House.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks regarding myself. He will know that the Foreign Secretary has recently set out his approach on China, and he knows how to apply for a debate on such a matter. I know the issue is of immense concern to Members from all parts of the House. While we know why we need to have that relationship and why it is incredibly important, given the size of the economy and our supply chains, it is important that we raise the ongoing breaches and abuses of human rights, as well as the matter he raises that concerns him directly. Foreign Office questions are a little way off, so I will make sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard what he has said today.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I put on the record my admiration for the role that the right hon. Lady played during the King’s coronation? She was magnificent and represented us beautifully.
Many of my constituents have written to me with concerns about unsuitable living conditions in properties owned and run by Sanctuary. My casework team has written to Sanctuary many times and I wrote to the chief executive six weeks ago, but there has been no response. I know that many other MPs and councils have raised concerns about the unresponsiveness of that organisation. Can we have a debate about the responsiveness of social housing providers, who do, after all, provide a very important public service?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. The moral of the story is that when the chief execs of such social housing providers receive letters from Members of Parliament, they would do well to reply to them in good time, otherwise Members of Parliament will come to the Floor of the House and name the social housing provider, and the Leader of the House of Commons will be forced to write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make sure that they have heard Members’ concerns. I wish the hon. Lady well and we stand ready to assist her in getting the matter resolved for her constituents.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
May I start by passing on the many messages of congratulations and thanks from Southend residents to my right hon. Friend on her absolutely outstanding contribution to the coronation?
While I am talking about outstanding contributions, the mayor of Southend city, Councillor Kevin Robinson, steps down this afternoon after an exemplary year in which he welcomed the King and city status, bade farewell to our Queen, and raised £26,000 for charity—while all the time working full time as a dementia nurse. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Mayor Robinson for his outstanding service? Will she also thank the 500 Essex police officers who worked behind the scenes at Stansted airport to make sure that the very many foreign dignitaries from all around the world got into and out of our country safely? Perhaps we could have a debate on the important contribution that mayors and other civic leaders make to our communities.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend and the residents of Southend for their very kind remarks about me. As I am sure all Members would, I of course join her in saying thank you, well done and good luck for the next chapter to Mayor Robinson. I thank him for all the work he has done. I also thank my hon. Friend for giving us another example of the many hundreds of people who contributed towards making the weekend such a success, in particular by enabling 95 Heads of State to visit and celebrate such a special moment. We send them all our thanks.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It is shocking that the Government have yet again made an outrageous U-turn by deciding to scrap plans to abolish the feudal leasehold system. We all know that the current system is not fit for purpose and often traps homeowners, including many of my constituents in Battersea. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities agreed with me and said that he would bring forward reforms, so will the Leader of the House let us know the timeline for when we will see a Bill on leaseholder reform?
Penny Mordaunt
The next questions to the Secretary of State are on 5 June. Several Members have raised these matters. As I have said, the House will not have long to wait for the introduction of the renters reform Bill, but I shall ask the Secretary of State to contact the offices of the hon. Lady and the other Members who have raised this matter, particularly in respect of leasehold reform, and update them.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I add my congratulations to the Lord President of the Council for her role at the coronation. I have had messages from many friends around the world who were impressed with her performance. She has won friends not only across my constituency but around the globe.
The Government have delivered fantastic policies and new legislation on animal welfare, but it is now 18 months since the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was in Committee in this House. May we have an update on when the Bill might come back to us and pass on to the other place, so that we can continue this Government’s remarkable animal welfare achievements?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend not only for his remarks about me, but for his commitment to this agenda. We in the Government are grateful to him for his work on the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, a private Member’s Bill that we were pleased to support. We, too, are committed to this agenda, as is clear from the many other measures that we have taken to improve animal welfare, including the banning of conventional battery cages for laying hens, the introduction of CCTV in slaughterhouses, the mandatory microchipping of dogs, Finn’s law and Lucy’s law. I can reassure the House that we are still very much hoping to implement our manifesto commitments and the measures in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis, may I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to the fact that tomorrow is World ME Day? ME affects more than a quarter of a million people here in the UK, and many others are living with similar symptoms as a result of long covid. The Department of Health and Social Care has been developing a much-needed and much-anticipated ME delivery plan. May we have a Government statement on both the impact of ME on individuals and the delivery plan?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue and reminding us that tomorrow is World ME Day. Indeed, next week is ME Awareness Week, which will give all Members a good opportunity to discuss ME and the care that sufferers need. This would be an excellent question to ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and, of course, Members can apply for a debate in the usual way if they wish to do so.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Derelict buildings can have a significant impact on communities, both as eyesores and, in areas such as my constituency where there is a lack of affordable housing, as a lost opportunity. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what powers councils have in this regard and how they can be encouraged to use them? May we have a debate in Government time on how to bring these buildings back into use and breathe life into communities by providing affordable housing for local families?
Penny Mordaunt
I think that this is an excellent topic for a debate, and my hon. Friend will know how to apply for one. She will be aware that since 2017, local planning authorities in England have been required to maintain and publish brownfield land registers, and they should all be doing that, as well as updating and reviewing the registers at least once a year. They also have compulsory purchase order powers that they can use to acquire empty properties or properties that are eyesores when they can demonstrate that there is a compelling case for such an acquisition to proceed in the public interest.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
This week, the news broke that the Government had changed the UK’s policy on animal testing. Despite a 25-year ban, it will now be possible for some make-up ingredients to be tested on animals again. That is a huge step backwards, and it is even more frustrating that the Government failed to update the House on their intentions. Once again, they have U-turned on a policy and it was the media that found out first. Will the Leader of the House please support me by arranging a debate on this important issue in Government time? No animal should suffer to satisfy cosmetic vanity.
Penny Mordaunt
I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is aware of the hon. Lady’s concern and her request for further information. I can tell her that the next session of questions to the Secretary of State will be on 25 May.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
May I, too, congratulate our very own Amphitrite?
Westfield Parish Council has worked very hard to deliver the Westfield parish community fibre project, which is now at the second stage of validation and is on track to deliver the largest community fibre scheme in East Sussex. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the council on this fantastic achievement, and may I ask her for a debate on how its success could be replicated in other rural communities?
Penny Mordaunt
Well done, Westfield Parish Council! That is incredibly important progress, and it illustrates the reasons for our determination to level up digital connectivity throughout the UK and end the digital divide between rural, suburban and urban areas. We are investing £5 billion in that important mission. I think that this is an excellent topic for debate, and my hon. Friend will know how to apply for one.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On Friday morning, Stockton Conservatives cheered the election of their candidate Shakeel Hussain, despite his published statement that Israelis were Zionist murderers. The same Mr Hussain joined the Conservatives a few weeks ago, after being rejected by the Labour party for his antisemitic views, and he appears to have conned them. Why is Mr Hussain still a Tory party member and what is the Government advice to Tory leader Tony Riordan who, when offered sight of the evidence well before the election, declined to look because he did not have his spectacles with him?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that this is not a matter for the Leader of the House, but it would be a matter for the party chairman. I would suggest that he raises any concerns he has about the conduct of any individual with the party chairman. He will know that we have a proper process to look at all these matters. I do not think that he has done that. He may wish to do so. That is the best advice I can offer him as Leader of the House of Commons.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Tritax Symmetry has formally applied for the Hinckley rail freight interchange and now there is a formal and legal chance for everyone to register their interest and have their say. So I am urging all my constituents and residents, particularly those in Burbage, Barwell, Earl Shilton and Hinckley to do exactly that. I have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and neither he nor I have the power to stop this. I know that the process is quasi-judicial so I cannot ask the Leader of the House to comment specifically on that case, but can we have a debate on creating a national strategy for railway freight interchanges to ensure they are joined up in in places such as the midlands, where they can be so problematic?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. The national networks national policy statement provides developers with a clear statement of Government policy on the development of strategic rail freight interchanges and that statement is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport. I would be happy to make sure that the Department is aware of my hon. Friend’s focus on the matter and we stand ready to assist him. I thank him for making sure that all the interested parties who wish to have their say are aware of the pre-examination process that is being advertised.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. Each week, I use this opportunity to highlight somewhere in the world where religious persecution has taken place. I am very saddened to bring to the House’s attention the fact that since Monday there have been at least five separate attacks against Christian communities in Nigeria’s Benue state, resulting in 10 deaths, seven towns being abandoned and thousands of people being displaced. Since we returned from the Easter recess, more than 100 people have been killed in that state alone. Violence against Nigeria’s Christians and Shi’as and those from traditional African religions has reached endemic levels in northern and central states, despite interventions from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and our allies. The Leader of the House always responds in a very positive fashion and I thank her for that in advance. Will she join me in condemning the latest attacks and provide advice on any steps His Majesty’s Government could take to protect all those communities in Nigeria?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these important matters again. They are extremely concerning. I know that further individuals are missing and this is very distressing. He will know that Ministers and our envoy raise these matters and are keeping a close eye on what is going on. I will make sure that the Foreign Secretary, in particular, has heard what he said.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
This week, the 10 MPs representing Humber constituencies wrote on a cross-party basis to the director-general of the BBC expressing our opposition to the plans to cut local radio services and the disgraceful way in which local members of radio staff in Humberside have been treated. The director-general, as we all know, is ultimately responsible for the plans and has the power to change them. Last autumn, when Hull MPs wrote and asked to meet him, we were fobbed off with offers of meeting those further down the management chain. I know the Leader of the House has excellent relations with Downing Street and Buckingham Palace. Does she think that helping MPs of all parties to gain access to the BBC director-general could be her next great triumph?
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Lady raises an important matter. Local radio is not just a vital link that keeps people in touch with what is happening in their community; it is vital for democracy and scrutiny in holding people to account, too. I will make sure the director-general has heard what she said, and I would be grateful if she kept us updated on her progress.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
In October 2020, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency awarded a contract worth £1.5 million to Genpact to use artificial intelligence to analyse yellow card adverse event reports associated with covid-19 injections. There is no evidence of any tendering process, and it appears that Genpact was the only supplier considered. Even cursory due diligence shows a huge conflict of interest, with Genpact having massive long-term contracts with AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Can we therefore have an urgent debate on the failings of the MHRA both in its regulation of the experimental covid-19 injections, as detailed in the fantastic Perseus report, and in awarding yellow card oversight to a deeply conflicted company in Genpact?
Penny Mordaunt
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is probably a question to ask the Department of Health and Social Care, and as a point of information for him the next questions to the Department are on 6 June. He can directly ask Ministers about this and any other matter. He can also apply for a Backbench Business debate, a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate. He knows that he will be called to speak: anyone can look at Hansard and see that he is regularly called to speak in debates and at questions, as he has been today, by whoever is in the Chair. He can table questions and early-day motions and he is, of course, free to tour media studios, to speak to the press and to put out his views on social media. How he chooses to use these opportunities is up to him.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
At the 2022 elections, there was one caution and one prosecution for electoral fraud. In 2021, one conviction and one caution. In 2020, none. In 2019, four convictions and two cautions. That is a total of 10 cases over four years. Despite this, there were countless reports of people being turned away from polling stations last week for not having the correct photo ID. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in parliamentary time on voter ID and how we must review and learn lessons from the local elections?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady has just missed Cabinet Office questions, at which she could have raised that matter. There will be a full review of the local elections and we need to be led by the data that has been gathered.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Kemptown is now a Conservative and Green-free constituency. One of the reasons we managed to win the election is because of our strong pledge on rental reform and changing the broken housing market, which is affecting all people and all demographics. When can we expect this important Bill to be introduced? Can the Leader of the House confirm there will be no more dither and delay?
Penny Mordaunt
I will announce business in the usual way, but the hon. Gentleman will not have very long to wait. I sincerely hope he will support our reforms.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I am sorely tempted to ask for a debate on the power of dancing, following the success of Renfrew’s Jazzle Dazzle mini and senior teams in Orlando, winning three golds and one silver at the Allstar world championships. For the record, the senior team includes my daughters Emma and Eilidh.
However, proud dad or not, I have pressing, long-delayed Home Office matters, including an EU settled status application that has been awaiting a decision since October 2021 and a family reunification visa application submitted more than a year ago. Can we have a Home Office statement on these delays?
Penny Mordaunt
I think the whole House would want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s daughters and everyone else in that team on all their dancing achievements.
The hon. Gentleman may know that the Home Office now has surgeries to assist colleagues in getting answers on outstanding matters such as he raises. My office can be in touch with his office to make sure they have all the information, but those surgeries can be virtual, they will be specific to the cases he wishes to raise and can be organised quickly.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Labour is now the largest party in local government and I am pleased that Luton held on to a strong Labour council. Importantly, just like the parliamentary Labour party, Luton now has a majority of Labour women as councillors. Can we have a debate, though, on tackling the barriers that many women and young people from diverse and working-class backgrounds face in trying to serve their communities in local government?
Penny Mordaunt
Those are important issues and I know the Local Government Association is focused on ensuring that any barriers that exist are removed, tackled and addressed. I would say, because we often hear about the negatives of serving in elected roles, whether in this place or in local government, that the good far outweighs the bad. If people feel that they want to step up and serve their community, the chances are that they are going to be good at it and we should all encourage them.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has been generous several times in talking about the problems with leasing. Section 24 allows no-fault evictions. Is it not shameful that since the Government first committed to dealing with this issue 40,000 families have been evicted through no fault of their own, some in my constituency? Some have even been evicted via text, saying, “Get out of this house because we want it for something else.” That is not acceptable. A constituent put it to me this morning that 50 Members on the Government Front Bench are landlords. The best way to reassure people in the country that they are not having an effect on this is for the Leader of the House finally to say when this legislation is coming and whether that loophole will finally be sealed off completely.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Bill will legislate to abolish no-fault evictions and he will not have very long to wait at all before that Bill is in front of him.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Yesterday, it was reported that the Metropolitan police have apologised following the discovery of documents relating to the Daniel Morgan murder in a locked cabinet. The independent inquiry released its report almost two years ago and the Independent Office for Police Conduct found that the former commissioner of the Metropolitan police and others had deliberately delayed the disclosure of documentation in relation to that inquiry. Given that we have had previous statements on this issue, can we have a ministerial statement on what is a completely unacceptable situation?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important matter. She will not have long to wait for Home Office questions, which are on 22 May, but I will make sure that the Home Secretary has heard her concerns today.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We have had a couple of questions already, from Members on both sides of the House, on Government proposals on leasehold reform, but we have not had an answer yet. There were newspaper reports overnight that the Government were going to U-turn on some of the plans, particularly the one to abolish leasehold altogether, which is a firm Government commitment. If there is a U-turn on that, it will represent a massive betrayal for the millions of leaseholders up and down the country. We have already had one Secretary of State dragged here today to explain U-turns in Government policy. Can we please have the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities here at the next opportunity to explain what their position is on leasehold reform?
Penny Mordaunt
I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. As for any rumours about the renters reform Bill, that legislation will, as I say, be brought forward very shortly.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Let me start by congratulating the right hon. Lady on carrying out her role in the coronation at the weekend so elegantly.
Social enterprise Hey Girls has launched the Pads 4 Dads campaign to educate fathers about periods and give them the tools and confidence required to support their children with this. May we have a debate in Government time on the importance of ending the stigma around periods and why menstrual education should be normalised across all demographics in the UK?
Penny Mordaunt
That sounds like a very worthwhile initiative and I congratulate those behind it. It is incredibly important that we give people the tools they need to support their children through the changes they will go through. I will certainly make sure that the relevant Department has heard about this scheme and see what else can be done to support it and scale it.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I have raised this issue before with the Leader of the House, but at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions, when confronted with the dubious dealings at Teesworks by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), the Prime Minister said:
“Contracts at the site will be a commercial matter for the companies involved.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 334.]
Could the Leader convey to the Prime Minister that the people of Teesside are extremely angry and, even if he does not, they think that how £350 million of public money has ended up so massively benefiting a few preferred developers is very much a matter for them? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) to discuss the issue, so I have written to him to ask him to extend that invitation to me. Could I prevail upon her to ask the Chief Secretary to do that and to include my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) as well?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly make sure that the Chief Secretary has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will know that, on the spending and delivery for that site, the Tees Valley Combined Authority has judged that that is on track and the transfer presented value for money. These matters are independently audited and those who are doing that have not raised any concerns about the judgment that South Tees Development Corporation has made or the management of the organisation. These are important matters. They are a concern to the hon. Gentleman and I shall act on his request, but it is also important that those facts are out there. I am sure he would not want to stifle investment in the area; I know that that is not his intention. We must be careful of that.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
People in Wirral West are extremely anxious about a series of planning appeals by Leverhulme Estate relating to building on the green belt that will be heard at a public inquiry that starts next week. The outcomes will particularly impact on people in Barnston, Irby and Pensby, and also have implications for those in Greasby. Leverhulme Estate’s plans are not wanted by local people and are contrary to what Wirral Council has set out in the local plan, which is that the borough’s housing needs can be met on brownfield sites and land in urban areas. So may we have a debate in Government time on how a resolution can be found in such cases where there are clear conflicts between what local people and the local council wants, and what developers want? Will such a debate cover considerations of ways in which we can give the green belt the stronger protections it clearly needs?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank and congratulate the hon. Lady on raising this matter and advertising it to her constituents and other interested parties, who will want to participate in that process. That subject is often raised in this House by many Members and I am sure that if she were to apply for a debate, it would be well supported.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the Leader of the House on the assured way in which she carried out her role as Lord President of the Council during the coronation service. I hope she was as struck as I was by the excellence of the music we heard, and I congratulate the musicians, choirs, conductors and composers involved. However, classical music is under threat from proposed job cuts in the BBC orchestras, the funding cuts already made by the Arts Council to opera companies and orchestras, and the dramatic falls in the provision of music education in state schools. So may we have a debate in Government time on what is needed to protect the future of classical music in this country? We need to ensure that the music at future important events is just as excellent.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for affording us all the opportunity to say thank you to those many people involved in such amazing music, not only for the celebration, but at other events associated with it—of course, I should not forget the music that would be being enjoyed in every church in the land on the following day. Our choral traditions are unique in this country and are enshrined in the background and pipeline of people who come forward to organisations such as the BBC Singers. I am sure that this is a topic of concern to many and if she were to apply for a debate, it would be well attended.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Next week is Christian Aid Week. This year, the focus of the week is on women farmers in Malawi and the challenges they are facing because of climate change and the consequent impact on the cost of living. Since 1957, Christian Aid has worked with thousands of churches and individuals including in East Renfrewshire, my constituency, which was in the top 10% of areas supporting Christian Aid Week last year. Can we have a debate in Government time on the value of the work that Christian Aid and all its volunteers do in countries across the world where there is such need and on how Government can support that need by acting to make sure that the most vulnerable in the world are properly supported?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for reminding us all about Christian Aid Week and for highlighting the many good works that the charity does with those donations. She will know that there are initiatives at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that allow tax breaks for donations, and also initiatives such as Aid Match and others that maximise and incentivise people to donate on these occasions. I thank her for reminding the House of this important week coming up.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
The Southwark-based firm, MPE, applied for specialist engineering visas in March, but has had no reply from the Home Office despite those jobs being on the Government’s skilled worker shortage list and despite costs of £15,000 to MPE. Its German office accesses equivalent visas at no cost to the company and in a fraction of the time. Will the Leader of the House use the sword that she wielded so well at the coronation to help slice through and slash the costs that her Government impose on businesses by allowing time to debate how Home Office policy harms UK competitiveness?
Penny Mordaunt
If people are paying for a service, they should actually get that service. At the risk of repeating myself, I will advertise to the hon. Gentleman the service that the Home Office is providing for Members of Parliament. If he has had any difficulty in accessing those surgeries, I shall be very happy to assist him in doing so.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I know that I upset the Leader of the House the last time I was here by bringing up her embarrassing belly flop at that daft diving contest that she was a part of, but even I was impressed by her sword-wielding at the coronation. Somebody who can carry a sword and stay mute while advertising Poundland deserves my admiration. But may I say to her that it serves absolutely no one for her to criticise a political party for hate and division, particularly when it is her Government who have brought forward that hateful Illegal Migration Bill and divided the nation with their extreme hard Brexit.
Penny Mordaunt
The manner in which the hon. Gentleman has asked his question prompts the exact response that I shall give. I am afraid that he has just provided us with a prime example of why the SNP has no credibility on these matters, why it always stokes division and why, even though there was a slight degree of humour creeping into his question, it was still rather obnoxious.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Earlier, the Leader of the House rightly commended the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and the Government’s support for it. That Bill was carried by this House on 17 March, and had its First Reading in the House of Lords on 20 March, but has made no further progress since then, giving rise, I am afraid, to concerns that it is perhaps being delayed and undermined by Tory backwoodsmen down the corridor. Through the usual channels, can she get this welcome and much anticipated Bill moving forward and becoming law?
Penny Mordaunt
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill is continuing to make progress. A lot of work has been going on in the other place on any outstanding concerns that people have. The Bill will make progress.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Thirteen-year-old Robert Hattersley drowned in the River Tyne at Ovingham while playing with his friends in July last year. Robert was a popular and much-loved young man. His parents, Carl and Stella, who live in my constituency, will hold a meeting next week to set up a foundation to raise awareness of water safety among young people to prevent other such tragedies. Will the Leader of the House join me in sending them good wishes in their campaign, and, as we approach the summer, can we have a debate, in Government time, on the importance of water safety?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure the whole House will want to send our thanks and admiration to the hon. Lady’s constituents who have, out of unbearable tragedy, done something so positive to help others. She is also right, particularly as we head towards the warmer weather, that we remind people of the importance of water safety. If she were to apply for a debate, I am sure it would be well-attended.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I did toss the coin, Mr Stephens, and you won.
Chris Stephens
Tails never fails, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Leader of the House will be aware of the rocketing food price inflation, which is squeezing living standards across these islands. That includes, I am sad to say, many workers in the food industry itself, with a recent published survey of the Bakers Food & Allied Workers Union showing that 40% of workers in the food sector are skipping meals and that one in five are using food banks. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can pay food workers fairly without price rises for consumers and rampant profiteering of some of the large supermarkets? Can she confirm whether trade union representatives of food workers will be invited to the Government’s national food summit next week?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. He will know that the next relevant questions will be on 25 May, and he may like to raise those matters there, but, given the timeliness of the event next week, I shall ask the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to get in touch with his office to answer his question about delegates.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Last, but definitely not least, I call Christine Jardine.
Christine Jardine
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I do find my concerns about gambling now reinforced.
May I add my congratulations to the Leader of the House on the manner in which she conducted her role in the coronation last weekend? I also welcome the reassurances that she gave earlier on the Government’s commitment to animal welfare. However, the lack of progress of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill has provoked a lot of concern both from my constituents and the Dogs Trust, which was here just this week. I raised the timescale that we now face and this lack of progress in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions back in February. Can the Leader of the House give us any reassurance today that the Bill will come back in time and be heard?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady knows that I will say that I will announce forthcoming business in the usual way, but I can reassure the House that the Government remain committed to those measures. They were in our manifesto and we have every intention of delivering them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Leader of the House for responding to questions for well over an hour.
I have been an MP for 31 years, and it is very rare to see such unanimity in the House of Commons. There are normally discordant voices, but none today in paying tribute to the Leader of the House for the role that she played on Saturday. I texted her straight away to say how proud I was of her. When I spoke to her, I said, “I could not even hold an umbrella up for an hour, and you held that sword for two hours.” So Penny let me know that she had been doing some exercises to make sure that she was able to do it. When I told her that I could not hold the umbrella up, she said, “Nigel, if ever you want any furniture moving, just give me a call.” Thank you very much. You did the country proud.
Ukraine
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on Russia’s attacks on civilians and critical national infrastructure in Ukraine.
We are now on day 442 of the conflict. During this period, Moscow has, according to the United Nations, provoked the largest displacement of people in Europe since world war two, including almost 8 million refugees and almost 6 million internally forced from their homes.
We must not lose sight of those staggering statistics. Worse still, Russia’s battlefield setbacks have led to its cynically targeting energy infrastructure, putting millions of people at risk of sickness and death in cold, unsanitary conditions. Take the besieged city of Bakhmut, where there are now fewer than 7,000 residents, one-tenth of the original population. For the last nine months they have been hiding in basements, without clean water, electricity or gas and with minimal connection to the outside world.
From the scale of Russian attacks, it is clear that they have not limited themselves to military targets. Their purpose is simply to terrorise the local population into submission. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn when we look at Russia’s ever-expanding charge sheet of international humanitarian law violations. As of 2 April, there have been 788 attacks on healthcare facilities—hospitals, clinics and medical centres. There have been instances of damage to educational facilities—schools, day care centres and even nurseries.
Meanwhile, Russia has plundered crops and agricultural equipment on an industrial scale, destroying grain storage and handling facilities. According to estimates from the Kyiv School of Economics, Russia stole or destroyed 4.04 million tonnes of grain and oilseeds, valued at $1.9bn, in Ukrainian territories during the 2022 season. Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s continued intransigence is contributing to the current backlog of grain exports.
Besides that, Russia has bombed industrial facilities, including the Azot chemical plant, risking toxic industrial chemical release and environmental impact. It has attacked Ukraine’s largest refinery at Kremenchuk on at least three occasions. It has bombed airfields, ports, roads and rail networks, preventing refugees from fleeing the danger. It has taken out communication networks, affecting banks, internet and cellphones, with residents in some areas now forced to barter for food. Kremlin strikes on substations, powerplants and powerlines have also impacted water treatment facilities, leaving cities such as Mariupol without water and reliant on delivery of bottled supplies.
At the same time, Russia has forcibly occupied and undermined the safe operation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe. As Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has said:
“Every single one of the IAEA’s crucial seven indispensable pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security in an armed conflict has been compromised”.
He recently warned that the situation around the plant was “potentially dangerous”.
Sadly, at least 23,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed or wounded so far, although the actual figure is likely to be substantially higher. Thousands of citizens have been sent to sinister “filtration” camps before being forcibly relocated to Russia. Some 6,000 children, ranging in ages from four months to 17 years, are now in “re-education camps” across Russia.
Both the United Nations and United States investigators have found that Russia has committed war crimes, with reported evidence of executions, torture and sexual violence in civilian areas. In early April President Zelensky said that more than 70,000 Russian war crimes had been recorded since Putin’s invasion. The names of Bucha and Izyum have become synonymous with mass murder. The world will not forget the bombing of the drama theatre in Mariupol, where 1,200 civilians sought shelter under a giant sign reading “children”. No matter how much Russia tries to hide and bulldoze over the scene, we will not forget.
Even in the territories that Russia has illegally annexed, citizens find themselves subjected to the worst excesses of totalitarianism. A Russian passport is increasingly essential to access vital services—a nightmare for those with new-born babies. Civilian infrastructure such as healthcare facilities is being seized and repurposed to treat wounded servicemen. Kill lists of civic leaders have been drawn up, citizens executed in cold blood and concerted attempts made to erase Ukrainian culture, history and identity.
We should be clear: the targeting of civilians and infrastructure essential to the civilian population of Ukraine has not happened by accident in the fog of war. Much of it was planned Russian policy. Russia has form, and we have seen its handiwork in Syria. In March, President Putin himself was indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
However, we should also be clear that, as numerous credible reports indicate, while Russia’s morally bankrupt approach might have been made in the Kremlin, it is often carried out willingly, not just by rogue units, but by the ordinary rank and file across the Russian armed forces. An even clearer picture of Russia’s barbaric approach emerges when we look at some of the weapons it is using against innocent civilians. I am not referring here to the extensive strikes against Ukraine’s electric power network from cruise and surface-to-surface missiles, the use of short-range ballistic missiles such as the Iskander, which infamously hit the train station in Kramatorsk, killing 60 and wounding more than 110, or even the two 500 kg bombs dropped by Russian fighter aircraft on that Mariupol theatre.
The fact is that Russia has used cluster munitions with wholesale disregard for human life and civilians. They have been dropped near a hospital in Vuhledar. A 9M79-series Tochka ballistic missile delivering a 9N123 cluster munition warhead killed four civilians and injured another 10, including six healthcare workers. Russia has used Smerch cluster munition rockets in three neighbourhoods in Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city, resulting in reports of nine civilian deaths and 37 injuries, according to the United Nations.
Russia also relies on massed fires. Indiscriminate artillery bombardments of built-up areas account for the vast majority of civilian casualties—injured or killed. Moscow also makes extensive use of conventional anti-personnel mines and improvised booby-traps to indiscriminately harm civilians. Dead bodies, the homes and vehicles of Ukrainian civilians and even children’s toys have been rigged up as lethal devices. Russia has laid mines remotely and mechanically, covering significant areas of farmland, with scant evidence that it has either marked minefields or warned civilians about their presence. Those minefields will leave a legacy long after the conflict ends.
Russia has used hundreds of Iranian-made Shahed drones to attack targets in Ukraine. Loitering munitions sent on numerous suicide missions have repeatedly taken their toll on civilians. Last week, those weapons struck a university campus in Odesa and civilians were once more in the crosshairs in Kyiv.
From the start I have been clear that our support for Ukraine is responsible, calibrated, co-ordinated and agile. Aligned and united with the international community, we are helping the Ukrainians to defend their homeland. Most importantly, our support is responsive to Russia’s own actions. None of this would have been necessary had Russia not invaded, but now it is about pushing back Russian forces and deterring them from committing yet more crimes, by holding the Russian military establishment to account for their actions.
In December, I wrote to Russian Defence Minister Shoigu, setting out the UK Government’s objection to the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, and stating that further attacks—contrary to international humanitarian law, for example the principle of distinction codified in articles 48, 51 and 52 of additional protocol 1 to the Geneva conventions—would force me to consider donating more capable weapons to Ukraine so that the Ukrainians may better defend themselves within their territory.
Unfortunately, Russia has continued down that dark path. This year Russia’s leadership has continued to systematically target civilians and civilian infrastructure with bombs, missiles and drones. More medical facilities were targeted in January than in the previous six months combined. Russia has bombed power facilities in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Zaporizhzhia and Odesa oblasts. Incidents of civilian casualties have increased, especially in areas close to the frontline such as Kherson and Bakhmut.
In January a block of flats in Dnipro was wiped out by a 5.5 tonne Russian “Kitchen” missile that probably caused 124 casualties, including 45 fatalities. In March, a five-storey apartment block in Zaporizhzia was attacked with an S-300 missile that completely destroyed the building. Between 27 April and 2 May, Russian forces conducted strikes against Ukraine using Kh-101 and Kh-555 long-range air-launched cruise missiles.
Despite the Kremlin’s claims that it is targeting Ukraine’s “military-industrial facilities”, one of the buildings struck was a nine-storey apartment building. The salvo left 23 dead and dozens more injured. Last week, Russian shelling struck residential buildings and on Monday Russia bombed a Red Cross warehouse full of humanitarian aid.
Drone footage from Bakhmut appears to show white phosphorus raining down on a city ablaze. The use of such incendiary weapons, which burn at 800°C, within concentrations of civilians is a contravention of protocol 3 of the convention on certain conventional weapons.
As I have said many times in the past, we simply will not stand by while Russia kills civilians. We have seen what Ukrainians can do when they have the right capabilities. In recent days, 30 Shahed drones have been shot down. The Ukrainian air force says that 23 out of 25 cruise missiles fired from sea and land have been downed. We have also had confirmation from Lieutenant General Oleschuk, the Ukrainian air force commander, that even Russia’s much-vaunted “Killjoy” air-launched hypersonic missile has been brought down. That is why the Prime Minister and I have now taken the decision to provide longer-range capabilities.
In December, I informed the House that I was developing options to respond to Russia’s continued aggression in a calibrated and determined manner. Today I can confirm that the UK is donating Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine. Storm Shadow is a long-range, conventional-only precision strike capability. It complements the long-range systems that have already been gifted, including the HIMARS and Harpoon missiles, as well as Ukraine’s own Neptune cruise missile and longer-range missiles gifted elsewhere. The donation of those weapon systems gives Ukraine the best chance to defend itself against Russia’s continued brutality, especially the deliberate targeting of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure against international law. Ukraine has a right to be able to defend itself against that.
The use of Storm Shadow will allow Ukraine to push back Russian forces based within Ukrainian sovereign territory. I am sure that the House will understand that I will not go into further detail on the capabilities, but although those weapons will give Ukraine new capability, Members should recognise that those systems are not even in the same league as the Russian AS-24 “Killjoy” hypersonic missile, Iranian Shahed one-way attack drones, or even the Kalibr cruise missile, which has a range of more than 2,000 km—roughly seven times that of a Storm Shadow missile. Russia must recognise that its actions alone have led to such systems being provided to Ukraine. It is my judgment as Defence Secretary that this is a calibrated and proportionate response to Russia’s escalations.
When travelling through Ukraine, as I have done several times since the invasion, one sees the smashed buildings and piles of rubble, where there were once thriving businesses and homes full of life. They reveal the truth of Russia’s invasion: needless destruction and gratuitous violence, and—despite warnings—Russia’s continued violations of international law and deliberate targeting and killing of civilians. They are the visible and tragic symbols of the Kremlin’s desperation.
Try as it might, the Kremlin cannot hide the fact that its invasion is already failing. The Russians can only occupy the rubble left by their destruction. All this week’s “Victory Day” parade did was showcase that historic failure. It demonstrated Putin’s efforts to twist the Soviet Union’s sacrifice against the Nazis, and was an insult to their own immortal regiment. It was the façade of power, a distraction from the faltering invasion, an appeal to unity while even Russia’s own leadership loses confidence, the hypocrisy of claiming victimhood while waging a war of their own choosing.
The reality is that this is a war of President Putin’s own choosing at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and civilian lives. The UK stands for the values of freedom, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of civilians. We will stand side by side with the Ukrainians. We will continue to support them in defence of their sovereign country. I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
We are united in our determination to help in the defence of Ukraine and of our shared values. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement—his first on Ukraine since January, and the first announcement of new weapons to Ukraine since February. We welcome the vital new military support as the Ukrainians prepare for their expected counter-offensive.
Speaking in The Hague last week, President Zelensky said:
“We are not attacking either Putin or Moscow; we are fighting on our own territory, defending our villages and towns”.
Today’s announcement of UK Storm Shadow missiles will strengthen Ukraine’s fight to repel the Russian forces and defend against the brutal attacks that the Defence Secretary laid out in detail. What limitations are put on the use of those longer-range missiles? How have they been integrated with Ukrainian planes? Will other NATO allies now follow with similar support?
As the Defence Secretary said, it was six months ago that he told the House that he was open-minded about sending longer-range missiles. Three months ago, in February, the Prime Minister said:
“The UK will be the first country to provide Ukraine with longer-range weapons.”
So, as I asked in my urgent question two weeks ago, why has this taken so long? Ukraine needs all military aid on the frontline now. President Zelensky said last night:
“Not everything has arrived yet… We are expecting armoured vehicles”.
Have all 10 types of UK armoured vehicles pledged to Ukraine now been delivered to Ukraine?
The Defence Secretary is right that, although Putin proclaimed, “Here is to our victory!” in the Victory Day parade in Moscow this week, he cannot disguise or distract from his failure in Ukraine. Despite that, Russia is far from a spent military force. The next few weeks and months will be critical.
I am really proud of British military leadership on Ukraine over the last year. I want to be able to say the same in six months’ time. We want the UK’s momentum for Ukraine to be maintained and accelerated. So when will we see the 2023 action plan for Ukraine that the Defence Secretary promised last August? Why has no equipment bought by the UK-led international fund for Ukraine been delivered to Kyiv nine months after the scheme was set up? When will Ministers designate the Wager Group as a terrorist organisation, as Labour has argued for since February with support on both sides of the House? Why are the Government still refusing UK support for a special tribunal to prosecute Putin? Who in Government is responsible for leading, integrating and co-ordinating the UK’s backing for Ukraine?
The Defence Secretary knows that the Government have had, and will continue to have, Labour’s fullest support in providing military aid to Ukraine and in reinforcing NATO allies. NATO has overhauled its defences since Putin invaded Ukraine, and the Chief of the Defence Staff yesterday welcomed new NATO regional plans. Can the Defence Secretary confirm today that the UK will fulfil, in full, our obligations in those plans?
The British public are still strongly behind Ukraine. They want the UK to continue our support, to confront Russian aggression and to pursue Putin for his war crimes. We must, and we will, stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his and his party’s support. He knows as well as anyone that we are all determined to see this through. I think that this has been an exemplary example of Parliament at its best over the 440 or 450 days of the Russian invasion. I will get straight to the point and try to answer as many of his questions as I can.
On limitations, obviously we will not talk in public about whether there are limitations. The key here is to give Ukraine that capability to defend itself. What I can say is that, throughout this process, we always make sure that we gift having first examined, minimising escalation and unnecessary provocation of the Russian state—that is not the business we are in; we are in the business of helping Ukraine to defend itself within its sovereign territory. Of course, it is easy to forget that none of this would be needed—no deep-strike capability would be needed—if Russia withdrew its forces to the other side of the border and back into Russia. Every Russian force would be safe after that. Of course, that is why we are seeking deep fire within Ukraine, for example: because Russia has invaded so far into another country.
On integration with the plane, Storm Shadow is an air-fired missile. The right hon. Gentleman is correct, of course, that it is not easy to take a British-French missile and incorporate it with a former Soviet or Russian aircraft. That is one of the reasons for the time taken: working out whether it was technically feasible. I pay tribute to our scientists and technicians, who have done an amazing job—and not just with this type of capability —as well as to other scientists across Europe who have managed to produce integration of western weapons into Russian equipment, and innovative capabilities, at speed. I often question why I cannot have that speed when I try to commission some of those capabilities domestically, so there are lessons there. That is one of the areas.
I am not sure that there are many other powers with similar weapons systems providing similar support. There is, however, a drive by many allies to deliver further deep capability. HIMARS is obviously 80 to 90 km, but another American system that was gifted a few months ago—forgive me; I cannot remember its name—has a longer range.
One of our requirements in the second round of the international fund is the ability to do deep fire—deep strike. This took a long time partly because of technical feasibility, since putting a fifth or fourth-generation weapons system on what is sometimes a second or third-generation aircraft is not easy. We will see. I am not going to comment on when we expect these to be used. They have yet to be tested, and we will find out in the next few weeks or months the extent to which that has worked, but it takes time.
As I have always reassured the House, I wanted to calibrate our response. We need to make sure that we do these things in a way that helps Ukraine further its capabilities. Gifting these earlier when we were unsure whether they would necessarily work, without any form of offensive on the horizon, may have made them vulnerable and may not have made the difference that we are all trying to achieve. All I can say is that, having technically cleared the hurdles, and as everyone talks about an expected counter-offence, now is the right time to gift these to Ukraine, and they are now going into or are in the country.
No one should doubt any of our momentum here. Yes, the media come and go and cover different aspects of the world, and Sudan comes along, but if we look at the Government’s track record—Operation Interflex, which trained 9,000 last year and will train 20,000 this year around the United Kingdom, or the gifting of tanks at the beginning of the year—we see that our momentum continues.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about what has gone into the country, I know that all our tanks have gone into the country, as well as many of our Spartans and armoured vehicles. I do not know whether every single one has, and I am happy to write to him, but the big ones such as the tanks are all in country. They have trained and exercised both here and in Ukraine, and I know that the Ukrainian forces using them so far have enjoyed them very much and talk very highly of the Challengers. That also goes for the AS 90s, which have not only been put in but used. They seem to get excellent availability on the AS 90, so there are lessons to be learned for our capability.
On the Wagner Group designation, proscribing an organisation is a matter for the Home Office, done via collective write-round. I cannot comment on when or how those things happen. We have heard the calls from both sides of the House to proscribe it. The Wagner Group is a thoroughly nasty organisation, from not only what we see in Ukraine but what we have seen in west Africa and Syria, and does pose a threat to the United Kingdom and her allies, either directly or indirectly. It is a group that needs dealing with, although Mr Prigozhin seems to be making himself deeply unpopular with the leadership in the Kremlin at the moment—if I was him, I would not stand near any open windows if I was dealing with Mr Putin. Nevertheless, Wagner is here and we have to deal with it.
On the regional plans, I am trying—they are over 3,000 pages long and are written in NATO-speak, which probably makes them the equivalent of 12,000 pages long when we try to decipher them. It is important that we try to make commitments that meet those plans and also support others if they do not have that capability, because the strength of NATO will be whether it can carry its political determination into a military plan that makes a difference and deters—that is what we are really about—Russia or any other aggressor. There are a few more weeks and months to go, but I am wading my way through the 3,000 pages, and after this statement I am heading off to the Army on Salisbury plain to discuss exactly that.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I very much welcome this statement. I recently returned from Ukraine, and there is massive appreciation for what Britain has been doing and continues to do—not just the lethal aid provided by the Government but the humanitarian support gifted from the British people. There is huge anticipation about the counter-attack that is likely to take place, but there is also a message, as I hope the Secretary of State will agree, that it may require a second, third, or fourth counter-offensive to take place. This is not going to end simply when the Ukrainians decide to push forward. We should expect Russia to go ugly and to use unconventional systems in response.
I welcome the announcement on Storm Shadow. Britain is yet again stepping forward. Are the Americans going to match with ATACMS—the army tactical missile system? There is still a request for jets to be gifted as well. Finally, Trump last night refused to say that he wanted Ukraine to win. This is a material factor, because he could win the United States election next year, and that might be what Putin is banking on.
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend’s characterisation of the counter-offensives is correct. I do not think it is a case of “One last thrust and everything will be over by Christmas.” I think this is a matter of Ukraine quite rightly finding and exploiting, as any good general would, weaknesses and opportunities. We should always manage our expectations that it will all be over by Christmas. When we have a Russian army that does not mind sacrificing hundreds of thousands of its own people, we are not up against rational leadership that recognises, as anyone else would do, that the game is up already. Having lost 10,000 armoured vehicles, and with over 250,000 of its own soldiers dead or wounded, most people would have recognised that the game is up. That is one of the big challenges.
There are other weapons systems that Ukraine has asked for, and the ATACMS is a well-documented capability. We are pretty confident that Storm Shadow will plug some of that gap and definitely deliver the deeper range that HIMARS used to achieve when it was at 80 km. The Russians, after suffering significant losses to HIMARS, obviously worked out and moved beyond range ring, so we think Storm Shadow will absolutely help the Ukrainians make that difference.
The US President today is President Biden. I have a good relationship with him, as do the Government. They have stood firm, with $87 billion of donations. They have put their money where their mouth is. A huge amount of effort has gone into their support. I lived in America for a few years, or my parents did, and I know that the decent and good people of America would recognise that their rights are just as important as those of the people of Ukraine. Their constitution upholds rights. I think that is what will unite them, and I am confident that whoever comes next as President will continue to support the battle to uphold human rights.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for this detailed statement and advance sight of it. I assure him that the SNP condemns, and will continue to condemn, Putin’s unprovoked invasion of a peaceful, democratic neighbour in the strongest possible terms.
I join the Labour party in asking once again for the UK Government to formally proscribe the Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation. Could the Secretary of State tell his colleagues in other Departments that we would like to see a plan to support Ukrainian refugees to seek damages against the Wagner Group in the UK courts? He mentioned Iran. I would add that the Government should be considering proscribing as a terrorist organisation the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
President Zelensky has said that Ukraine is constrained by delays in the delivery of armoured vehicles. What action plan do the Government have, along with their allies, to ensure that those armoured vehicles are delivered to assist in those efforts? Finally, could the Secretary of State comment on reports that India’s imports of Russian oil rose tenfold in 2022? What do the Government plan to do alongside allies to ensure that oil products originating from Russia do not reap record profits?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful for the SNP’s support on this. I think we all recognise what Ukraine is fighting for, and it appeals to our decency and the fact that we must all stand up for it. The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of a financial penalty or suing the Wagner Group in the courts is an interesting one. It reminds me, from my previous role as Security Minister, that proscription is an important tool, but it rarely unlocks any more than a brand or labelling of something. What I suspect will have a bigger impact on Wagner will be suing in the courts, given that mercenaries do not hang around if they do not get paid. Seeking damages through our amazing courts system, whether in Scotland or London, which is world-renowned for being fair and respected, has a long tentacle. I have listened to his suggestion. While I cannot advise victims of the Wagner Group, I think that hitting Wagner in the wallet will probably be a stronger method, even though I hear that proscription is also wanted.
I also listened to the call to proscribe the IRGC. Iran is absolutely supplying Russia with drones. It cannot hide it; it cannot pretend: it is supplying Russia with drones. Of course, in return, Russia is funding the Iranians and the IRGC to make those drones—it is funding that industry. That poses a wider threat to the region, whether to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Houthis or Iraq, where we see Iranian drones being used already. No good shall come of it, shall we say?
As far as delays go, one part of the assistance we provide is that we have people in Poland, Slovakia and Romania helping to co-ordinate delivery and helping the logistics of it. We stand by to help any other nation do that, and at our next meeting of colleagues—either NATO Defence Ministers or others—I will be very happy to find out who is having difficulty. We stand by, ready to help.
Some of the great work we have done in Ukraine that does not get written about is in things like logistics: flying aircraft to pick up people’s donations and bring them back to the hubs. All of those people—the members of the RAF who fly those aeroplanes—are heroes to me. We do it often and, in a sense, not secretly; it is just that the media do not seem to want to write about it, but I know about it, and I think it is really good work. We will keep the momentum—we will keep the supplies coming in—but I think we should all recognise that, as any Members who have visited the Ukrainian training will know, there is a lot of hardship still to come.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I welcome the delivery of Storm Shadow, because we must do all we can to even the odds for our Ukrainian friends who face a well-armed terrorist state. However, I am concerned that at this point, we have not managed to suffocate Putin’s war machine. Yes, we need to deliver military aid, but we also need to make sure that we suffocate the finances that allow Putin to continue to wage this war. As such, I urge my right hon. Friend to lobby the Chancellor to establish an economic Ramstein of G7 Treasury Ministers or those from allied nations who can come together and make sure that economically, we are doing what is needed to stand up the phenomenal war effort being led by my right hon. Friend and all of our allies around Europe.
Mr Wallace
That is a good idea, and I will definitely pass it on to the Chancellor. Work has already been done through the G7 with the oil cap, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that Russia needs funding—it needs to sell its oil and gas. Currently, there are reports that it sells it to China and India at huge discounts in order to get it there. The Foreign Office and the Treasury work tirelessly to close any loopholes that are brought to their attention, whether by Members or anyone else, including the law enforcement agencies. Russia has shown itself to be adept in using those loopholes, but we do see that the Russian industrial base is now struggling with the rearming of some of its equipment. So many of its subsystems seem to have come from the west that it is now definitely finding it hard to resupply itself.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The announcement about new munitions to Ukraine is very welcome, but we also need reassurance that the Secretary of State’s Department will be able to restock. Can he tell us what the Department is doing to ramp up and sustain production capacity, including supply chains, not only to support Ukraine until the end of this conflict, but to ensure we restock our own armed forces?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman consistently asks about this matter, and he is right that we have to keep restocking ourselves. Some of the restocking has started, including the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, if Members remember the very first gifting—that restocking started a few months ago—and the low and high-velocity anti-aircraft missiles. I am hoping to be able to inform the House in June that we have placed a long and enduring contract in the UK to replace our 155 mm shells. One thing that this conflict exposes is that we need those types of fires available. Restocking is important, and in the autumn the Treasury gave me £560 million for some of that refurbishment, but there was also other funding in the latest Budget, which I will of course make sure is spent on keeping our forces refurbished.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
We have led western Europe in supplying kit to the Ukrainians—ably administered by MOD Defence Equipment and Support, it should be noted—but we have not yet sent jets, despite the fact that we have a squadron of tranche 1 Typhoons sitting in a hangar and despite the fact that in Westminster Hall recently, President Zelensky very publicly called for us to do so. The Secretary of State knows from his own experience that when the long-awaited counter-attack begins, those Ukrainian brigades must have local air superiority over the battlefield to succeed, and what is left of the Ukrainian air force is far too small for it to do that on its own. As such, can I ask him specifically what we are doing, first to send jets, and secondly to encourage other western allies to send MiG-29s, F-16s or even A-10s to Ukraine? It would be a tragedy, literally, if the counter-offensive ran out of momentum because it lacked air support.
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend is right to talk about how we maintain momentum and about the need for air support because, of course, while Russia’s army has been very badly decimated, a significant part of its air force remains in a good condition. Therefore, it is vital that that air attack potential is minimised.
On particular jets, we offered the Ukrainians training on Typhoons, as my right hon. Friend will know. I recently received a letter turning that off as a request and asking us for support on the F-16, which of course we do not hold. However, I would encourage anybody to gift F-16s to help the Ukrainians. In the meantime, we already use some of our funding and support to buy spares for the likes of the MiGs and everything else, if that is required, because the other challenge this year is going to be sustainability. A lot of equipment has been gifted and huge numbers of Russian tanks have been captured. If we can refurbish and sustain them, that is the best and quickest way for Ukraine to continue its fight, so we need to keep its air force flying. On the F-16s, I am very happy to encourage any of my colleagues to donate them, and if they do, we will happily move them.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am very grateful both for advance sight of the statement and for its substance. Two days ago, the Washington Post reported that the UK
“now appears poised to send Kyiv the long-range missiles the Biden administration has long denied it.”
What is the United States Government’s position on the UK’s decision to supply that deep-strike capability?
Mr Wallace
The issue I take with Washington Post is that the US has not denied Ukraine longer-range missiles; it has put in the high mobility artillery rocket system and, indeed, some other western systems. The difference is that the army tactical missile system is a different type of munition. Storm Shadow has the capacity to hit below ground—it can go into a bunker—and the ATACMS is more of an area weapons system, so it is a different weapons system. The Americans have been clear on their donations, or not—at the moment, they are considering their donations. As far as the use, donation or gifting of Storm Shadow goes, the United States has been incredibly supportive of the United Kingdom’s decision to do so.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his very sobering statement. The sheer scale of atrocities against civilians is horrific: it is heartbreaking that over 23,000 civilians have been wounded or killed. Last month, UNICEF told us that the number of children who have been killed is over 500, and we must not forget the thousands of children who have been kidnapped by the Russian child-catchers. Given the attacks on medical facilities and the level of casualties, can my right hon. Friend update us on what medical support the UK has been giving to Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
Yes. My right hon. Friend sitting next to me, the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families, who himself is a naval surgeon, has been incredibly proactive in co-ordinating and supporting that support. He has met a number of times with the Ukrainian surgeon general, and will do so again soon. We have provided healthcare training and equipment for medical purposes, including rehabilitation, and the Department of Health and Social Care has provided support alongside that. I am very happy to write to my right hon. Friend with the details of the purely civilian medical help and assistance we have given—often, that is with things like generators, ambulances and other medical supplies.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Defence Secretary himself has said that the Conservatives have “hollowed out and underfunded” our armed forces, so why is he still pushing ahead with further cuts to the British Army of 10,000 troops and £2 billion real-terms cuts in day-to-day MOD spending, which will mean less money for forces pay, recruitment and families?
Mr Wallace
It would be good if the hon. Lady actually quoted me correctly. I did not say “the Conservatives”; I said that successive Governments, including her own party’s, have hollowed out the armed forces for the past 30 years, and that is why we need to rectify it. It is why we got £24 billion recently, and an extra £5 billion at the last Budget, not only to refurbish but to modernise our armed forces. Get the quote right next time.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Storm Shadow is a potent weapon, so I cautiously welcome the announcement today on the basis of what the Secretary of State has reported to the House. I am also reassured by the undertaking that Storm Shadow will be used only to prosecute targets inside Ukraine, because NATO’s aim has to be to eject Russia from Ukraine, not to wage war against Russia. My point is this: in the same way that Challenger 2 pre-empted the deployment of Abrams and Leopard 2, can we assume in this case that the deployment of Storm Shadow might pre-empt other medium and long-range weapons being deployed from other NATO nations? Also, can he give an answer specifically on what it will take for F-16s to be deployed?
Mr Wallace
There are other nations with similar but not exactly the same types of weapons system, and I have seen already that our next bidding round for the international fund will include deep-strike and long-range fires that we will procure through this international fund, which includes Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and so on. There is more to come from both the market and from gifting, depending on what that is. What I would say is that the assessment is that the Storm Shadow we are so far planning to gift—for operational reasons, I will not say the exact number—is currently enough to satisfy Ukrainian demand for that capability. We will keep that under review to ensure we can make the difference.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I commend him on his strong and determined leadership. He reflects what we all want him to do and he does it well, and we thank him for that. President Zelensky has stated this morning that Ukraine needs much more time to prepare to launch the highly anticipated counter-offensive against Russia, as the military still needs the western aid it has been promised. The Secretary of State has indicated some of the things that are happening. To prevent further loss of life, what immediate steps will the Foreign Office take to deliver the much-needed and announced vehicles to assist Ukraine in pushing back Russia as it intensifies its attacks in Donetsk oblast?
Mr Wallace
None of us should underestimate the political weight on the shoulders of the President of Ukraine. It is easy for us in the safety of London, behind an alliance of 30 in NATO, to forget that he will have to make a decision at some stage this year to send men and women of their armed forces across minefields towards machine-gun posts to take back their sovereign territory. There is no easy way to predict when they will do that, and the President has to balance that with an economy deliberately destroyed by Russia. I wish them well in that. We will continue to support them to the end—that is what I believe and what we stand for. We will keep supporting them. If he delays because he is waiting for the equipment, I would understand that fully. We will do everything we can to make sure that everything gifted is in the right place at the right time, so that when he makes that decision, those men and women have the best chance of survival.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and announcement. He has set out a list of atrocities that surely shames Putin and Russia. I have seen for myself in Ukraine how evilly and deviously landmines and other booby-traps are contrived to cause maximum casualties and maximum danger to civilians. Can he confirm that the UK Government will continue to support the day-to-day work of the HALO Trust and the Mines Advisory Group in the removal of these mines, because they are the imminent threat on a day-to-day basis to so many civilians?
Mr Wallace
The HALO Trust is an amazing organisation, first founded under the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, I think. That is where its pedigree comes from. Recently, I met some people who had been working for the HALO Trust in Ukraine. The conflict is ongoing now, but long after it is over, I know those organisations will be there, and the Government will do everything we can to support them, whether through the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office and other Departments.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Before 2022, the Ukrainian army uniform had not been adapted for women’s bodies. Today, women form about 23% of the army in Ukraine, with roughly 7,000 fighting on the frontline. Does he agree that the bravery of those women should be recognised? What support have the Government provided to Ukraine to ensure that female soldiers have the equipment that they need?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady makes an important point. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) did her report about women in the armed forces, one of the main recommendations for our armed forces was to make sure that we are buying equipment for women and not just for all. We have started to do that and as such our industry has become one of the leaders in that area. As a result, some of the work and gifting to Ukraine reflect exactly that, to ensure that they get something specific that makes it easier to live in those trenches and survive. I thank her for prompting me because, when I go to Salisbury plain in about 25 minutes, I will make sure we get a catch-up on the training of Ukrainian personnel and find out whether Ukraine is still getting those uniforms.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the update he has given today and for all the work he is doing, which is tremendous. I spent a very short time—just a few days—in Ukraine earlier this year, and I saw the devastation coming from the illegal invasion. He touched on Operation Interflex. Can he say any more about how that work is progressing?
Mr Wallace
I took the First Lady of Ukraine to Interflex last week. We have nearly 700 foreign troops helping, from Australia, New Zealand, most of Scandinavia and the Netherlands, alongside some 750 British troops. We trained 9,000-plus last year and are on course to do 20,000 this year. We have now expanded at the request of the Ukrainians to do not just basic training, but training non-commissioned officers. Just last week, we started platoon commanders courses. We are starting in the development of the low-level leadership that a country needs to start rebuilding its armed forces. We expect to continue to get requests. We have had another request to expand the training. We are absolutely in the middle of it. I will be having a conversation about that this afternoon and I hope to have more to announce to the House later.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for his statement and for responding to questions for more than three quarters of an hour.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act:
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
Rail Services
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Secretary of State to make his statement on transport, Mr Speaker has given a statement that he has repeatedly made it clear that the House should be told first when the Government are making any important announcements, and he is extremely disappointed that there has been extensive press coverage this morning about these developments.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is a very helpful point for you to have made on behalf of Mr Speaker. As you know, I completely agree with that. [Interruption.] I can hear some chuntering from those on the Opposition Benches, but they should understand this. Once we notified FirstGroup of my decision, there was obviously market-sensitive information that it was obligated by law to disclose to the stock exchange as soon as the markets opened this morning and that meant the decision was in the public domain. We issued a press notice, but other than that no other information has been put into the public domain and I have therefore kept all of our remarks until the House was able to be updated. But in market-sensitive cases, I know that Mr Speaker will understand that certain things have to be disclosed to the outside world and cannot wait until they are notified to the House.
I start by thanking the entire transport industry and officials across Government for their professionalism and hard work over the last weekend. Tens of thousands of people travelled to Windsor and central London for the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III and Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Getting the public around efficiently and safely took months of planning and preparation, and special thanks must go to Great Western Railway for putting on additional services as well as Network Rail and South Western Railway, which facilitated the biggest movement of military personnel by the rail industry in more than 50 years for the coronation. It meant that people from across the UK and, indeed, around the world were able to unite in celebration during what was a truly historic moment.
In my most recent oral statement to the House, I made clear the Government’s commitment to deliver a railway that works for passengers, businesses and the taxpayer. Where services are not up to scratch, we are holding operators to account, and where there are systemic weaknesses in the industry, we are pushing ahead with reform. So I wish to update the House today on our progress, starting with the future operator of the TransPennine Express contract.
Since I took office, I have been clear that First TransPennine Express’s service levels have for too long been unacceptable. Passengers, including many hon. and right hon. Members across this House, have faced significant disruption, including regular cancellations and poor levels of communication. The underlying reasons behind this vary, but what is clear is that the twin challenges of covid and industrial action have left their mark. First TPE’s driver training backlog now stretches to nearly 4,000 days, which means that, at any one time, it can only draw upon 80% of its total driver workforce. Add to that a breakdown in relations between the operator and the driver union ASLEF, all told, there simply have not been enough drivers to run the planned timetable. Inevitably, passengers have borne the brunt, facing cancellation rates of up to 23% on Monday to Friday services and gaps in services on some routes of up to six hours. That clearly is not good enough, a point I have made directly with FirstGroup, which owns First TPE, and which the Rail Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman)—has made in weekly meetings with the Rail North Partnership, where Transport for the North jointly manages First TPE’s contract with the Department for Transport.
We will always hold operators to account for matters within their control. We will give them a chance to put things right, but despite a recovery plan put in place since February, there remain significant challenges underpinned by ASLEF’s distinct lack of co-operation. To achieve the performance levels I expect, passengers deserve and the northern economy needs, it is clear that both the contract and the underlying relationships must be reset. I have therefore decided not to renew or extend First TPE’s contract when it ends on 28 May. Instead, I am exercising my operator of last resort duties and directly awarding a new TPE contract to a public sector operator that will manage it on my behalf.
As Transport Secretary, my obligation, first and foremost, is to secure passenger rail services on which TPE passengers can rely. That requires a new approach, and one that the OLR is best placed to deliver in these circumstances. Most significantly, it provides an opportunity to reset relations between management and all stakeholders—from passengers to trade unions. I have also asked my officials to review services in the north to help drive efficiency and find better ways to deliver for passengers across the region, and I will ask all interested parties, including the northern Mayors and Transport for the North, to engage with the Government on this work.
While today’s decision will be welcomed by many and while it shows a Government alive to the concerns of passengers, as my hon. Friend the Rail Minister and I have made clear, it would be misguided for anyone to think this is an instant solution. The problems First TPE faced will not disappear overnight. Any operator facing industrial action and a union co-ordinated ban on overtime working will struggle to run a reliable service. So I invite those who have long called for today’s decision, including unions, northern Mayors and colleagues across the House, to work constructively with me and the Rail Minister to fix the underlying problems and help return the service levels to where they should be. The OLR is just the next stop on the line—it is not the terminus station—and once market conditions allow, we intend to subject this and indeed all contracts, both private sector and those under the OLR, to competitive tendering.
There will be some, unfortunately, who use today’s decision to further their ideological ends, and to argue that this justifies all rail contracts being brought under public control. That would be a mistake. The majority of taxpayers do not use the railways regularly, but they could be saddled with the huge costs of nationalisation, only to inherit the industry’s problems with no plan to fix them. Nationalisation is a soundbite, not a solution, and this Government will always be guided by the evidence to help make the best decisions for passengers. That is why, earlier this year, having seen the noticeable improvements on Avanti West Coast, I resisted calls to bring the franchise into public ownership. I extended Avanti’s contract by six months—a decision vindicated, with Avanti-caused cancellation rates at the end of March falling to 1.4% from 13.2% in January, and continuing to improve, despite ongoing challenges.
Let me now turn to industrial action. For months, the Rail Minister and I have worked hard to change the tone of the dispute, and help facilitate fair and reasonable pay offers for workers. In negotiations with train operating companies, the RMT and ASLEF are refusing to even put those pay offers to a vote of their members, despite RMT members who work for Network Rail voting overwhelmingly to accept a similar deal earlier this year. Instead, the RMT has balloted for yet more industrial action and, along with ASLEF, it has cynically called strikes that will cripple the network during the Eurovision song contest this week. We are hosting Eurovision because last year’s winner, Ukraine, cannot. It will be an event attended by displaced Ukrainians who have fled Putin’s war, and the House has just been hearing about that threat, so it beggars belief that unions have chosen to disrupt such an internationally symbolic event—one that not only presents a united front against Russia’s aggression, but shows solidarity with Ukraine’s resistance. So my message on behalf of fed-up passengers is to say to the union leaders, “Call off your strikes, put the fair and reasonable pay offers to a vote and give your members a say on their future.”
With or without the unions’ support, the industry must modernise to avoid permanent decline, and we are building unstoppable momentum towards rail reform, as I set out in my Bradshaw address in February. I have announced that Derby will be the location for Great British Railways’ new headquarters, and today I can report progress against the commitment I made to extend single leg pricing to the rest of the London North Eastern Railway network. Tickets will go on sale from 14 May for travel from 11 June, and it means LNER passengers will benefit from simpler, more flexible and better-value ticketing, removing the frustration that a single ticket can cost almost as much as a return.
In conclusion, since becoming Transport Secretary, my approach has been to listen to the experts, weigh up the evidence and make decisions in the interests of the travelling public. Today’s announcements show a Government tuned in to the concerns of passengers in the north, unafraid to take tough decisions to deliver better services and relentlessly focused on modernising our railways while protecting passengers from the effects of industrial action. That is what the British people deserve, it is what we are delivering and I commend this statement to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
After years of comprehensive failure, after tens of millions in taxpayer cash has been handed to an operator so clearly not fit for purpose, after needless damage has been wrought on the northern economy and more than six months after Labour demanded it, the Tories have finally accepted that they can no longer defend the indefensible. They have seen the writing on the wall, and the only question passengers will be asking today is: what stopped the Secretary of State taking action sooner? How on earth did it take this long?
Let us just be clear about the failure that, until now, has been allowed to go on unchecked. This operator has broken records for cancellations. Almost one in five services last year did not run and fewer than half the services were on time. It has been an issue not just for the last few months, as Ministers claim, but for years. Seven years ago—well before covid—TransPennine Express had exactly the same staff shortages it suffers from today. It failed to address the issues that passengers are still experiencing. That it managed to keep this contract for so long, and to be told only months ago that it was in line for an eight-year extension, is extraordinary.
The difficult truth for the Secretary of State today is this: his decision shines an unforgiving light on the fractured railways his party is responsible for. This endless cycle of private operators having to be taken over shows the rail system is fundamentally broken. The comprehensive failure of TransPennine Express is not a bug in the system; it is a feature of it. Since the Conservatives came to office, the east coast franchise has collapsed and been taken over, Northern Rail followed, and then London and Southeastern. For the Conservatives to have nationalised one railway may be regarded as misfortune; to have nationalised four demonstrates something much more fundamental. The privatised model they have rigidly lauded in the face of all evidence is collapsing. Passengers see services get visibly, demonstrably worse while hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is handed to shareholders without the faintest hint of competition. How much longer will people be asked to rely on a system that so routinely fails?
The Secretary of State’s decision today must just be the start. He now needs to show the leadership that has been so sorely lacking: the Government must stop casting around and blaming everyone but themselves. Will he set out to the House the immediate plan to address the long-standing issues of recruitment, training and rest day working? What steps is he taking to end the industrial dispute that has now been ongoing for over a year? Can he confirm when he last held talks with the employers and the unions to bring the dispute to an end? Strike action is imminent but he still has an opportunity to avoid it. Can it really be the case that he has not met the unions and the employers for more than five months? If that is correct it is a truly shocking dereliction of duty.
The Secretary of State’s decision today must be the start of something more fundamental. He can choose to continue with this charade, to entrench the fragmentation that his proposed reforms will deliver, or he can accept that he has been wrong and bring the remaining operators into public ownership. He can end this broken system that is failing passengers, bring track and train together, speed up fare reform and deliver a simpler, unified railway.
Today’s decision makes that case more obvious than ever. Services have never been worse, and for too long the Tories’ solution has been more of the same. The entire country should not have to put up with this for a second longer. It is time for fundamental change, and it is time to deliver the rail service that Britain deserves.
Mr Harper
First, the hon. Lady’s point about the timing is straightforward. The TPE contract expires on 28 May, and I noticed this morning that the hon. Lady, in another flip-flopping of Labour’s policy, knows that the contract expiry is a sensible point at which to take decisions because that is point at which she is going to nationalise rail services—she will wait for the contracts to expire. So that is a faux complaint.
Let me turn to the hon. Lady’s more substantive points. I will set out my position on industrial action very clearly. When I took this job, I changed the tone of the debate: I met the rail union leaders and ensured that the employers were facilitated to make fair and reasonable offers. On Network Rail, a fair and reasonable offer was made of pay and reform—importantly reform, which is how these offers are being funded. That was put to the RMT members who work for Network Rail and they voted overwhelmingly to accept. Those are not my words; they are the RMT’s own words—there was a 90% turnout and 76% were in favour. Fair and reasonable offers have been made by the train operating companies, under their umbrella group, the Rail Delivery Group, to RMT members working for the train operating companies: broadly comparable offers in value, also with reform. The RMT, for reasons I really do not understand, has refused to put those offers to its members. So offers are on the table and are waiting to be put to members, and the unions will not put those offers to their members. ASLEF has an offer on the table which would take the average salary of a train driver from around £60,000 a year to £65,000. So I have been doing my job. Offers are on the table; they need to be put to the members of those unions so that they can make a decision.
The focus from the hon. Lady is not surprising, however, because the rail unions have donated a total of just over £1 million to the Labour party or Labour office holders over the last five years. The general secretary of ASLEF is chair of Labour Unions, the group of unions affiliated to the Labour party, and sits on Labour’s national executive, and the hon. Lady said that she would be working hand in glove with ASLEF. She should suggest to ASLEF that it uses this opportunity to do rest day working—[Interruption.] I have made those points to the unions, but if the hon. Lady is working hand in glove with them, she should say that and tell them to call off their strike at the weekend. She should tell them to stop focusing on damaging the Eurovision contest that we are hosting for Ukraine and work in hand in glove with them on that. If she fails to do so, people will see she is all talk and no action.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that the TPE level of service has caused absolute havoc for my constituents—I have had people struggling to get to college or to work—so I congratulate him on his leadership and on this decision. I am really glad he has taken this step, and I know my mum will be as well as she was stranded by TPE a few months ago. I understand that this is not a silver bullet: it will take time, and of course he will have my support, but can he say a little more about when he expects the service to reach the levels my constituents in Scunthorpe deserve?
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has over a long period raised these issues on behalf of her constituents, and I thank her for doing so. As I said in my statement, we are not going to see overnight change. This is an important decision to reset those relationships; how quickly we can improve services will depend on the response of others to those reset relationships and how the new management of the company uses that. I hope we will see early results, but I have been clear to the House, both when I made my previous statement on Avanti and today, that there is not a magic wand, but I hope this is an opportunity to reset those relationships and get things moving in the right direction.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Back in January I said to the rail Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), that in the prior week TPE could not point to a single day when it ran the emergency timetable promised. The improvements have been glacial and the Government have finally taken the action so many of us called for some time ago. TPE blamed anyone but itself, including workers and the unions, for the chronically poor service. The truth is it remains the worst performer and action had to be taken.
It is good to see another England-based operator nationalised; slowly but surely the UK Government are following in Scotland’s footsteps. The Secretary of State said that nationalisation is a “soundbite, not a solution”—despite it being the solution the Government have gone for. I would gently say to him that privatisation has been a bourach not a benefit.
We welcome the UK Government following the lead of the Scottish Government in nationalising an under- performing rail service and would note that this means this anti-nationalisation Tory party has now nationalised four rail services in five years. The Tories are as confused as the Leader of the Opposition, who pledged to nationalise the railways but then recently seemed to backtrack on that; it has at the very least hit signal failures.
Only 10% of people in the UK support private ownership of the railways, and even among Tory voters only 13% support privatised railways. The UK Government’s privatisation obsession is out of step with both the wider public and their own voters’ desires. Is it not time therefore for the Government to listen to the experts, the workers and the voters, and end the failed experiment of privatisation?
Disputes involving the unions and the Scottish Government were resolved very quickly, yet Scots passengers have faced disruption due to this Government’s unwillingness and inability to resolve disputes. Why does the Secretary of State think that Scotland has managed to resolve strikes so much more efficiently than this Government?
Mr Harper
I think there were two substantive questions there and I will deal with both of them, but, first, I will accept the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for my decision— I think there was a welcome there.
On industrial action, it does take two to reach a deal. From our side, fair and reasonable offers have been put on the table. They are broadly in line with the offers made to the RMT staff who work for Network Rail which, when put to the members of the union, were accepted overwhelmingly, with a 90% turnout and 76% in favour. Similar value offers with reform have been made to RMT staff working for the train operating companies and have not been put to the members. So the clear outstanding issue is not a new offer but for the offers to be put to the members of the trade unions to enable them to make a decision. There is also an offer on the table for train drivers in the ASLEF union, which has not been put to members. As I said, that would take their average salaries to £65,000 a year. I think that offer is at least worth putting to them. That is the outstanding piece of work that needs to take place. We have done our bit of that job.
The reason why the Scottish Government reached conclusions was that they caved in. They have not delivered reform, and I think they have overpaid with taxpayers’ money. There is a balance to strike in offers that are fair and reasonable to the workers in the industry and the passengers it serves, as well as to the taxpayer. That is a responsibility that I take very seriously.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I have repeatedly called out in the Chamber the appalling levels of service that my constituents at Lockerbie station have received over a long period from TransPennine Express and the failure of its management to address those issues. Therefore, I and my constituents very much welcome the decision, because they had no confidence that TransPennine would be able to turn the situation round. As the Secretary of State says, this is a reset, where all stakeholders, including those in Scotland, can come together so that passengers can have the level of service that they both need and expect. Will he expand a little on what he will be doing to ensure that that reset can produce results?
Mr Harper
Gladly. My right hon. Friend has indeed raised this issue on a number of occasions. First, my officials will be working with officials in the Scottish Government. This morning, I spoke to Kevin Stewart MSP, the Scottish Transport Minister, to explain the decision and how we will be working with the Scottish Government, looking at services currently under the operator of last resort, which cover the whole of the north of England, as well as cross-border services, which are important to my right hon. Friend. I also spoke to the elected Mayors in the North of England who cover those areas to explain the decision and confirm that we will be working closely with them on the best possible pattern of services going forward. I hope that that demonstrates the Government’s intention to use this reset moment as constructively as possible. I hope that everyone else will respond in like manner.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. It is interesting to hear the Secretary of State talk about renewal dates. In March, when the shambolic Avanti West Coast contract was renewed, 9.1% of its services were cancelled. In the same month, only 6.6% of TransPennine services were cancelled. Why is he punishing some operators for their failures and not others? Is it not time to fix the broken system once and for all and for him to put his own ideology aside and embrace Labour’s plans to bring our railways into public ownership?
Mr Harper
I think that I answered that question in my statement, if the hon. Lady was listening. When I made my statement about Avanti, I resisted calls to bring it into public ownership for very good reason: it was delivering on its recovery plan, and I said that I had confidence that it would continue to do so when I extended its contract by six months. Since I did that, its cancellation rate for cancellations it caused has fallen to 1.4% from 13.2% in January. It is continuing to improve, demonstrating that that was the correct decision and that I was right not to listen to calls from Labour to do the opposite.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The difficulties for people living in Grimsby and Cleethorpes in accessing London via Doncaster on TransPennine surely underlines, does it not, the importance of the campaign led by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) to get a new service run by London North Eastern Railway direct to London from Grimsby and Cleethorpes through Market Rasen in my constituency and Lincoln? That is a much better route. We are delighted with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) —the Secretary of State’s excellent rail Minister—who has been listening to us, but we want his boss to give him full support and get that service, not least because rural people demand a better service.
Mr Harper
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. I know that he and colleagues have met the rail Minister to talk about these services, and the rail Minister has been keeping me updated. I know that work will continue. We will of course do our best, as we always do, to try to keep my right hon. Friend happy.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware that many constituents across the country do not have access to any rail services at all. That is the case for residents in the east of Cardiff, which is why I have been a long-term campaigner for a station to be built at St Mellons. Indeed, that would also benefit the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), who is in her place on the Front Bench. However, crucial works need to be done to make that a reality, including relief lines on that line. We also need the proposed connection between Cardiff Central and Cardiff Bay, which the Secretary of State visited, to improve services there. Will he meet me to discuss how we can move those projects along and get improved rail services for my constituents?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman rightly speaks up for his constituents. I remember how, when we announced the levelling-up fund bid for the connection between Cardiff Central and Cardiff Bay, he welcomed that on behalf of his constituents and the city he represents. Either I or the rail Minister will be pleased to meet him to discuss what more we can do to deliver services. I am keen that we deliver improved rail services across the whole of the United Kingdom, and we will do what we can to help.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision. To have renewed the franchise would have been to reward failure. Over the last 18 months, the TransPennine service between Cleethorpes and Manchester could be said on a good day to be unreliable and, on a bad day, totally appalling. I very much agree with him that now is the time for the unions to step forward. Let us get round the table and reach agreement on rest-day working so that my constituents can have a proper hourly service between Cleethorpes and Manchester, which is what TransPennine should have been providing for the last 18 months.
Mr Harper
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Again, he is a colleague who has been raising these issues on a regular basis. It is important to recognise that this is an opportunity for people to respond accordingly. He referred to the opportunity for the unions to agree a new rest-day working contract. What is disappointing is the cynical way in which they behaved. ASLEF agreed that rest-day working contract and then immediately said it would take action short of a strike and withdrew any co-operation at all. I hope that they will respond to the decision in the right way. It is an opportunity to reset those relationships and do what we are all supposed to do, which is to deliver a better railway for the passengers who use it. I hope that they take that opportunity. If they do, they will find a willing partner in me.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Rail companies across the country are failing rail customers with fare hikes, cancellations and delays. Great Western Railway, whose line I use between Bath and London, is no better. Between July and October 2022, it saw an increase of 179% in delay compensation claims compared with the previous year. The Government have promised to fix the system and create Great British Railways in law. When will they?
Mr Harper
I am familiar with the GWR service as I use it frequently. There have been a number of problems on the western route, which, to be fair, are often caused not by GWR but by Network Rail. However, I accept that that inconveniences passengers just the same. That is partly why we are bringing track and train together under GBR. I will continue having that focus on performance. In fact, I am seeing Network Rail’s leadership team this afternoon, and one thing we will be talking about is its performance on the western route. I will raise the hon. Lady’s specific concerns with it.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I have spoken to the rail Minister about my concerns about the service provided by Avanti and Arriva Trains Wales on many occasions. When many services are cancelled, we are informed that it is due to staff illness or sickness and people not turning up to work. Why are there such extraordinarily high levels of sickness in the sector? What is the Secretary of State doing to work with trade unions and the bosses of the train companies to understand and deal with that?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend raises some good points on behalf of his constituents. He recently had an update by way of a written answer about services being withdrawn by Transport for Wales and some of the infrastructure issues. I hope that was helpful. On his specific question about workforce, I have made it clear that I want a thriving, successful railway with increasing patronage and revenue coming in through the farebox. I want high-quality, well-paid jobs. We will not see those things if we do not drive up patronage, and we will not see that if there is continued industrial action. I repeat what I said: let the unions put the pay deal to their members, to see what they think. The sooner we can settle these disputes and have the rail service be successful in attracting new passengers, the better for everyone—those working in it and those using it.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that the Government evaluate the evidence to do best for our railways, yet TransPennine Express is now the fourth operator in five years to have its contract cancelled for failing passengers. When will he accept that the evidence shows the only way to fix the broken system is Labour’s plan to bring our railways into public ownership?
Mr Harper
I am glad the hon. Lady talked about the evidence. She is not right that other services were brought into the operator of last resort because of failures in passenger services; it was largely because of financial issues. This is the first one to be brought into the OLR for failing to deliver appropriate passenger services. As I said, I do not take decisions for ideological reasons. I look at the evidence, and I will always be motivated by making the right decisions for passengers. That is what these services are designed to deliver, and that is what I will always put first.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement, but the operator of last resort should have been brought in months ago. As a regular user of the Avanti west coast main line, I find that services have improved but they are still really bad. How many more second chances does Avanti deserve? When will the Secretary of State say that enough is enough and take the contract away from it?
Mr Harper
I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right on Avanti. The services have improved. They are not completely where they need to be, but they are now up with the rest of the industry and they need to continue to improve. I made that clear when I extended the contract; I said that it had made progress and needed to continue that. I will have to make a decision later this year about what we do when it comes up for renewal again. That will depend, as it did last time, on its performance. I hope Avanti will continue to keep increasing its performance and demonstrating that it can deliver for passengers. That will be important when I make that decision.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Secretary of State mentioned Avanti in his statement and the improvements that it is apparently making, but my constituent Zoe contacted me to say that she has been trying to book an advance standard premium ticket from London Euston to Glasgow for weeks. She needs it for the end of this month, and although she can book her ticket to London she cannot come home again because the tickets have not been released yet. What kind of a service is that, if people cannot predict how to get home? How can that possibly build confidence in the service and get people travelling?
Mr Harper
I obviously do not know what has happened in the hon. Lady’s specific example, but if she gives the details to my hon. Friend the rail Minister, we will look into that. If we look at Avanti’s performance overall, we see that it has made considerable progress both earlier this year and since I extended the contract. As I said in answer to the previous question, I want that performance to continue to improve for constituents such as the hon. Lady’s.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Many of my constituents in south Manchester will breathe a sigh of relief that there is finally light at the end of the tunnel for trans-Pennine services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) set out so well earlier, TransPennine Express is not the only company failing passengers. The Secretary of State says that he does not think that public ownership is the answer, so what is the answer for those failing operators? When will the Government come forward with a proper plan for the fundamental reform and improvement of the operators that we need?
Mr Harper
I set out a clear plan in my George Bradshaw address earlier this year, which was published in the White Paper, on bringing together track and train in GBR so that there is a guiding mind to look at the overall structure of the industry. I announced that the headquarters of GBR will be in Derby, which was welcomed. We will continue making progress to deliver on that plan, which is the right plan to have a successful thriving rail industry both for passenger customers and, importantly, for freight customers. We will set a target later this year to move a certain amount of freight off our roads and on to our railways, which is good both for railways and for our environment.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Across the Humber we welcome today’s announcement, but many fed-up passengers will say, “After years of terrible service, why has it taken so long?” Could the Secretary of State confirm that it will mean that TPE’s penny pinching and mismanagement of our beautiful Victorian Paragon station in Hull, and the five-year saga of the substandard toilets it installed, will be over? Will the Secretary of State agree to meet Humber MPs and businesses to discuss the rail electrification that is still missing from the integrated rail review, and projects such as the reinstallation of the line between Hull and York?
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for welcoming today’s decision. It is a moment to reset relationships to improve services for her constituents. On the specific question of the toilets at the station, I do not have the details to hand, but on that and her specific request to meet MPs from the Humber area, I will make sure that the rail Minister responds accordingly and sets up that meeting, at which she can discuss that issue and other colleagues can discuss appropriate issues for their areas.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Privatisation has led to the break-up of not just track and train but infrastructure, such as at Luton station. I am thankful that the rail Minister visited and has seen it for himself. He knows that I am very passionate about standing up for my constituents, and we will soon get our lifts installed. The leaks in the roof have impacted a small local business —the café—and commuters cannot get their cup of tea in the morning. Despite that, the small business moved back in, with the leaking roof, in order to survive. Will the Secretary of State please press upon Network Rail to at least fix the leaks in the roof at the station, if nothing else?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend the rail Minister visited that station and that very café. As the hon. Lady knows, we are keen to make sure that we fix the roof while the sun is shining. I will talk to the rail Minister and see if we can make progress to ensure that the station is in an appropriate state for her and her constituents.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
My constituents in Yorkshire are brassed off with the fact that public transport is so badly damaged that it is not unavailable. There are 20,000-odd people in my area with no access to a private car, but only 3,000 use public transport. That is because the Government have an ideological drive to privatisation, even though every time those private companies get into trouble the state comes in to support them. It is also because the Government have a pathological hatred of the trade unions. Is it not time that the Government stood aside and made way for a different, better system that serves the public rather than the interests of a particular ideological group in the Tory party?
Mr Harper
That question is so far removed from reality I do not know where to start. On the first point, the response to what has happened is that the contract has not been extended. The service has been taken into the operator of last resort because I think it is necessary to reset those relationships.
The hon. Gentleman’s second point about trade unions is fundamentally wrong. When I took this job I decided that it was important to change the tone of the debate. I met all the rail union leaders. I have a perfectly constructive relationship with them. I facilitated fair and reasonable pay offers, which settled the dispute on Network Rail and which was overwhelmingly accepted by members of the RMT. There are fair and reasonable offers on the table for RMT workers working for the train operating companies and the train drivers. All I hope is that those offers get put to the members of the trade unions—those whom the general secretaries are supposed to work for—to allow them to make a decision on what I believe are fair and reasonable pay offers.
Point of Order
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on how I and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) might go about securing a response from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) to correspondence we jointly sent to her over 10 weeks ago.
My hon. Friend and I are seeking an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss plans by Thames Water to abstract water from the River Thames near Teddington and Ham in our constituencies, and to replace it with treated effluent. As you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, thousands of our constituents have voiced their concern about the scheme and are eager to hear the position of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has a pivotal role in Thames Water’s plans progressing. Having already chased the Minister’s private office, how can my hon. Friend and I secure a response to our letter?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice to the Chair of this point of order about the unsatisfactory state of affairs that she has described. Letters from hon. Members to Ministers should be dealt with promptly. The hon. Member has put her and her hon. Friend’s concerns on the record, and they will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench. I trust that this will lead to a satisfactory conclusion in the very near future, but if it does not, there are a number of avenues open to her. She can table questions and, potentially, she can also seek an Adjournment debate. The Table Office will be able to advise her on how to go about that.
Backbench Business
Overseas Territories
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before we start, in order to accommodate this debate and the subsequent debate, I am placing a five-minute limit on speeches after the Front Benchers have spoken.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House is committed to upholding the interests of British Overseas Territories and their citizens; recognises the special historical, cultural, and social bonds that bind the United Kingdom and Overseas Territories; and calls upon the Government to ensure that British Overseas Territories citizens’ rights as British citizens are upheld, to defend the sovereignty and borders of Overseas Territories from foreign powers, and to consider the unique circumstances of each Territory when formulating policies which affect them.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Turks and Caicos Islands. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on the day of the Joint Ministerial Council, the annual summit of British overseas territories here in London. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who is a great friend of the overseas territories and whose application for this debate I inherited, and all those who have come to the Chamber today to speak about the great British overseas territories.
I invite the whole House to join me in welcoming representatives, civil servants and elected representatives from seven overseas territories, who have come to the House today to observe the debate from the Public Gallery. It is a joy to have them with us.
Over the last week, we have witnessed our global British family at its very best. The coronation of His Majesty the King was a special moment, and to see the leaders of British overseas territories at the coronation, representing their communities with great pride, was a historic moment. While Westminster Abbey may be only a short distance from this place, it is a mighty long way away for someone who has come from Tristan da Cunha or the Pitcairn Islands. The long voyages undertaken by the leaders of every overseas territory demonstrate the bonds that unite our global family.
As I mentioned, the JMC, where the leaders of overseas territories come together, is taking place today. Last year, the JMC was cancelled at extremely short notice, when some leaders had already begun their journey to London, because that journey can take over two weeks for some of them, so I am keen that today’s JMC is a particular success.
British overseas territories span Europe, the Caribbean, the Pacific and the Atlantic. They vary in size, population, culture, climate, food, tradition, challenges and opportunities. The British global family is diverse and requires policy that recognises this diversity. That is what we will debate today. I hope the Government will adopt an ethos that recognises the unique circumstances of each territory and that makes sure they feel heard, valued and supported.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the bedrock of the 16 British overseas territories is the concept of the right of self-determination, and yet in the case of the British Indian Ocean Territory, this Government are ignoring the views of the Chagossian people and negotiating directly with a third-party country, Mauritius, against the interests of the indigenous people?
Alicia Kearns
I am sure a number of colleagues plan to talk about that in their speeches, so I will make progress with my own points so that colleagues will not have their speeches cut short.
Our debate today is one not of a paternalistic House of Commons, but of a body of representatives that recognises that within families there are responsibilities but also great opportunities. Today, I will set out specific requests but also commonalities that need to be raised within our family. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend, it is worth reiterating that all British overseas territories enjoy the right to self-determination, as set out in article 1 of the UN charter. They decide their own Government and their own constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom. The fact that they have decided to maintain a constitutional link with us does not diminish this most sacred of rights. I am sure the whole House will join me in reiterating our wholehearted and unwavering commitment to defending that principle, in spirt and in law.
While we believe that there is no question or debate over the right to self-determination, some members of our family face those seeking to undermine that fundamental right. At the G20 talks in March this year, Argentina unilaterally ended the 2016 pact on the Falkland Islands. That was wrong. The Government must continue to reject any demands from Argentina to revisit the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands. We must be clear that the right to determine the future of the Falkland Islands is the sole prerogative of its islanders. In 2013, 99.8% of all Falklanders who voted chose to remain British. There is no debate over the right to self-determination.
I draw the House’s attention to another area where the Falklanders require our support. Under the United Nations Committee of 24, the Falkland Islands is currently classified as a non-self-governing territory, but we know that is factually incorrect, both under the first Falklands constitution, signed in 1985, and under the new constitution, signed into law by Her Majesty the Queen in 2009. The Falkland Islands is self-governing but willing to refer its foreign and defence policy to the United Kingdom. The Government should help the Falklands to correct that misclassification, so that the Falkland Islands will be recognised at the UN as the proud, self-governing territory that it is.
On the subject of sovereignty, I turn to Gibraltar and its right to remain a UK overseas territory. Under the double lock guarantee, the UK has given a solemn assurance that it will never enter into any negotiation on Gibraltar’s sovereignty in which Gibraltar is not content. The post-Brexit negotiations are not yet concluded and we must ensure they are guided by the double lock principle. I am sure the House would condemn any future compromise on that. If, for whatever reason, Gibraltar is left with no negotiated outcome, I would urge the Government to provide the support needed to deal with any economic uncertainty and ensure the continued success of the Rock.
While overseas territories choose to remain part of our global family, that does not mean we should blindly accept the status quo. We should challenge ourselves to provide the best possible support for their individual hopes and needs, and try to support them to achieve those. We should embed engagement across Government directly with overseas territories, rather than relying on all manner of priorities to be dealt with through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as some sort of arbiter.
There is widespread frustration about just how difficult it is to engage in even basic dialogue with Government Departments. Surely, given our belief in self-determination, it is only right that overseas territories make their own case to Government Departments, rather than relying on the Foreign Office to act as messenger. They make their own case best when their voices are heard. That will also help to tackle any lingering belief in paternalistic governance.
The Foreign Affairs Committee made that recommendation in 2019, because neither the territories nor their citizens are foreign. Therefore, it is fundamentally at odds to have them supported through the Foreign Office. I urge the Government to drastically change how OTs are treated. That starts with beefing up the powers of the overseas territories directorate so that it is not seen as some sort of backwater—I apologise to civil servants observing the Chamber today—and ensuring it has the powers that are needed and that Ministers give it sufficient focus. I also urge the Minister to have all Government Departments update their strategies on the OTs, because not one of them is less than a decade old. That cannot be right; we need to update the individual strategies.
The UK’s relationship with OTs is characterised by obligations and opportunities on both sides. We face problems, including in protecting our oceans. The British maritime estate is the fifth largest in the world. It offers sanctuary to a plethora of wildlife from the south Atlantic to the Indian and Pacific oceans. Some 94% of unique British wildlife can be found in the territories, from breeding turtles in Ascension, coral reefs in Pitcairn and great whales in the Falklands to the many species that call the tropical forests of St Helena and Montserrat home. In addition, I encourage all wildlife lovers to make sure they follow the long-awaited hatching of osprey eggs in Rutland, which is expected in the coming days.
Britain plays a leading role in global conservation, thanks to the partnership of our territories and two key initiatives: the Blue Belt and Darwin Plus programmes. Without our global family, this would not be the case. It is safe to say that our overseas territory communities contribute more to protecting the ocean, per head of population, than anywhere else on earth, so we should be grateful for their contribution as part of the global British family.
Environmental initiatives demonstrate the power of partnership, but there are other areas in which the UK can do more as a partner. One such area is education. All overseas territory citizens are British citizens, yet they were finally granted access to tuition loans when studying in the UK only in 2022. The process for applying for a tuition loan remains far too complicated for those from OTs, not least because they have to send in their applications by post, which may be convenient for people who live in Rutland or lovely Melton Mowbray, of pork pie fame, but is slightly more difficult for those who live in St Helena, which is nearly 5,000 miles from the UK.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Lady not think it is a great shame that the newly established University of Gibraltar is not entitled to accept British students on home fees or to access the UCAS system? It works one way but it is not reciprocal, and that needs to change if we are a true family.
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We may not always agree, but on that we absolutely do. I am sure that if Mr Speaker was in the Chair, he would be entirely in support of the hon. Gentleman’s point, because he is the Chancellor of the University of Gibraltar —I am sure he will reward the hon. Gentleman later this afternoon.
Education is key, and another issue is that should OT citizens come here to study, they cannot access maintenance loans to support them. University life is already too expensive and we can better support those who come to the UK. It is a matter of fairness.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Does that not demonstrate the importance of Government Departments taking the overseas territories really seriously in terms of the policies they develop and their implementation, and why it is so important that the overseas territories have a strong voice in each Department?
Alicia Kearns
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, who was of course formerly the Minister with responsibility for the overseas territories. I know that during her tenure, the overseas territories felt incredibly respected and, crucially, heard. They do not want to be listened to; they want to be heard. I thank my right hon. Friend for all she did in her time in that role.
Although it is difficult to finance university life, funding a Government is more so. As a leading global economy, the UK can borrow money at beneficial rates, but this option is not available to our overseas territories. During the pandemic, we allowed Gibraltar to borrow £500 million under a sovereign guarantee, thereby protecting the Rock’s economy at a time of economic instability. When we can, we should use our economic clout to support our overseas territories to develop sustainably, to grow their opportunity and prosperity, and to invest in infrastructure. This will also help to avoid the debt traps faced by many developing economies and the interference of loan sharks such as the Chinese Communist party. I therefore hope that the Government will consider the expansion of sovereign rate loans to more overseas territories.
Although direct funding is important, I wish to make it clear that most overseas territories are financially independent and economically self-sufficient, and proud of that, but they do rely on us to represent them globally and make their case. There are of course caveats to this relationship, and I believe that the UK was right to sign up to the EU code of conduct on business taxation in 2013. The code was designed to ensure that companies could not avoid taxation. However, our departure from the EU has left many OTs feeling that they are governed by a code they can no longer influence, so I urge the Minister to consider engaging with them directly on that matter.
A commitment was given to implement public registers of beneficial ownership by 2023; will the Minister update us on that? The issue is important because registers provide greater public access to information about beneficial ownership, improve private sector compliance with sanctions, and can help to pre-empt sanctions evasion and improve transparency in respect of designated individuals. In the Cayman Islands, for example, the central register has a 24-hour response time to information requests from law enforcement, and $8.8 billion dollars of Russian assets were frozen following the illegal renewed invasion of Ukraine. We know how important such information is to support sanctions against not just Russia but all terrorist and autocratic actors.
I wish to highlight accessibility as a common issue that requires urgent attention. Many overseas territories are extremely remote. I recently met the Chief Islander of Tristan da Cunha and understand that the Foreign Office is undertaking a review of the possibility of subsidising a boat for the Tristan Government. Currently, a boat visits the island just 10 times a year from Cape Town. It would not be an expensive measure and would massively help islanders, particularly during health emergencies. My heart goes out to the individual who recently lost their life after a stroke, and who was unable to be removed from the island in time to receive the healthcare that would have saved their life. That is unacceptable, as too are the quotas for how many residents from each OT can receive NHS treatment.
A Tristan-owned vessel would also allow eco-tourism to continue and develop more tourism revenue over time to pay for its upkeep. Tourism is key to our overseas territories in the Caribbean. However, if the industry is to continue to thrive, investment in airports and portage is needed. The Turks and Caicos Islands have an airport business development plan ready, but it is sat waiting for UK sign-off. Equally, Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands are seeking support with the expansion and improvement of their airports. We must support, not hinder, such projects across the territories. More than that, I encourage the Government to see OT-led infra- structure projects as an opportunity for British investment and British businesses. It is not enough for us to think of action on the OTs only when they are in trouble; we should be enabling prosperity and growth. No one is asking for a handout; they are asking for a hand-up. Let us ensure accessibility, be it by sea or by air.
In today’s day and age, accessibility is particularly key online. I urge the Minister to reconsider the decision to close down the digital support team for overseas territories. I was shocked to find out that it had been closed without MPs having been made aware. It is vital that we help OTs to digitise the services that they provide to their citizens.
Before I wrap up, I wish briefly to touch on the situation in Haiti, because it is severely impacting on Turks and Caicos. Haiti is a humanitarian catastrophe and a state on the brink of failure. There is not one democratically elected representative; cholera is rife; and political and economic corruption supported by more than 200 armed gangs that use Haiti as a drugs and firearms haven is suffocating everyday life for individuals there. The result is tens of thousands of Haitians fleeing across dangerous stretches of water, which often leads them to Turks and Caicos, which cannot cope. We urgently need to work with the Caribbean Community, the Organisation of American States and France to restore security and stability.
We should also provide TCI with radar surveillance assistance, because that is exactly what the US has done for the Bahamas, and co-ordinate a stronger naval presence in the region. Last year, we saw a leaked diplomatic telegram from the then governor of TCI, who made it clear that the UK had delayed in providing important security support to overseas territories, and particularly to Turks and Caicos when it was suffering the highest murder rate in the world because of drug lords transiting through the country. Then, we were too slow. It took a threat to remove Turks and Caicos from our global family for the Government to take action. When we took action, it was incredibly effective, and those responsible for the vast majority of murders are now behind bars and awaiting justice. Now that our family are asking for help once more, let us make sure that we are not found wanting.
I wish briefly to mention a call for all overseas territories to fully support their LGBTQ+ communities. We need to legalise same-sex marriage and we need the UK Government to do more than simply support it in principle. In families there are arguments and disputes—not least across the Christmas table—but we know that we can talk to our friends and family more honestly than we can talk to any other, so it is crucial that we have the conversation.
I started by saying that we are blessed to be part of a truly global family. I pay tribute to the Speaker and to the Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), for all they have done to raise the voice of our overseas territories in this place. Together, we represent the best of global Britain. Our partnerships are ensuring the survival of the world’s rarest creatures and protecting millions of miles of oceans; we act as a beacon of stability in a rapidly changing world; and our bonds of history and friendship remain steadfast, as seen at the coronation of His Majesty the King. Therefore, it is in the tradition of this friendship and in a spirit of optimism for the future of British overseas territories that I commend the motion to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The Opposition and Government Front Benchers and the SNP spokesman will wind up at the end of the debate, so we now move to a five-minute limit on speeches.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend almost everything that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) just said. I shall focus on a number of areas, one of which is the UN committee that looks at the decolonisation of territories. Currently, all our overseas territories are listed as non-self-governing territories; in fact, we hold most of the non-self-governing territories on that list. There are four ways to be removed from that list and becoming normalised in international relations.
I recently visited Gibraltar, where the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has just launched an inquiry on the current status of the overseas territories. One of the deputy premier’s top priorities for Gibraltar was to be removed from that list. I had similar conversations in the Falkland Islands, where there is the same determined wish to be removed from it.
There are only four ways to be removed from the list. The first three are to become a sovereign state, to gain free association—a number of states have done so with New Zealand—or to be fully integrated into Britain. We should remind ourselves that that is the model that Malta voted for and asked for and that this place blocked it, which I think was wrong. I believe it must now be stated very clearly that that is always an option for any territory. I should love to hear the Minister say that, if a territory wants to be integrated—that is, to be able to send MPs to this place—it will be welcome to do so.
There is also the possibility of a bespoke option. The problem is that the UN committee consists of China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, Syria and Venezuela. While the first three options involve “yes or no” questions, the fourth requires a vote in the committee, and there is clearly no chance—no hope in this world—that its members are ever going to vote for a bespoke option for a British overseas territory. We must therefore find a clever solution that fulfils the aim of one of the other three—a solution that involves a binary choice, does not require a vote in the committee and involves a “yes or no” question—to allow those territories to be normalised in international law.
That is important to the overseas territories because it gives them access to certain elements of the United Nations, and allows them to stand proud on the international stage However, it also requires Britain to make it clear that these territories are self-governing and that they decide their future. I was pleased to hear what was said earlier about the British Indian Ocean Territory. We must make it clear that people who were displaced through no fault of their own should have the right to engage in discussions about the sovereignty of the piece of land concerned. We should, of course, also offer a decent remuneration package, whatever the outcome. Earlier Governments, both those led by my party and those led by the Conservatives, have been on the wrong side of history in this regard, and we must make amends.
Currently, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories are treated differently by different Departments, namely the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I do not think that that is right today. In my view, we should have a Department that looks after the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies, with a Secretary of State. That might sound like a big ask, but we have Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, although those nations and regions of the United Kingdom effectively govern themselves and perform their own tasks. The Secretaries of State are there to ensure that the wheels are oiled in their negotiations and deliberations with the British Government. I believe that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies deserve nothing less and that is what we should offer them.
It seems wrong to me, in this modern world, that when we are negotiating international treaties there is no representation for the OTs. Britain intervened on Bermuda to stop its laws on the declassification of cannabis. I think it was right for it to do that. It was wrong for Britain to intervene on the basis of international treaties on which Bermuda had had no say in this place. I hope that we can resolve that issue as well.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing the debate and on covering so many topics. I should also declare an interest, as chair of the St Helena all-party parliamentary group.
Dotted across the globe, in some of the most remote and hard-to-reach locations, are our overseas territories. They are some of the most beautiful places in the world, but they are not just beautiful. They lie in strategically important locations, giving the UK a global footprint, but above all, they are part of the British family. That is something that the Government must always remember, respect and reflect in our support for them.
I had the privilege of being the Minister responsible for the overseas territories last year, and I want to turn back the clock to the autumn of 2021. Countries across the world were still in lockdown, facing travel restrictions and grappling with how to deal with covid, and the overseas territories were no different. However, when I hosted the Joint Ministerial Council in November 2021, there was a universal “thank you” to the British Government for the supply of vaccines to every overseas territory in the world—and that was no mean feat. As I have said, these are some of the most remote locations in the world. Getting supplies to them is difficult at the best of times, let alone at a time when travel was even more difficult, but the FCDO team did a remarkable job in facilitating that supply, and I want to place my thanks to them on record. I will never forget being at the airport in the Cayman Islands when the British Airways flight landed in early 2022 with booster vaccines on board. That was a very good example of our support for the British family.
I am sure that many Members will join me in welcoming the new OT strategy, and I should be interested to learn from the Minister this afternoon what plans there are for its development and publication. This seems to me to be an ideal week for the voices of the overseas territories to be heard in the development of the strategy, given that the JMC will meet today and tomorrow and a conference was held here yesterday. An important suggestion made yesterday was that the strategy should be developed collaboratively between the Government and the territories themselves.
I should like the FCDO to address the way in which we work across Government on matters relating to the overseas territories. When I was a Minister, I often found myself convening and cajoling Departments in relation to such matters. I was pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary recently confirmed that each Department does have a Minister dedicated to the overseas territories, but that cannot be seen to be a token gesture. Those Ministers must take their responsibilities for the OTs seriously.
I am conscious of the time, but I want to touch on the question of how Departments can help the OTs to become more resilient. Resilience has been the watchword of the last few years and that is no less true today. All Departments should give more support to the overseas territories to help them prepare for unexpected shocks, be they a global health crisis, global inflation, or the risks of climate change. We have all seen global energy prices increase, and the overseas territories are particularly vulnerable in that regard. I know that there is a real enthusiasm and desire to transition to renewables, so I should be interested to hear from the Minister what further support can be given to the OTs in achieving that.
Climate change could be a debate in itself, and we had a panel session devoted to it at yesterday’s conference, but I want to make a point about the Caribbean Islands and their vulnerability to hurricanes. I should like to hear from the Minister what preparations have been made with the Ministry of Defence to prepare for the hurricane season. Hurricane Irma was devastating for many Caribbean OTs, and we are still rebuilding critical infrastructure today, as I saw at first hand in Anguilla last year. We have already heard today about the importance of infrastructure and connectivity. There is no limit to the overseas territories’ aspirations and ambitions, but they are often hampered by poor infrastructure.
Alicia Kearns
My right hon. Friend has referred to Anguilla. I failed to mention this earlier, but 80% of its water is lost because the infrastructure is so old. Surely it should be a priority for the Government to ensure that the water infrastructure is rebuilt to prevent the appalling amount that is lost while water is being transported around the islands.
Amanda Milling
That is a very good example of the need for us to provide infrastructure support. My hon. Friend talked about ports and airports—about transport as well as digital connectivity. Many are seeking support, whether they are directly funded and supported by the UK or looking to attract investment and, in some cases, capacity building and technical expertise. Unfortunately, I cannot possibly cover every single project this afternoon, or every subject that we might want to discuss—although as I say, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton did a sterling job of covering so many.
I want to wrap up by making one point, and this is where I started. The overseas territories are part of the British family and we need to redouble our efforts to strengthen our relationship.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Given the responsibilities the UK holds for the inhabited territories, it is important that we take the time to recognise the close relationships we have with them. The ever-evolving geopolitical landscape will naturally influence our relationships with the overseas territories, so the Government’s approach to them must evolve, too. It cannot remain static.
Much like Scotland in the 2016 EU referendum, Gibraltar overwhelmingly opposed leaving the EU, with nearly 96% of voters casting their vote for remain. We all know the complications that have arisen for UK citizens resident in Gibraltar as a result. Gibraltar is also very patriotic. The people want to remain a part of the UK and we saw that in 2002 when a referendum on joint British-Spanish sovereignty was held. Despite their great affection for the Spanish, the people of Gibraltar are often described as “more British than the British”. That sentiment of wishing to remain one of the British overseas territories should be respected and protected. To do that, the UK Government need to ensure that they strengthen that relationship, provide a voice for Gibraltarians and fight their corner. For example, the UK Government could support the case for Gibraltar’s inclusion in the UK healthcare procurement model, which would allow Gibraltar to buy medication at the same price as the NHS. To once again draw a comparison between Gibraltar and Scotland, there is a wish for the UK Government to replace grant funding lost as a result of our withdrawal from the European Union. Post-Brexit negotiations continue and issues with the border are significant. Thousands cross it daily and, to allow the economy in Gibraltar to thrive, those crossings need to be as painless and easy as possible. I hope that that is something ongoing talks can achieve.
Another territory that has seen its sovereignty challenged, of course, is the Falkland Islands. Although the Falklands were once at the very forefront of parliamentarians’ minds—thinking particularly back to the ’80s—they are perhaps a little overlooked in recent times. The Falkland Islands Government held a referendum on their status as a British overseas territory more than a decade later than Gibraltar, in 2013, with a 92% turnout. More than 99% of voters were in favour of remaining an OT. It is important to remember that the result came at a time when the Falklands were growing from reliance on the UK to becoming more of a partner to it. As the geographical region within which the islands sit becomes more important, the Government should recognise the benefits of a British presence there.
Argentina recently rowed back on the 2016 communiqué and called on the UK Government to renegotiate the islands’ sovereignty against the wishes of the vast majority of islanders. Islanders know that they cannot take the right to self-determination for granted in the face of that. That is incredibly sad. Without that right, so much of the wonderful progress that they have made in developing their society would not have happened.
Finally, I want to touch on Bermuda, where the people voted to remain an overseas territory in 1995. Polling earlier this year showed that 80% of residents continue to oppose independence. I am sure I am not alone in recognising that we should not take the allegiance of this, the oldest British overseas territory, lightly. In fact, we should continue to support and uplift that beautiful island nation. For example, Bermuda’s economy continues to enjoy growth in the international business sector, with that industry providing 4,642 jobs in 2022. As one of Bermuda’s key trading partners, it is imperative that we play our part in supporting the nation as it takes steps to further strengthen its position as a hotspot for international business.
In closing, it is important to reflect on and celebrate those important relationships with the overseas territories and the progress that both they and we have made, as well as to encourage continued close working in the future. Although many of those countries cherish their status as overseas territories, the ties are maintained through consent. The Government must ensure that the British overseas territories are not merely an afterthought —an extra appendage to the UK—but recognised as partners. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out how the Government intend to do just that.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am privileged to be called so early in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for picking up the baton of the debate. I refer members to my registration of interests.
As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the British overseas territories, as well as the chair of a number of individual overseas territory groups, my personal interest in the subject goes back a long way. I am perhaps one of the few members to have served in Cyprus, in Gibraltar, the Falklands, Ascension, South Georgia and Diego Garcia. I am very lucky to have done so.
The overseas territories are a vital part of our UK family. They are strategically essential in terms of footprint basing and geography, but they are also essential to the projection of UK soft power around the world. They have a common language and culture, they have similar hopes and aspirations and we must not underestimate or take for granted their value to the UK. If I have to make one point today, and one point only, it is that our overseas territories need more love. In this era of global competition, the hunt for resources and strategic basing, and instability across the world, our foes are circling and we need to cement what we have as a nation.
To admire the problem, if I may, for a moment, Brexit was not kind to the overseas territories. What we must do now is lock the overseas territories into free trade deals with us and all our partners and think more broadly, to the Commonwealth. How fantastic would it be for global Britain to have such a network of trade arrangements, particularly with the Commonwealth? Just think of what that might be worth to the UK. Think of the potential. The 2019 UK White Paper has gone nowhere, so where is it, please, Minister?
Of course any work that we do—I welcome the point about the new strategy—has to be done with the overseas territories, not for them. Last year’s ill-fated Joint Ministerial Council has at least been put to bed now, with an excellent session this week. Of course, the Minister is in the Chamber today, which is entirely appropriate, but ministerial visits need to be a lot longer. Does it need a Minister in the House of Commons? Perhaps.
We need to station civil servants in the overseas territories for longer too, and delegations from the overseas territories to the UK visiting the FCDO need more than 30 minutes at a time. We must roll out the red carpet for these very important people and listen to their concerns. We also need a clear and regular bilateral dialogue to fix specific issues because, of course, the OTs are very different. One size does not fit all.
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend and I recently visited the Falkland Islands together to celebrate the 40th anniversary of their liberation from Argentina. We were told at the time of our visit that we needed to do more to support the Falkland Islands in their negotiations with the European Union over tariffs on their squid exports to the EU. Does he agree that we need to be more robust and supportive of the overseas territories when they are negotiating with the European Union?
James Sunderland
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I need to be careful about what I say, for obvious reasons, but I entirely agree that that needs to be the case. For example, the Falklands are suffering from tariffs on fish right now. We need to do that very quickly indeed. Why not also create a specific department in the FCDO for the overseas territories and the Commonwealth? We could have longer JMCs, perhaps, and a new strategy. There is lots that we need to do.
What about the specifics? I cannot hope in five minutes to cover the totality of the subject, but we need a new trade arrangement with the overseas territories to reflect the changes in the arrangements with the European Union and with other countries. The British Virgin Islands, in particular, wants its prescriptive court order lifted. It has a new Government and a superb new Prime Minister, so it is time for the BVI to fulfil its potential and move forward.
Tristan da Cunha needs a boat, as we heard, for obvious strategic and medical reasons. And we cannot concede sovereignty of the Chagos islands until we fully factor in the Chagossians. The archipelago is also militarily important. South Georgia’s fisheries could be brought under the governance of the Falkland islands.
The residents of all the OTs must benefit from their potential, and all the overseas territories need support on infrastructure, utilities and climate change. The UK’s relationship with the overseas territories has recently been referred to as “benign neglect”. I do not subscribe to that powerful phrase, but it is a wake-up call for us in this place. We need to do more to cement our relationship with the overseas territories. They should not be seen as somehow subordinate to the UK. They simply want to be partners, and self-determination must therefore be perceived as well as real.
One size does not fit all, and this must be reflected with each overseas territory being given more red carpet and more bilateral arrangements. The OTs are very special, and they are very proud to carry the UK flag. The UK must therefore seek to get more from them while offering more back, as true partners for mutual benefit. Nothing is broken, far from it. This is a fantastic opportunity that the UK and its partners in the overseas territories must embrace.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I had the great privilege and honour of visiting the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2019 when, at the invitation of the Foreign Office, we had the opportunity to inspect the extraordinary naval facilities that we share with the Americans on those islands. The right of self-determination is a bedrock of all the British overseas territories, yet, in the case of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the right of self-determination is being trashed and completely ignored by this Government.
I rise to express my dissatisfaction with this Government and their handling of the situation. The Chagossians, those beautiful people, were expelled from their islands in 1968 to make way for an American military base, and they were treated appallingly by Mauritius. Some Chagossians came to the United Kingdom and some went to the Seychelles, but others went to Mauritius, and the Mauritians treated them as second-class citizens. Mauritius spent the money it was given to look after them on other things.
The Chagos islands are 2,000 km from Mauritius and have never been part of that country. When we gave Mauritius her independence in 1965, it was made abundantly clear that these islands were to be portioned off and would remain under British control. Moreover, we gave Mauritius more than £3 million of British taxpayers’ money as final settlement for the islands. Think for a moment just how much £3 million was worth in 1965, yet now, more than 50 years on, Mauritius is determined to overturn this agreement and seize the islands from Britain. We have lost rulings on this issue in the International Court of Justice, where Mauritius has taken us for arbitration. The right of self-determination should be at the forefront of our conduct. The negotiations with Mauritius must stop, and the Chagossians, of whom there are about 4,000, must be allowed to return. There must be a referendum of the Chagossians in the British Indian Ocean Territory on whether they want independence or to remain British. I know from all my conversations with the Chagossians that they are proud Brits, and they want to remain part of the British family.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The total territory of the Chagos islands is 10 times the landmass of Gibraltar, which we also use as a naval and military base. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a thriving community could be created in those islands alongside and supporting the military? The binary option being pushed by the Government is detrimental to all sides.
Daniel Kawczynski
I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. The Chagossians are descendants of slaves from Africa and Madagascar. They have their own language, their own food, their own music and their own traditions. Their 58 islands are a paradise in the middle of the Indian ocean, and to hand their territory to a foreign country is colonialism on steroids. It would be an absolute disgrace if that were to happen.
Let me say how disappointed I am with other British overseas territories—some of them are with us in the Gallery today—who are eloquent in demanding their rights, including the right of self-determination. Gibraltar, in particular, is always effective in lobbying us. However, a key term of emotional intelligence, which is a subject I have recently been studying, is interdependence. The overseas territories are letting themselves down by not putting enough pressure on the British Government over the rights of the Chagossians. If the Chagossians’ rights are ignored today, it will be the rights of the other overseas territories that are ignored in the future.
We are re-entering the Indian and Pacific oceans. As you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, Lee Kuan Yew remonstrated with us in 1971 for leaving our bases in Singapore. We were going through a period of malaise at that time, lacking in confidence. The AUKUS naval agreement we have signed with the Americans and the Australians to re-enter the Indian and Pacific oceans is essential, particularly as we see growing Chinese expansion in the South China sea, stealing hundreds of atolls from the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and other territories, pouring concrete to turn them into giant military installations.
I asked the then Foreign Secretary about this seven years ago, and the response was, “We don’t have an opinion about the disputed uninhabited atolls in the middle of the Indian ocean.” We are turning a blind eye to Chinese expansionism in the South China sea while bending over backwards to accommodate Mauritius’s spurious claim to our islands. This year we are entering CPTPP, the world’s fastest-growing trading bloc, so this area will become increasingly important to the United Kingdom.
I feel so passionately about this issue because it goes to the nub of how our relationship with the British overseas territories will develop and be protected for the future. Please let us combine to challenge the Government on their outrageous, nefarious and immoral conduct over the British Indian Ocean Territory.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing it.
It has been a fantastic week of visibility for the variety of the British overseas territories: first, with their participation in the coronation of King Charles III last Saturday; with the always wonderful display of their flags and those of the Crown dependencies in Parliament Square; and with the Joint Ministerial Council going ahead this week. Yesterday, it was good to see the UK Overseas Territories Association conference take place in Portcullis House, where we heard powerful contributions about their sheer variety and the contribution made by the British overseas territories, from the Antarctic, to Europe, the Caribbean, and the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans, to this country and to the world. Mr Speaker was very generous in hosting many representatives of the British overseas territories in Speaker’s House just the other day, where we had the unveiling of a beautiful window at the entrance that displays all the emblems of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies.
At yesterday’s UKOTA conference, we heard again about the significant environmental contribution that the overseas territories provide, not only to protecting and enhancing biodiversity for the British family of nations, but to the globe, by protecting and enhancing our environment. Some 2.5 million square miles of ocean are protected through the Blue Belt and Darwin initiatives, which is a positive contribution indeed.
In the short time remaining, I briefly wish to mention a few issues that have already been touched on by other right hon. and hon. Members. The crisis that is occurring in Haiti is causing intolerable immigration pressure on the Turks and Caicos Islands and is resulting in serious criminality. I ask the Government to continue fully engaging on that. On Gibraltar it is important that its pragmatism and patriotism are recognised and supported by the UK Government as it continues its negotiations with the EU.
Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) said, I must, of course, mention the British Indian Ocean Territory. As I have said many times in this House, the Chagos islanders have been appallingly treated over more than half a century, from being exiled from their homeland to being dumped in other countries that have treated them badly, to having their citizenship rights denied. I am glad that last year an amendment that I tabled to the Nationality and Borders Bill righted that final injustice on citizenship, but now yet another injustice is being visited on them: they are being completely disregarded by the UK Government when it comes to being consulted and to their right of determination over the future sovereignty of the Chagos islands and the BIOT. That is appalling and, as my hon. Friend has said, it is a security risk for us and the democratic world; where we step back, China will step in.
Finally, the British overseas territories and our Crown dependencies are not properly represented here in London. They should have a separate Department and a Secretary of State; they are neither foreign, nor Commonwealth, which must be recognised and respected. We also need representation here in this UK Parliament—
Alicia Kearns
One thing I did miss out earlier was that in 2019 our Foreign Affairs Committee said that there should be an overseas territories Committee of the House of Commons, made up of members of the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee; it should involve all those Committees that best care about the issues that matter to the overseas territories. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) agree that it is deeply concerning that four years on the Government have given no consideration to the need for such cross-party, cross-Select-Committee working?
Henry Smith
I should perhaps declare an interest, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and of many all-party groups on the overseas territories. We need far greater recognition here, both in how Parliament scrutinises policy towards the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and how they are represented here. Could there be some sort of representation in the other place? Alternatively, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) was saying, if they chose to be a part of this country, could there be representation here in this Chamber as well? We need to do far better on this.
Our overseas territories are not backwaters. They are the very frontier of protecting our environment, providing defence for the world and enterprise. It is about time the UK Government properly paid them respect.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I declare my interest as chair of the UK Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on calling this debate, thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it, and welcome those members and colleagues who have joined us in the Gallery for this important debate. I also thank Mr Speaker and others for their incredible support of the overseas territories, making sure that they are not forgotten and, I hope, not seen as a backwater.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) was right in what she said. The 14 overseas territories are part of us. They are with us at every event, whether it be the loss of our Queen or the coronation of our King. They are not foreigners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has just said, and they are not the Commonwealth. They should be dealt with, supported and embraced as part of our nation.
Self-determination is crucial to the overseas territories, but, by virtue of the fact that the Crown, through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, has quite large powers to legislate and direct, we have a responsibility to our overseas territories here in Parliament to ensure that those powers of Government are exercised carefully and fairly, and this debate is part of that today.
We have already had one example of when things go wrong. Last year’s Joint Ministerial Council, for example, was cancelled at late notice. There are infrequent opportunities for individuals to come here from the overseas territories and get decisions that may be long overdue. Overseas territories should not lose out because of things that are going on in our Government; they should be put above that. If representatives from the overseas territories require more help, more ministerial resources, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister—I do mean friend because he is a friend of mine—whether he would consider making sure that they are made available to them.
We know that the challenges faced in the overseas territories are as unique as the territories themselves— St Helena, the Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn. I have to say that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase was talking, I was grasping my badge from the Falkland Islands. When I was there it was May 2020. I think I was there for just a few days—I missed out on being there a lot longer because of the pandemic—but we had a wonderful welcome none the less. The territories are all very different and all very vulnerable in their own ways. They are particularly vulnerable to natural disasters. I remember talking to some colleagues from Montserrat about the continuing impact of the volcanic eruption that was many decades ago now but still continues to be felt locally. As our Government continue to focus on protecting the environment and setting ambitious net zero targets, perhaps the Minister could say a little about what more support we could give our overseas territories in this effect as well.
As chair of the UK CPA, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would expect me to turn most of my comments to the role of our organisation in helping support governance in the overseas territories. It is the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association that does the most extraordinary amount of work to support the UK overseas territories project. Work done by the UK CPA supports the UK Government in discharging their constitutional responsibility to ensure good governance in the overseas territories. The project began in 2016 and works with each territory alongside the National Audit Office and the Government Internal Audit Agency to enhance good governance and oversight of public finances. These things are vital to ensure the flourishing of the territories, and the CPA runs many bilateral and multilateral meetings on top of that.
At the end of last year, parliamentarians visited Westminster for the Fifth Overseas Territories Forum on the oversight of public finances and good governance. The Speaker of St Helena visited last year, and the CPA facilitated a Clerk secondment to the Anguilla House of Assembly last July. There was the Westminster seminar in March and other meetings. The CPA does a huge amount to fill some of the gaps left by the Government’s approach to the overseas territories, and we are very grateful to the Government for allowing us to have that opportunity. At a time when our budgets are under pressure, I hope the Minister might also take the opportunity at the Dispatch Box today to reconfirm the Government’s commitment to the CPA’s role in this and commit to ensuring that we have budgets available to do so in the future.
If time allowed, I would also have spoken about Girl Guiding UK, but I will have to leave that for another day. The withdrawal of girl guiding in the overseas territories is something that I will be exploring with them directly.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing this debate. I wish to make a brief intervention in my capacity as the Chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee. It has struck me, in the work we are carrying out, that in this place we often fail to recognise the impact of what we do here on those very important parts of our family, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies.
I was struck by that most when I visited Gibraltar last year as a delegate of the BIMR—British Islands and Mediterranean region—meeting of the women’s part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. There are a lot of acronyms. Our delegation was very ably led by your colleague, Mr Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing).
As parliamentarians do when we get together, we talked about how often we meet, what the hours are and what the facilities are like. We were shocked to discover that in Gibraltar, the Parliament had not met for about five months. In fact, last year the Parliament in Gibraltar met on only six occasions. It has already met on eight occasions this year. The reason we were given for the meetings of Parliament not happening was that there simply was not capacity in the system to have Parliament meeting while Gibraltar, which is on the frontline of the land border with the European Union, was absorbing the impact of the UK leaving the EU.
I pass no judgement on the decision to leave the European Union; this is not a comment on that. The comment I want to make is that I do not think we, in this place, thought about that. I have a horrible suspicion that, when we were debating that decision, the impact on places like Gibraltar and other overseas territories simply was not discussed. I do not disagree that these issues are talked about at a ministerial level, and I know the Joint Ministerial Council discusses them, but where in our procedures do we have the ability to give a voice to our friends, our family, in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The right hon. Lady makes an important point. My view, as I have expressed, is that we should have MPs here with voting rights. Other areas do it differently. In the US, for example, there are representatives without voting rights, but with full participation rights. We must find a solution along those lines, otherwise we are all negligent. They are the best people to make their own voices heard.
Karen Bradley
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the best people to listen to on these matters are those from the overseas territories—and, I must say, the Crown dependencies, which are also impacted by what we do.
Our inter-parliamentary relations are incredibly important. The CPA, the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which I chair, and the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which I am honoured to co-chair, are important forums in which we can have dialogue and discuss these matters, but we simply do not allow them to be heard in the legislative process.
The Procedure Committee, which I chair—my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) is a fellow member—has been discussing, as part of an inquiry we have been carrying out for some time on the territorial constitution, how we might work better as the UK Parliament in Westminster to appreciate the impact of what we do on the devolved nations, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. As Chair of the Committee, I intend to ensure that we think about real changes to procedure that we could recommend and that this House could adopt.
I sense from what has been said in the Chamber that there is an appetite to build into our processes and procedures the ability for those voices to be heard. As we have heard, the overseas territories matter so much to us in Parliament, for many reasons—I will not repeat them. They matter to our constituents and to the whole of the United Kingdom, and we must make sure that when we make decisions in this place, they do not have unintended consequences that adversely affect our friends, because that would be tragic.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this important debate, in which we celebrate the diversity of the global family that is formed by the British overseas territories.
On a personal level, this debate is a timely one for me. With the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and other members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I visited Gibraltar just two weeks ago. I am very pleased to see Dominique Searle, the special representative of the Chief Minister, in the Gallery. I would like to thank him for the excellent way he looked after us. During the visit, we met leaders from across Gibraltarian civil society, including the Governor, the Chief Minister and the vice-chancellor of the excellent new University of Gibraltar, whose chancellor is, of course, Mr Speaker.
As we have heard, PACAC has recently opened an inquiry into the status of the overseas territories in the 21st century—another reason why this debate is so timely. The motion quite properly calls on the Government to ensure that the rights of the citizens of the territories, as British citizens, are upheld. To be fair to the Government, and indeed to their predecessors, I believe that that is what they have been doing progressively over recent years, particularly as a consequence of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, under which the people of the overseas territories automatically became British citizens. That, I found, was particularly welcome in Gibraltar, where previously Gibraltarians had simply had the right to apply for British citizenship. That Britishness is a source of great pride to the people of Gibraltar and, I have no doubt, to the citizens of the other overseas territories.
Each territory is, of course, unique, as we have heard and as the motion acknowledges. The Cayman Islands and Bermuda have populations in excess of 60,000 and Gibraltar has a population of some 34,000, while Pitcairn has a population of only 40 to 50. The Government have a responsibility to take each territory’s individual circumstances into account when deciding on its future arrangements, and that is what I believe they do.
The Government must also—as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown pointed out—consider the stance of the United Nations, whose special committee on decolonisation has judged that all 10 permanently inhabited overseas territories have not yet attained a measure of self-government. I would question that. Gibraltar, for example, enjoys a huge degree of self-government: it has an elected Parliament of 18 Members, with a Chief Minister and four other Ministers responsible for domestic issues, including taxation. Indeed, it is almost entirely self-governing, save in respect of external affairs, defence and internal security, which are reserved to the United Kingdom.
Constitutionally, the UK may legislate for the overseas territories. That plays into the narrative that appears to have been adopted by the special committee: that the territories continue in reality to be colonies. In the case of Gibraltar at least, I have no doubt that the Gibraltarians are entirely happy with the current position. They certainly would not regard themselves as colonials.
However, this issue has to be addressed constitutionally, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown pointed out. I believe that an important function of the inquiry that PACAC has launched will be to discuss and consider the options available to each individual overseas territory. I think that there is a strong argument for saying that, in the case of at least some of the territories, integration should be pursued and those territories should send a Member to this Parliament. That is what the French have done, for example, and there are very few arguments that the French overseas territories continue to be colonies.
Alicia Kearns
I appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members are making the point that we should have Members of Parliament for the overseas territories in this place, but it is important to reiterate that that should happen only if it is the wish of the overseas territories. When the Foreign Affairs Committee spoke to them, many said that they would not want that. I am not dismissing the argument, but I am saying that, crucially, that should happen only if the overseas territories see it as the best way for their voices to be heard in this place.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, the Government’s position is that the individual overseas territory should enjoy self-determination. I spoke to a number of Gibraltarians who were very keen on the idea of integration, and I am sure that that would be the case in a number of other overseas territories, too. PACAC will consider that in the context of its inquiry.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Was it not surprising that everyone we spoke to in Gibraltar and a number of people I have been contacted by from other overseas territories said, “I support it, but I’m sure someone else will be against it, and I don’t want to make waves.” There might well be overwhelming support, but it has never been properly tested by the populations of those areas.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I do not think I met a single Gibraltarian who was averse to the idea of integration with the United Kingdom. This is something that we need to consider carefully.
It is clearly the case that many Gibraltarians now—particularly younger ones—regard a trip to the United Kingdom essentially as a bus trip; they use the easyJet and British Airways services quite routinely. They regard themselves already as de facto integrated with the United Kingdom, so the constitutional status of the overseas territories in that regard must be considered. To repeat, this will have to be carefully considered in the PACAC inquiry.
To conclude, the British overseas territories are important elements of the global British family and, as is clear from this debate, are highly valued by Members on both sides of the House. The Government and the House should be careful to ensure that their interests are reflected and protected, and those issues will be carefully considered by PACAC in the course of its inquiry.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I am delighted to be called to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing it. Much of what I will say in the next few minutes will reflect what I heard yesterday at the parliamentary conference on the OTs, because, in the absence of any formal representation of the OTs in this House, of which we have heard much, I believe that today is an opportunity for them to have their voices heard through the medium of right hon. and hon. Members. On a personal level, I have long supported the OTs, as is evidenced by my membership or vice-chairmanship of several of the relevant APPGs and, equally, by the tie from the Falkland Islands that I was gifted when I was there in February.
The word that has resonated loudest this week in the various events for the OTs has been “family”. The OTs are members of the British family, and, as in any family, each member has its own characteristics, its own strengths and weaknesses, its own identity and its own uniqueness. It was put far more eloquently than I can put it yesterday by Gibraltar’s Environment Minister, who said simply:
“there is superpower in our diversity”.
Like any family, each member will need support at different times of their life. As one Minister suggested yesterday, there has been a feeling that the OTs have sometimes been victims of a situation where others try to define their problems and find solutions to them, whereas they need and want to do it for themselves, with support offered and available but not imposed.
For many of the overseas territories, there are shared challenges and threats, while others are individual. We have heard a good deal about the shared threat from climate change, which, in some cases, is existential. However, not all challenges are common, and I have been particularly struck this week by the experience of two territories—Turks and Caicos Islands and Pitcairn—for very different reasons. As the Premier of Turks and Caicos put it, his people live perilously close to the failed state that is Haiti. Illegal immigration into Turks and Caicos is rife, and that is exacerbated by drug running and gun running. The authorities there are working extremely hard to protect their islands from the waves of uncontrolled numbers of people flooding their homeland, but I hope that the Government here will offer help that can be taken up if that is so desired.
The risks to Pitcairn are entirely different but just as severe. With a current population of only 36 people, there are serious questions about the long-term viability of the islands. Sadly, the school has just closed because there are no young children left on Pitcairn. There are very few people of working age, and the population is ageing. Pitcairn’s Mayor talked to me of the recognition of the need to adapt to survive. His hope and that of other islanders is that more people will see the opportunity of a life in Pitcairn. It struck me when he remarked yesterday that, as one person from Pitcairn who was in the United Kingdom, more than 2.5% of the population was here—that is how small the population is.
In talking about challenges, I recognise that we must be careful not to imply in any way that the OTs are helpless dependants. The truth is very different, as they are all rightly keen to point out. To take just one example that was made to me yesterday, according to analysis by Capital Economics, the British Virgin Islands supports jobs, prosperity and Government revenues worldwide, especially as a result of its role as a centre for financial and professional service firms.
Having covered a considerable amount of the globe in the last couple of minutes, I would like to say a little bit about the Falkland Islands. It was absolutely right that Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister sent a taskforce to liberate the islands in 1982, just as it remains absolutely right today that we maintain a strong military presence to defend the right of islanders to self-determination. During the trip with the armed forces parliamentary scheme in February, we saw how all three services of our armed forces play crucial roles, both separately and working together.
There are now new threats to the Falkland Islands, though. Fisheries account for approximately 40% of the islands’ GDP, but are under threat, particularly from illegal fishing by Chinese supertrawlers just outside Falklands territorial waters, so it is important that the Falkland Islands’ economy diversifies. One potential solution is the extraction of oil. Of course, that must be done extremely carefully, given our commitment to net zero, but I very much hope that the Treasury will give the proposals that are currently in front of it—known as Project Sea Lion—extremely serious consideration.
Alicia Kearns
Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that the Argentinian Government’s current rhetoric regarding the Falklands, funnily enough, falls in an election year, and is it not utterly abhorrent that a politician would use individuals’ right to determine their own futures for their own political gain?
Rob Butler
As with pretty much everything else she has said this afternoon, my hon. Friend is absolutely on the money. She is completely correct, and the way that the Argentinians have behaved in what is—as she rightly points out—an election year is truly outrageous and incredibly offensive to the people of the Falkland Islands. I know from talking to their representative over the past couple of days that the Falkland islanders are very grateful that we have recognised that in this place in recent weeks.
To conclude, the OTs afford us a tremendous global footprint of strategic and economic significance. Gibraltar’s Minister rightly remarked that through, and thanks to, the OTs, we have already had global Britain for many years. Let us not forget that there are plenty of hostile nations that are looking for new friends, especially in strategic locations, so we should not take our traditional allies for granted. Let us be clear that, as the premier of the BVI pointed out, even in smallness, there is opportunity. The mayor of the smallest OT, Pitcairn, summed it up perfectly: the overseas territories matter because they are British, because they are part of our family.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
This has been a most welcome and important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing it. We have talked about the value of all the overseas territories as part of the British family. I want to concentrate on one part of that family, Gibraltar. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having had the honour to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar for a number of years now, and the pleasure and privilege of being a regular visitor to the Rock over that time. I, too, have benefited from the advice and assistance that many Members have had from the Gibraltar Government’s representative office in London, headed up by Dominique Searle, who is in the Gallery.
Gibraltar is absolutely clear in its determination to remain solely British in its sovereignty. That has been reaffirmed by 99% of its electorate at two successive referendums. It is important, therefore, that we reject the notion that it should be classified as a non-governing territory, as with the others. However, I gently say to some of my hon. Friends that it is entirely for the people of the overseas territories to determine their relationship in terms of representation here. Any inquiry may be interesting and useful, but it would be presumptuous of any of us to suggest to any overseas territory what form its representation and relationship should take—actually, it would run slightly contrary to the suggestion of self-determination. It is for them to initiate; it is for us, as their friends and family, to support them in all the choices they make.
One of the choices that Gibraltar made was to be British, and to accept a referendum result that it had voted overwhelmingly against. Gibraltar’s relationship with the European Union, because of a land border, is inevitably different, and 96% of the voters of Gibraltar would have preferred that we had remained in the European Union. However, the Gibraltarians, as part of the British family, went with the democratic vote of the British family, and we owe them in consequence of that. The most important thing that we owe them, which must be delivered by the Foreign Office, is a proper UK-EU treaty on Gibraltar that reflects the particular needs that Gibraltar has.
Gibraltar has transformed itself magnificently over the past few decades, from a traditional garrison-come-dockyard economy into a diverse and thriving economy with tourism, internet businesses and, in particular, a very successful financial services sector. To fuel and make that economy work, some 15,000 people a day cross the land border with Spain at La Línea. Keeping that land border free-flowing is an essential prerequisite of any deal, which must be achieved in a way that respects Gibraltar’s sovereignty and integrity. That should not be impossible to do. It should be the top priority of the Foreign Office in resolving the remaining EU-UK issues. I assure the House it is the top priority of the Spanish Foreign Office; it ought to be a high priority for us, too. The deal should work for both sides, because the economic prosperity that Gibraltar generates greatly assists those regions of Spain adjoining it in the Campo de Gibraltar. It would be in everyone’s interests, so we must get the deal done. Should we fail, heaven forbid, we would have a moral obligation to pick up the economic costs that would fall upon Gibraltar in consequence. The best thing to do is to make sure that never happens and that we get a deal.
The second thing is the practical support we can give to Gibraltar in various specific ways. The success of the University of Gibraltar has already been referenced. It is right that we should treat those students as home students for the purpose of access to UK loans. They should also surely have access to research funds, such as the successor to the Horizon programme. They lost that when we lost the EU, and we should ensure that is included in a deal. Gibraltar University has a successful midwifery course and programme. Bizarrely, Gibraltar midwifery qualifications are not recognised by the UK Nursing and Midwifery Council. I hope the Department of Health and Social Care will put that right. The most important thing beyond that is the position of Gibraltar’s health service, which cannot procure NHS supplies at the same price as the rest of the UK. That cannot be logical. Those are practical things. We talk about them being family and we should treat them as family.
Henry Smith
On the issue of Gibraltar airport, does my hon. Friend believe that it is incumbent on the British Government to seek to help the Rock as far as possible with solutions that could be extremely beneficial to Gibraltarians?
Sir Robert Neill
That is absolutely right. The airport was designed in a way that, had relations between Britain and the EU been different, could have been extremely beneficial to both sides of the border. That may yet still be possible. There is good will, and no one has worked harder than Gibraltar Ministers and their officials to try to get a deal on this. Absolute maturity and good faith have been demonstrated by Gibraltar, and it is important that we support it. It is also important that we talk to the MOD about the operation of the airport, because I was rather shocked to see that the airport had to close the other day because the Met Office could not send somebody to make sure that the weather forecasts were available. We have to get that right and treat Gibraltar on a proper basis. Those are basics that we ought to get right.
Alicia Kearns
My hon. Friend touched on the officials. May I put something on the record and ask his advice, as a learned friend? Recently, there was a controversy where a senior civil servant of the Foreign Office was lambasted and publicly named in the media as having undermined British sovereignty in Gibraltar. Does he share my unease that individuals in this House, or perhaps those associated with them, chose to brief against a Foreign Office civil servant who has no right of reply? They cannot contact the media, correct the record or speak up on their own behalf. I am gravely concerned about reputation and the standard that sets. Does he agree we should be considerate in the way we speak about civil servants, who cannot respond?
Sir Robert Neill
I entirely agree. I am glad to say that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar made a clear statement after that unfortunate comment was made, making it clear that there was no question of concern for the Government of Gibraltar as to the competence or probity of the official’s conduct. Fortunately, nothing was done to prejudice negotiations, but the raising of that did not help at that time, and it was a needless distraction. I hope therefore that we will show the same maturity as Gibraltarians have throughout the whole process.
The final thing I was going to touch on was the whole question of sovereign rate borrowing, which has already been referred to. Because of the pandemic, Gibraltar had to borrow significantly. We were grateful for the support it was given. It wants to continue to be able to borrow money at UK sovereign rates, because the sovereign rate guarantee means it can get a much more attractive rate. Given that we are already charging it more than the rest of the UK would pay for its NHS supplies—much of that went to keep its health service and economy going—surely we owe it the decency of a guarantee of 25 years’ repayment at sovereign rates on the money that was borrowed to assist it during the pandemic.
Gibraltar is a brilliant place. I hope many Members will join the all-party group, and I hope they will be at the national day again this year, joining the people of Gibraltar in reaffirming their British identity, but we need to give them practical support in the interim now.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a genuine pleasure to wind up for the SNP in this genuinely very interesting debate. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for bringing this important subject forward.
I think it is safe to say that the SNP’s world view on this stuff is different from many of the views we have heard from colleagues today. Global Britain is not our project. For the SNP, our vision for Scotland’s future—Scotland’s best future—is as an independent state going back into the European Union, acceding to NATO and, indeed, acceding to the Commonwealth in our own right. We recognise that the UK is the successor state for a lot of the relationships we have been talking about today, and our primary interaction with the overseas territories would be via the Commonwealth frameworks and, indeed, our close friendly relationship with the UK post independence.
I say that global Britain is not our project, but it is worth stressing to colleagues that I do not wish it harm. The overseas territories are important partners and the UK is going to be an important partner for an independent Scotland, so even if our world view comes to pass—I accept that many colleagues do not want that to happen —we want to see the overseas territories do well, and we want to see a deep and flourishing partnership between the UK and those overseas territories.
Self-determination is part of the SNP’s DNA and we would go further even than the United Nations. We believe that the right of people to choose their Government and choose their constitutional arrangements is absolutely fundamental to democracy. We recognise that the right to self-determination under the UN charter is limited to cases of oppression, a post-colonial setting and, indeed, invasion, but we would go further than that. So we would utterly agree with colleagues who have expressed support for the overseas territories’ right to self-determination.
I recognise that, where that right to self-determination is a right to independence, it is also a right to decide to be a British overseas territory and to have whatever representation it wants to have within this framework. I think there are a number of ways that could be ameliorated and improved, but I deeply respect the choice of overseas territories to have whatever status they want and whatever representation they want as part of the British family, and I hope Members would accept my good faith when I say that.
However, with that right comes responsibilities. It is important that we take stock of the relationship with the overseas territories and the coronation of the new King is a good opportunity to do that. That stocktaking exercise is taking place across a number of the overseas territories themselves. We also need to take proper note of the choices that our decisions make on them. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who said that Brexit has not been kind to the overseas territories. We fundamentally agree on that point.
However, leaving the EU in the way that we did has upset the constitutional balance within the devolved settlement for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, London. All parts of the constitutional furniture within the UK were predicated on all of us being in the customs union, the single market and, indeed, the EU. That has been changed and it has also been changed for the overseas territories. We have heard much mention of Gibraltar. I had a number of talks with the Gibraltarian Government when I was a Member of the European Parliament trying to find some solutions for them. Likewise, fisheries quotas for the Falkland Islands and lots of other things besides have not had the degree of attention that they deserve from this place, and I think there is a job for all of us to improve on that.
I agree with the point the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee made that, if the overseas territories are not foreign, dealing with them via the Foreign Office apparatus seems to be missing something of a trick. I suggest that Denmark and France particularly have ways of interacting with their overseas territories that would bear quite a bit of analysis from the FCDO and, indeed, the UK Government more widely, in finding new ways of doing this, but always accepting that it is up to the overseas territory to decide the interaction that it wants and it deserves. It is not for anyone to tell it what it should be.
Policy impact and policy coherence are deeply important. Friends can speak honestly to friends, and a number of the overseas territories are globally recognised industrial tax evasion centres. There are implications for us in that, especially in terms of the consequences of the stepping up of the Russian invasion; there is a role in sanctions busting there as well. Policy coherence is important, therefore. We are sanctioning Russian oligarchs and organisations and seizing dirty money, and the overseas territories have a very important role in that as well. I ask the Minister to pick up on comments about the need for a register of beneficial interests. That is deeply important for transparency both at home and abroad.
Daniel Kawczynski
The hon. Gentleman is making the very serious allegation that some British overseas territories are tax havens or being used in some nefarious way for funds. Which ones is he referring to and what evidence does he have for that?
Alyn Smith
I was going to be more polite and say some are and indeed some are not, but if the hon. Gentleman wants some statistics, in February 2022 Transparency International linked £830 million-worth of property in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to individuals close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 2018 Global Witness said £34 billion was currently invested by Russians with links to the Russian Government in overseas territories. The Global Witness report of 2018 also said that £68.5 billion in foreign direct investment from Russian residents had been directed towards the overseas territories from 2007 to 2016. I acknowledge progress has been made by some of the overseas territories, but we also must speak frankly to our friends and there is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Alicia Kearns
I touched briefly on this in my speech, but I want to make it clear that every overseas territory has fully complied with the sanctions that this House has placed as a result of the renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine—every single one—so while I agree that there is progress to be made in other areas, in this area we should give them full credit: they have stood behind us on that.
Alyn Smith
I agree, and I have pressed in a number of previous debates in this place for complementarity of the sanctions regime across the overseas territories and a number have done very well, but we must maintain vigilant on this. In the same way that London is a centre of dirty money, the overseas territories play a part in that network as well and we must be vigilant on that point.
On other obligations, reciprocity must go in both directions and I warmly recognise the role the overseas territories play in the fight to mitigate climate change and protect biodiversity. More can be done to support them in those efforts. So, it is right that we reassess our relationship with the overseas territories. They are an important partner in what we all want to see—the protection of biodiversity and the protection of people from climate change—and the UK can do more to recognise and support their efforts. The SNP wishes the Minister well in that endeavour.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I also thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for securing this crucial debate and ensuring the concerns and priorities of the overseas territories remain within the focus of this House and for the Government to hear. As shadow Minister in that capacity, I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my visits to Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands as a guest of their Governments in the last year.
I also thank the members of all the overseas territories and their representatives who are here today in the Gallery to watch the debate and who have been at many events this week. It was a pleasure to speak at the United Kingdom Overseas Territory Association conference yesterday and to meet many of the chief Ministers and representatives over the last few days. I particularly thank the presidency of UKOTA for the work they have done this year around the coronation of His Majesty and Her Majesty. It was a pleasure to see representatives of the overseas territories marching in that parade, as well as the flags and all the other things we have seen. I also want to thank the Speaker for his leadership and work on this issue and his generosity in hosting us all this week in Speaker’s House.
The UK’s overseas territories are indeed an integral and cherished part of the global British family, and it has been a profound honour for me in my role as Labour’s shadow Minister to have now met, I believe, all of the democratically elected leaders of the overseas territories. I have also been able to visit four of the overseas territories: I have seen at first hand the warmth, innovation, diversity and distinctiveness of the people and environments in each. I have swum with penguins in the south Atlantic in the Falklands; and indeed I have taken tea at the Rock Hotel in Gibraltar.
Stephen Doughty
I will not as I know what the hon. Gentleman wants to say; he is very kind, but we do not have a lot of time.
On that more humorous note, I also want to be really serious, candid and honest. Far too frequently, debate and discourse on this issue have been based on glib generalisations and a lack of understanding that fails to take account of the uniqueness of each overseas territory, be that constitutional, environmental or economic.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am grateful. The hon. Member rightly refers to the overseas territories as being cherished. I rather doubt that I will get a commitment from the Minister for a referendum for Chagossians and the British Indian Ocean Territory, so will he and the Labour party, in the spirit of what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said, at least give a commitment that a future Labour Government would give those people the right to a referendum on self-determination?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member knows my views on the Chagos Islands; indeed, I set them out clearly in Westminster Hall in a debate he initiated a few months ago. I will come to that later in my speech.
Despite some extremely committed individual officials and Ministers in the FCDO and those who work alongside the Administrations, we have seen far too little consistency, understanding, engagement and, crucially, listening. A future Labour Government would set out five key principles to guide our relationships with the overseas territories. First, we believe in devolution and democratic autonomy, and establishing clear consistency on constitutional principles of partnership and engagement. Secondly, we believe in listening. I firmly believe in the principle of “nothing about you without you.” Thirdly, we believe in partnership. A future strong and stable relationship between the UK and each of the overseas territories must be built on mutual respect and inclusion; indeed, that involves all Government Departments, not just the FCDO. We also believe that rights come with responsibilities. In our British family, we share common values, obligations and principles including a robust commitment to democracy, the rule of law and liberty, and the protection of human rights, including, as rightly mentioned, those rights of LGBT+ people, women and girls, and people living with disabilities. We also believe in the advancement of good governance and, of course, ensuring proper democratic accountability and regulation.
Finally, let me be clear that for as long as the people of the overseas territories wish to remain part of this British family, we will robustly defend their security, autonomy and rights. As has been rightly pointed out, that is not least in the case of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, where a firm commitment to self-determination has been expressed by their peoples. That is Labour’s commitment, and I know that it is shared by many across the House. We would also move away from the notion that one size fits all. It does not when it comes to the overseas territories.
We need to ensure that our constitutional relations are diverse and nuanced in law and practice. On sanctions, I agree with the point made that in many circumstances we saw the overseas territories and crown dependencies move faster than the UK Government in implementing robust sanctions regimes. We have also heard that, in many decisions, whether on our relationship with Europe, trade negotiations or climate negotiations, the overseas territories have not been heard, respected or engaged in processes at the heart of Government.
We also want to see transparency in how the territories are administered. I believe that many overseas territories have called for a code of conduct for governors and for robust processes and consistency in how they operate.
James Sunderland
I had the unique experience of sharing an apartment with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski)—it was an interesting dynamic for that week. It is true: I saw the hon. Member swimming with penguins. However, the point is a serious one. Having got to know him, I know that he is a clever guy and that he gets it. Will he please assure the House that Labour’s policy is to respect the military capabilities, military basing and military strategic imperative that we have in some of our overseas territories?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely assure the hon. Member of that. Indeed, I will come to that specifically.
I want briefly to reference the issues that have come out of the debate in relation to people. We heard many examples, many of which I discussed with representatives from the overseas territories yesterday. There is the impact for citizens when things are not done right, whether in relation to travel, healthcare or education. We heard how Tristanians cannot open accounts with UK retail banks and how students who hold British overseas territories passports require student visas in some cases, but they do not get priority, so the processing time means that they often have to defer positions at higher education institutions. We heard about the issues that Bermuda faced with its passport codes and issues that impacted on travel opportunities. I share the concerns raised about girl guiding suddenly being withdrawn from overseas territories.
There have also been direct impacts from the poorly executed Brexit deal, not least in the Falklands and Anguilla. The Falklands fisheries now have to pay €17 million in tariffs on those crucial squid. I raised that issue in debates during that period. Perplexingly, a British overseas territories citizen is not eligible to use the passport e-gates at UK airports, despite having biometric passports, often produced in the same way as ours. However, people from the European economic area can use those gates. That seems an absurd situation. The Minister is listening and I hope that he takes that into consideration.
We have heard about the issues of infrastructure and access, particularly to the remote territories such as Tristan. Anguilla is looking to expand its runway and faces issues with water and infrastructure. Departments need to work together. It cannot just be the Foreign Office; it has to be the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others.
We have heard a lot, rightly, about the environment. Our overseas territories play a crucial role, whether that be the marine protected area in the Pitcairn Islands, the national climate change policy of the Turks and Caicos Islands, St Helena’s blue green agenda, Montserrat wanting to invest in renewable energy and dealing with the legacy of the volcanic eruption, or the Cayman Islands’ conservation efforts. They play a crucial role not only in contributing to our climate change agenda and biodiversity but dealing first hand with the impact of climate change.
In my final minute I want to refer to security. We have a duty to protect and defend our citizens and our overseas territories, which the Opposition is resolutely committed to. We also have strategically important military bases and territories. In the face of geopolitical threats, whether from China, Russia or elsewhere, we must work closely with our overseas territories not only to defend their citizens but to recognise the strategic import of places such as Diego Garcia, Ascension, the Falklands and Gibraltar —places where the hon. and gallant Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) served. The Opposition are resolutely committed to that. We need to support them in their internal security. St Helena has not had Home Office support in checking watch lists and sanction lists. I hope that the Home Office can assist with that.
On Chagos there is a complex and nuanced set of issues. There is an historic injustice that I have rightly referred to in the past. We must balance national security, our compliance with international law and obligations, and the rights and wishes of the Chagos people, who have long suffered. I have heard their voices clearly. There are also environmental and biodiversity concerns, which I set out a few months ago.
The overseas territories are a crucial and indispensable part of our global British family. We must have a modern, respectful and engaged partnership with them all, and Labour will stand with them as part of that global British family.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
I congratulate the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), on securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to recognise the UK’s long-standing and deep partnership with our overseas territories. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s commitment to all our British family, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for his service, which needs to be recognised.
I would like to put on record the Government’s appreciation for the Speaker’s commitment to overseas territories and for the fantastic event that he hosted on Tuesday night. We appreciate all his work to support overseas territories, and their leaders and representatives, to progress discussions with key stakeholders over recent days. I join him in championing our British family.
The Minister for Overseas Territories, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, would have been delighted to take part in this debate. Since he sits in the other House, it is my honour to respond on behalf of the Government. I welcome the opportunity to recognise the UK’s special relationship with our overseas territories. I acknowledge the representatives here with us in the Gallery today and the leaders who are actively involved in the Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council, which is literally in full swing, being hosted by Lord Goldsmith and attended by the Foreign Secretary. Together, UK Ministers and elected leaders of the overseas territories are discussing actions to support our shared goals, find solutions and work out how to tackle shared challenges. The Joint Ministerial Council presents an important opportunity to strengthen the UK’s unique partnership with the territories and to celebrate our rich cultural and historical ties. Above all, it is a platform for this Government to reaffirm and demonstrate their first and overriding priority towards the overseas territories: to protect and promote the interests of British people.
The Government are committed to upholding our constitutional responsibilities and interests in the overseas territories. As was made clear in the 2023 integrated review refresh, we remain committed to protecting the United Kingdom’s core national interests, ensuring the security and prosperity of the British people across the UK, Crown dependencies and the overseas territories.
The Prime Minister has recently asked each relevant Cabinet Minister to nominate a lead Minister responsible for the overseas territories within their Department. Lord Goldsmith, who is the Minister for the overseas territories, will convene a regular meeting of those Ministers as a ministerial group, to ensure that the UK meets its constitutional responsibilities. Indeed, several Ministers from the UK Government are meeting with JMC attendees today.
The Prime Minister has also agreed that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office should lead on a new cross-Government strategy for the overseas territories, working closely, in partnership, with our overseas territories, a point that was made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), among many others. At this point, I am not able to say what the strategy will look like, but I am clear that the commitments in the 2012 White Paper remain relevant and that it will be developed in partnership with—I stress the word “with”—the overseas territories. The timing of when that will be developed is being discussed in the JMC right now. I hope that helps to answer some of the questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), especially given her distinguished service working with the Minister responsible for the overseas territories.
We believe that this is the way forward, rather than setting up a new Department. Others have suggested that there should be MPs or some form of representation for the overseas territories in this House. So far, we have not had any formal representations from any territory on that matter. We recognise the important role of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the work it has done to share our love, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said, and to support our OT family, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) set out. We have given important support to the work of the CPA.
I recognise the important work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), my parliamentary neighbour, in recognising that the work done in Parliament can have an impact on OTs. We look forward to seeing her work on procedure.
We also recognise the new inquiry on OTs that has been launched by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We are pleased to see that. We often look forward to hearing views not just from politicians but from academia and other states. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has said, which was echoed across the Chamber, only the people of each overseas territory can decide their own future and what relationship they want with the UK.
The UK is working in close partnership with each territory. The overseas territories have first call on the UK aid budget and there is an uplift in support for ODA-eligible territories. The UK has provided £85 million of official development assistance to support St Helena, Montserrat, Tristan da Cunha and the Pitcairn Islands. That is an increase of £1.2 million from the previous year.
Alicia Kearns
He mentions Montserrat. There is currently no working ambulance on the whole of Montserrat, as the only ambulance on the island is currently broken down. Could my right hon. Friend say how we can get an ambulance out there, using the ODA budget or by some other means? Alternatively, perhaps colleagues could reach out to local organisations to see if anyone has an ambulance they could donate. This is an urgent issue.
David Rutley
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. A lot of detailed questions have been asked in the debate; I will pick them up and make sure that the relevant Departments follow up on them.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
David Rutley
I will, but then I need to make progress because Madam Deputy Speaker is giving me an eye, and we know what that means.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for giving way. I was recently in conversation with my opposite number, the chair of the public accounts committee in Montserrat. That committee has concerns about some expenditure from the governor general’s office but has been told by the British Government, as have I, that it is not possible for the committee to have sight of it. I recognise that there are challenges in a small jurisdiction, but I would be grateful if I could talk to the relevant Minister about the matter, because I am quite concerned.
David Rutley
I will gladly arrange that meeting.
We are supporting the overseas territories with funding dedicated to constitutional and international obligations on the environment and climate, and exciting work has been taking place in that respect.
I highlight the work that we are doing in preparation for this year’s hurricane season. From 1 June, HMS Dauntless —which, importantly, has a helicopter on board—will provide persistent maritime presence in the Caribbean to offer humanitarian assistance and disaster response.
Many Members talked about the importance of providing security support. We have done that and will do more of that, particularly in respect of the challenges faced by the Turks and Caicos Islands. As the Minister for the Americas and Caribbean, I am well sighted as to the situation in Haiti. We continue to work with international interlocutors in like-minded states to see how we can provide support for that situation. We are providing electronic border systems for the Turks and Caicos Islands, along with maritime surveillance aircraft, which will be a real help.
Members made many points and I am afraid I will not be able to answer them all. We continue to work with the Falklands to mitigate the impact of tariffs on fisheries and we are open to all opportunities to do so.
We are making progress, and will continue to ask for progress to be made, on registers of beneficial ownership. Sanctions apply and are being applied by overseas territories. Frozen Russian assets in the territories amount to more than 9 billion US dollars. The sanctions are biting and playing an important role.
Amanda Milling
Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the overseas territories for their implementation of sanctions? This time last year, the speed and volume of the sanctions coming through was enormous and it was a huge task to implement them. I really do think we should commend the overseas territories for that.
David Rutley
Hear, hear—absolutely. It is important work. We recognise, however, that further progress needs to be made on registers of beneficial ownership, and we will do all we can to provide support for that work over the weeks and months ahead.
Points were made about Gibraltar. We are of course working hard with the Government of Gibraltar to make progress, and we remain confident that, with flexibility on all sides, a deal is possible. I understand the points about the University of Gibraltar; we will work with the Department for Education on that.
Important points were made about the British Indian Ocean Territory and the sovereignty-related issues there. Although the negotiations are clearly between the UK and Mauritius, we recognise the diversity of views among Chagossians. We take those views seriously and have a further engagement event planned for the coming weeks.
I think I have probably taken as much time as you will allow, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to take more, but I conclude by reiterating the fact that the UK shares an important relationship with the overseas territories. We are all part of the British family, and that relationship is built on respect and trust. We will continue to work in close partnership to strengthen our relationship yet further in the years and decades ahead.
Alicia Kearns
I thank all my right hon. and hon. Friends throughout the House for taking the time to contribute to today’s debate. We too infrequently get to hear the views and wishes of our friends—our family—from the overseas territories. I hope that everyone in the Gallery today has felt heard and listened to, and that we have given voice to some of the issues—I definitely tried to cover an encyclopaedia of issues in my speech. I hope we have shown that we believe strongly in their self-determination, that we believe strongly in what they bring to our family, and how important they are to all of us in this place.
I have just suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), a fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that the Committee might invite the governors of all the overseas territories to give evidence to us over the next year, so that they can speak to us directly about the issues that matter most to the territories they represent.
Let me end by thanking all our visitors very much for coming here. I am aware that we got them into the Chamber an hour and a half before the debate started! I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the commitment of this Chair to our overseas family.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady, and add my own warm welcome to our friends from the overseas territories.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House is committed to upholding the interests of British Overseas Territories and their citizens; recognises the special historical, cultural, and social bonds that bind the United Kingdom and Overseas Territories; and calls upon the Government to ensure that British Overseas Territories citizens’ rights as British citizens are upheld, to defend the sovereignty and borders of Overseas Territories from foreign powers, and to consider the unique circumstances of each Territory when formulating policies which affect them.
No Recourse to Public Funds
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must just warn Members that because of the limited time for this debate, I will expect them to speak for about six minutes.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of no recourse to public funds.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the debate to take place, and I thank the Members on both sides of the House who supported the application. The Register of Members’ Financial Interests records my support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migrant Policy project. I also thank Praxis, Citizens UK, and the Refugee & Migrant Forum of Essex and London for helping me to prepare for the debate.
During the pandemic, hard-working, law-abiding families, working legally in the UK but subject to no recourse to public funds, were especially hard hit. Their wages stopped because their jobs stopped, and NRPF also prevented them from claiming benefits. They had to turn to food banks, as a huge number did in my constituency, where Bonny Downs Community Association, Newham Community Project and others did an amazing job. Before the pandemic, if people with no recourse to public funds lost their job they just got another one, but the pandemic made that impossible.
The complete absence of help came as a shock to, for one, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). At the Liaison Committee in May 2020, two months into lockdown, I told him about a hard-working, law-abiding family in my constituency, including two British-born children, who were destitute because the father had lost his income. The transcript of the Committee meeting records the following:
“Hang on, Stephen. Why aren’t they eligible for universal credit, employment and support allowance or any of the other benefits”.
I said that it was because of no recourse to public funds. They had been here for years, but for 10 years, NRPF meant no help at all. The Prime Minister said:
“I am going to have to come back to you on that, Stephen. Clearly people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support of one kind or another…I will find out how many there are in that position and we will see what we can do to help. ”
He was right to say that
“people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support of one kind or another”.
Unfortunately, however, the Prime Minister’s opinion was not his Government’s policy. He did not find out how many were in that position, because the Home Office does not know.
No recourse to public funds is a condition imposed on people with temporary visas. The current version dates from 2012, and bars access to social security benefits. According to the House of Commons Library, 1.6 million people have leave to remain with no recourse to public funds. The Migration Observatory at Oxford University estimates that the total includes 225,000 children. Typically, families are on the so-called 10-year track to indefinite leave, like the family that I mentioned to the Prime Minister. That family were in the UK on student visas for several years, but after their two children were born, they started on the 10-year track. They renew their leave every two and a half years, paying at least £2,608 per adult in visa fees each time plus additional fees for their children. No recourse to public funds applies throughout. The Home Office has been taking 11 months, on average, to process these re-applications, so for months people cannot prove their status. Thousands who are still permitted to work while awaiting the determination have wrongly lost their jobs as a result. After 10 years, they can apply for indefinite leave and, when they secure that, NRPF no longer applies.
The Home Office does not know how many people in the UK have no recourse to public funds. That, I think, is understandable. Once people are given leave to remain, the Home Office does not know who departs. Parliamentary questions have shown, however, that the Home Office cannot even tell us how many people it gave leave to remain last year with the NRPF condition attached, apparently because of the inadequacy of its computer systems. Last November, I asked in written question 93420 when the new Atlas case working system would tell us the number of applicants who have no recourse to public funds attached to their leave to remain. The answer came back that,
“remaining areas will complete their transition to Atlas in 2023, after which time it will be possible to explore what further information can be produced using the new system.”
I wonder whether the Minister can update us when he winds up. By when does he now think the Home Office will at least know how many people it imposes NRPF on each year?
Citizens Advice estimates that 329,000 parents have had NRPF, many for 10 years, which is most of somebody’s childhood, whereas 40% have been in the UK for more than five years and 10%, like the family I told the then Prime Minister about, have been here for more than a decade. Families with no recourse to public funds can make a change of circumstances application for exemption from NRPF if they are destitute or heading for destitution. Last year, 3,200 families applied and 60% were successful. I welcome regular publication of the data about that. Recent court decisions have required immigration rule changes to allow disability and child welfare to be considered, but those decisions do not yet seem to have been reflected in change of circumstances decisions. A lot of families do not know about the change in circumstances process.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend mentions recent court cases. It was particularly disgraceful that the Green-led administration in Brighton refused to support people with no recourse to public funds during the covid in-period. Shelter took the council to court—where the council spent huge amounts of public money to defend its actions—and won. Is it not the case that housing is a public health issue and, just like access to healthcare, which is excluded from no recourse to public funds, access to basic housing facilities should not require an exemption but should automatically be allowed?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I believe that his local council is no longer Green party controlled. He is absolutely right.
The change of circumstances process is cumbersome and difficult. With specialist help from an organisation such as the Unity Project or Praxis, people are likely to succeed, but lots of families do not know those organisations and cannot access the help. If someone is in Brighton, they cannot access a support organisation in Islington. It is very troubling that many families are missing out because applying is so hard.
The Select Committee on Work and Pensions unanimously recommended two specific changes. The first was that no family with children should have the condition for longer than five years, recognising that for many it is 10 years at the moment. The second was that where the children are British citizens, as is often the case, child benefit should be paid in relation to those children even when the parents have no recourse to public funds. When families have been here for five years, or when children are already British citizens, they are here for good. We should be supporting children to fulfil their potential future contribution to our society. We will all lose out by denying them that support. It makes no sense to impose destitution on the families of children who will be in Britain for the rest of their life. The Government rejected those modest cross-party recommendations, and I hope the Minister will think again. The current policy is contrary to the national interest.
The pandemic highlighted the perilous situation of people with no recourse to public funds, and the latest Trussell Trust data show that food bank demand is sharply up again. In the cost of living crisis, families with no recourse to public funds are being clobbered once more, which is the trigger for this debate. Low-income families with no recourse to public funds are ineligible for cost of living support because they are ineligible for the benefits that passport people to that support. They are not eligible for the £900 cost of living payment this year or the £600 cost of living payment last year, for the £300 pensioner payment, for the £150 disability payment or for the warm home discount.
Battling through the current crisis without the support everyone else receives is extraordinarily hard. The Select Committee took evidence from parents with no recourse to public funds, and a Conservative colleague on the Committee rightly described their evidence as “harrowing.” Having no recourse to public funds leaves families in desperate situations.
Praxis, which supports families in my constituency, calculates that a two-parent, two-child family with both parents working and earning the national living wage are entitled to just over £11,000 of support this financial year, including cost of living support, universal credit and child benefit. If the same family had no recourse to public funds, they would be entitled to £195—the saving from the energy price guarantee. No assessment has been made of the impact on children in low-income families with no recourse to public funds of the non-availability of the support being provided to other families in identical situations, but not much imagination is needed to work that out.
The household support fund is paid out through local authorities. When it was introduced, councils did not know whether they were allowed to support people with no recourse to public funds. The Government advice was that councils should take their own legal advice on whether or not they are allowed to use the household support fund for that purpose. At last, paragraph 45 of the Government guidance on the household support fund states that, from 1 April 2023:
“Authorities can provide a basic safety net support to an individual, regardless of their immigration status, if there is a genuine care need that does not arise solely from destitution, for example if…they have serious health problems; there is a risk to a child’s wellbeing… Authorities must use their judgement to decide what legal powers and funding can be used to support individuals who are ineligible for public funds”.
The Government guidance remains somewhat unclear, but the first point is welcome and overdue.
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), Crisis reports that 6% of the people it supported last year had NRPF. St Mungo’s points out that rising food, energy and rent costs are increasing rough sleeping. More NRPF families will be on the street, and others will be stuck in insecure, overcrowded housing with long-term damaging impacts on children who will be here forever.
One parent told the Select Committee:
“My 5-year-old kept asking, ‘Mum, why are other children entitled and I am not?’ I struggled to answer.”
We should not be doing that to children who will spend their life in this country.
Maryam, a 23-year-old domestic violence survivor with two daughters, was referred to the Kurdish and Middle Eastern Women’s Organisation in north London by children’s social services. She had no recourse to public funds, so she was financially dependent on her husband. She had no choice but to stay in an abusive relationship for four years, as NRPF meant she had no way out.
Praxis has surveyed families with no recourse to public funds over the past month: two thirds are struggling to afford food; 59% have been forced into debt to pay for essentials, about three times the proportion of the population as a whole; and half are relying on charities and food banks for basic needs, compared with 3% of the population as a whole.
The Chancellor announced welcome improvements in the Budget, as recommended by the Select Committee, to support people who are claiming universal credit with their childcare costs. That support is not available to working families with no recourse to public funds who are faced with unaffordable childcare, like everybody else. We cannot justify having this large group in the labour market at such a massive disadvantage compared with everyone else. I welcome the extension of care for disadvantaged two-year-olds to NRPF families. Access for those families to free school meals is now permanent as well, which I am pleased about.
Five years is long enough for a family to contribute into our welfare state before receiving from it. After half a decade, a family with British-born children is here for good. Will the Minister commit to considering extending child benefit to all British children, irrespective of their parents’ status, and allowing parents access to public funds after five years? Those are not radical changes. They are affordable, sensible reforms that will be advocated in an op-ed in The Times tomorrow that is co-authored by me and the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). They were proposed unanimously by a Select Committee with a Conservative majority and they would support thousands of families during the biggest fall in living standards on record.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I will put a six-minute time limit on speeches.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who set out the complicated nature of this problem that the Government face. I will not repeat all the statistics he gave, particularly in view of the time.
The Minister for Immigration, who is on the Front Bench today, will recall that during the pandemic, the Everyone In project brought everybody off the streets, regardless of whether or not they had no recourse to public funds. However, we did not capture the data on those who had no recourse to public funds who were supported. When the Select Committee on Levelling-up, Housing and Communities took evidence, the Minister at the time could not even tell us how many people being housed under that scheme had no recourse to public funds. Of course, that means that those people almost certainly ended up returning to the streets, which is precisely not what we want.
It is right that people who come to this country, make it their home, contribute to the economy, work, pay their taxes and settle here should not have recourse to public funds in normal circumstances. That gives rise to the view among the public that people are making a direct contribution to the UK. However, the circumstances of the pandemic have changed things and we should recognise that. People who have NRPF clearly have difficulty in finding another job and they can then end up being destitute, and if their family is destitute, that is a disaster.
In certain circumstances, local authorities can, rightly, provide support for those who genuinely need additional care—but that is where it does not stem from destitution, and that is the problem we face. I am delighted that in the London Borough of Harrow, the council provides vital care to those with NRPF where it is appropriate. The council has made such provision in cases where parents have NRPF but dependent children are involved. Harrow children’s services and the team work closely together to ensure that cases are dealt with appropriately in a timely, cost-effective and productive manner, making best use of the resources available. Clearly, that is being provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and a process has to be followed. I hope that all local authorities are following the process to ensure that teams are alerted when there is a problem so that there is no delay in accessing help, particularly where a family is involved. The teams then work together with legal services to fully understand the duties, as well as the limits of the support they can give using public funds. Clearly, the provision will be paid until such time as the children need no further support from the local authority.
In June 2022—I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to update us on this—there were around 166,000 people in various stages of the asylum system and, of course, those people have no recourse to public funds. Broadly speaking, they are not eligible for asylum support. Fifty-four per cent. of those people are from London boroughs alone. This is not just a London problem—it is a nationwide problem—but obviously London has a specific problem here.
At the time of those figures, including my constituency, London boroughs were supporting 2,089 households with accommodation or financial support. That amounted to a staggering cost of £40.6 million. Of those households, 576 represented adults with care needs, at an annual cost of £11.41 million, and 513 were adults with children or dependent care leavers, at an annual cost of £10.87 million. That is a huge cost to the public purse, but not being financed properly by the Government.
Therefore, I am delighted, obviously, that the Government are looking at this particular aspect. I commend the Work and Pensions Committee for recommending some measures that would help and support those vulnerable people. As we know, each case is unique and has to be properly assessed, but local authorities need guidance. The public purse must be protected, but, equally, we must make sure that vulnerable people are not forced to sleep rough on our streets through no fault of their own. Some people who have come to this country and provided their expertise and help for a long time, suddenly find themselves out of a job with no place to live, no ability to pay their rent and no ability to support themselves. Those people deserve our support and help and should not to be treated in an inhumane fashion.
I recognise that this is a complicated area of public policy. I hope that, when he replies, the Minister can say what the Government are going to do to assist those in this position. The position of those people who have come to this country as immigrants seeking to help this country is very different from those who have arrived illegally. We must consider those two aspects separately. I hope the Minister will be able to answer that during his summing up and that we can see real measures that will improve the plight of those very vulnerable people who currently have no recourse to public funds.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I agreed with much of what he and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who has been a tireless campaigner on this issue, said. When I was on the Work and Pensions Committee, we raised the issue repeatedly, particularly during the pandemic.
I want to raise the clear link between no recourse to public funds and food insecurity. That was made very clear to us last year. I chaired a webinar discussion run by the Independent Food Aid Network. There were more than 150 participants, including experts by experience, food bank managers and third sector workers. It is clear that, even before the pandemic, asylum seekers and refugees disproportionately represented food bank users—3% of food bank usage, against 0.1% of the population. No recourse to public funds has proven to lead to that food insecurity and destitution, with almost half of all children with foreign-born parents living in the UK in poverty. Children with foreign-born parents constitute 25% of all children in the UK living in poverty. The pandemic exacerbated that particular hardship, as the right hon. Member for East Ham outlined, because people were out of work. They had no other support because they had a no recourse to public funds condition. If someone with that condition is subject to immigration control and has no access to public funds, it prohibits access to the most mainstream social security benefits and support, and services that are conditional on certain benefits, including things such as housing support, free school meals, where that is not a universal provision, and healthy start vouchers.
Tandy Nicole, a volunteer peer food researcher and expert by experience from the Govan Community Project, gave evidence to the webinar discussion and gave testimony on the lived experience of asylum seekers facing food insecurity. She explained how the experience of someone with no recourse to public funds in accessing support is very different from that of a citizen who is eligible for public funds.
We expect asylum seekers to live on an amount per week that is equivalent to what a youth trainee, or YT, was getting paid in 1990. How do I know that? Because I was a youth trainee in 1990, earning what asylum seekers are expected to live on now, when I started my employment with Strathclyde Regional Council. When someone is asked to live on that amount of money, they have competing needs: toiletries, cleaning products, over-the-counter medication, clothing and internet access and phone data, both of which were particularly crucial during the pandemic. Those are all essential items that I would argue are needed for an individual to get by.
In her evidence, Tandy also emphasised the importance of looking at a person’s overall needs. It is important to pay attention to health-related dietary needs and intolerances, religious dietary restrictions and other cultural preferences. That is what we have had to do with the many food projects I am involved with in Glasgow South West. We are opening pantries and larders to try to alleviate food bank use and give people dignity and choice, and we have had to take into consideration people’s dietary restrictions and cultural preferences.
I will suggest some policy changes. I think there should be the right to work across the board for asylum seekers. The Government are making some advance in allowing asylum seekers to work in jobs on a restricted list, but I would like to see the right to work across the board. People should have access to public funds, such as universal credit and unemployment support, and certainly child benefit, as others have argued, to reduce hardship and poverty. When people at risk of poverty because of the no recourse to public funds condition get work, they find themselves in insecure work, zero-hours contracts and low-income jobs, and when they lose that work, it can be very detrimental, as the pandemic showed. It is really time for a policy change there.
We also need to reduce the time it takes asylum seekers to receive a decision. The Govan Community Project gave an example in that webinar discussion of someone who waited nine years to get a decision. That is far too long for someone to be put in that position. I hope the Minister will tell us how the Home Office is looking at this issue and ensuring that people get decisions in a timely manner. We also need to close the disconnect between the amount of support that asylum seekers are being expected to live on, and the amount provided to those on social security benefits. There should be crisis grants for all.
In closing, the right to food should exist for everyone. That requires a comprehensive, rights-based approach to tackling food insecurity, with a human rights Bill that incorporates social and economic rights, including that right to food.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for helping to secure this debate and for the work his Committee has done on this issue. I will not repeat the important points that he helpfully laid out for the House, but I wanted to turn to some cases in my own constituency.
Just after the lockdown, I went out doing a roving surgery and I met a man who worked as a hospital porter in my local hospital, earning £1,400 a month. He was working but had no recourse to public funds. He had been renting two rooms in a private rented property for him and his daughter, at £400 a room. When the landlady—understandably hit by challenges due to the pandemic—put the rent up to £550 a room, he and his then 17-year-old daughter had to share a room because there was no other option.
My constituent could not qualify for housing benefit and there was no prospect of promotion at work as a hospital porter, yet he was working in our NHS. In many ways, that underlines one of the big problems here: these are people who are working hard, contributing to society and paying their taxes and their national insurance, but getting nothing back in return. It is perhaps sometimes painted that we want to ensure that people are paying their way. Well, those people are paying their way, but in an area as expensive as Hackney, housing is well out of reach because of the way in which housing benefit is structured, and of course, they cannot have access to that anyway. The 10-year route to citizenship is a big issue here as well. It is very expensive for those concerned, who are often in this bracket. They pay the fees every two and a half years. I will get to asks later, but it would be a great help if the Minister were to look at how that worked and reduce the fees and timeframe.
Let us look at the issue across London. According to London Council figures, London boroughs spent about £53 million on supporting an estimated 2,881 households with no recourse to public funds in 2016-17—that was some years ago. It is difficult to assess the figures precisely. The estimated average total annual expenditure was nearly £1.7 million per borough, at an estimated average annual cost of nearly £19,000 per household, so it is not cost free. Somewhere in the system, people have to be picked up and that burden is falling on local authorities. At that point in 2016-17, for which we have reasonably reliable figures, the average time spent supporting cases was nearly two years.
A lot of that support is spent on accommodation, for the reasons that I have highlighted. In my borough, you cannot get a family home under the housing benefit cap, which affects everybody, but particularly the group in question and, of course, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and those who require support under the Children Act 1989. That means that it is a big issue. As an estimate, 3,000 children may be in households with no recourse to public funds across London. Other colleagues have made points about the need to support those children, who will not be going to live anywhere else. They will stay in this country and become, hopefully, taxpaying, working adults who contribute to society. We need to welcome and support them, rather than hindering them at an early stage in their development.
I have some quick asks of the Minister—well, not so quick for him to deliver, perhaps, but easy for me to ask. I thank Praxis and the NRPF Network for some of these thoughts—I have worked with Praxis in particular. Could the Home Office conduct a one-off case resolution exercise systematically ensuring that people, particularly those without indefinite leave to remain at this point, are getting regularised support, and that, if they do not qualify to stay, they are being put on the route to leave the country? That would resolve the matter.
What we have is a lot of people dribbling around the system. As one of the top-six customers of Home Office Ministers on immigration cases over 18 years—so not just in one Government—I have seen the problem of people waiting a long time for resolution of their cases. Even when they have exhausted their appeal rights, sometimes they are still dribbling around the system. We need proper returns preparation support for them to leave. Many of us London MPs will have those conversations with our constituents, telling them that they have reached the end of the line and need support to leave. So it works both ways, but where people are allowed to stay, we can get through that quickly and give them the recourse to public funds that they need.
On that point, we should end the 10-year route or, at the very least, reduce the fees. I know that the Minister is committed to trying to speed up the backlog on immigration cases. Every 30 months, people have to pay and go through the system again; they are just clogging up the queue. Really, there is not much difference in someone’s life usually, and unless they have committed a horrendous crime or something that will obviously change their case, most people—I would hazard a guess of well over 95%—will just go through the system every 30 months and have to pay a fee. That comes out of their often meagre wages—even on good wages, it is quite challenging—and causes them real problems.
My right hon. Friend touched on data. How many people are affected by that? We need to understand and assess the impact and cost on local authorities. As I have said, saying, “You have to exist without recourse to public funds,” is not a cost-free option. At the moment, the Home Office cannot even tell us how many people need biometric residence permits and that is a big issue in my constituency. I hope that, when Atlas comes forward, it will be a start towards better data, but it would be helpful if the Minister updated us on its progress. Not being able to get data has been a long-standing woe of the Home Office, so I do not lay it all at the Minister’s door, he will be glad to know. I will give him as much support as I can in getting that system running so that we can get data and ensure that people are properly supported.
As I have said, this is not cost free. We need to lift the restrictions. The number of people who applied for restrictions to be lifted rose—unsurprisingly—from 900 in the first quarter of 2020 to 6,000 to in the second quarter of 2020. Even last year, 3,200 people applied to have those restrictions lifted and 60% of those requests were granted. If the Minister looked at that issue, he could free up a lot of time in the Home Office for the civil service to deal with getting people through the immigration system, rather than having them go through a system that eventually brings benefit, but very slowly.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for setting out such a great foundation on which to have this conversation. He brought such a lot of information to the table about the number of people, as far as we can tell, who are subject to no recourse to public funds and some of the issues they face.
I do an awful lot of work with the No Recourse North East Partnership in the north-east of Scotland, which was set up because all of us who deal with casework and people with problems were seeing a massive increase in the number of those coming to us with no recourse to public funds. Unlike Glasgow, which has been a dispersal authority for a period, we did not have the legal or charitable support in place in our city to provide people with that level of legal immigration advice. We saw a massive increase in numbers in the last few years, and that is why the group began.
During that time, we have struggled so hard to find out how many individuals are subject to no recourse to public funds, so that we can make the case for there being more specialised support for people in our city. In Aberdeen we have the highest percentage of non-UK born citizens outside London. We have a significant amount of immigration in our city, and that is a good thing to be celebrated, but it brings with it the problem we are seeing of an increase in the level of destitution as a result of people having no recourse to public funds.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned the consistency in applying guidance under section 17 of the Children Act. I can tell him that it is not being applied consistently across councils. That is partly because the guidance from Government is not as good as it could be in directing local authorities as to what they can and cannot do and is leaving it up to them. If local authorities have legal departments that are particularly scared of litigation, for example, they might be less keen to support people. If individuals have “no recourse to public funds” stamped on their immigration documents, they might be less keen to seek support because they are terrified that it might impact their future immigration status. They are terrified that they might not eventually be able to apply for leave to remain if they claim something. That guidance is not as consistent as it could be.
The right hon. Member for East Ham mentioned domestic abuse. I tabled a ten-minute rule Bill a number of years ago about extending the destitution domestic violence concession. There is still a gap. We still see local women’s organisations up and down these islands struggling because they cannot apply for housing benefit for people who have no recourse to public funds unless they get the destitution domestic violence concession, which is not applicable across the board and is not a guarantee. We cannot see women’s aid organisations go under, but it means that individuals are in a situation where they might have to stay in abusive relationships or go back to abusive partners simply in order to feed their children. We should not be doing this. As has been made clear, in so many of these cases, these are children who were born here and will live here their entire lives, and they are being directly discriminated against by these policies just because of where their parents were born—not because of anything to do with the way they have lived their lives.
What are the other options for people who have no recourse for public funds? We have heard various arguments from Ministers in the past. They have said, “Well, people can just go back to the country they have come from.” Some people with no recourse to public funds are stateless. How can someone who is stateless go back to the country they came from? The country might not even exist anymore. Ministers have suggested, “That person could just go back to Nigeria,” but the person has never been to Nigeria in their entire life. We are asking them to go back to a country in which they have no home and no support and that their family has shunned them from. They are living here and contributing to our economy.
Imagine if everybody with no recourse to public funds decided to go off to another country—we would have so few people working in the caring professions, on the frontline of our NHS and as hospital porters, in those jobs that we desperately need people to do. If the Government are so desperate to crack down on illegal migration, they need to make the legal migration routes slightly more pleasant at least, because at the moment they are deeply discriminatory.
We are seeing children being put into hunger and poverty as a result of this—children who are at no fault and are entirely innocent. If it were up to me, I would not have “no recourse to public funds” as a status at all. If we are looking for an interim measure, the measures on child benefit that have been put forward by the Work and Pensions Committee are incredibly positive. The Government also need to give serious consideration to the rules around housing benefit, particularly in cases that involve domestic abuse, because we cannot have women’s aid organisations struggling with this issue in a way that means they cannot support women, resulting in women having to stay in abusive relationships. We cannot see that happen.
Lastly, on the point about the 30 months payment that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), what are people getting for the money that they are putting in? They are certainly not getting a good service. I am aware that the Minister is doing his best to improve it, but the Home Office service is not great. People are being asked to pay that money for the pleasure of staying in a country where they cannot even afford to feed their children because of the lack of support. It is absolutely shameful, and it really needs to improve.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for bringing this debate before the House, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
No recourse to public funds is a critical issue in my constituency, as it is to many of the Members who have spoken this afternoon. To give some of the history, it has been a visa condition since 1980. Its origin more recently is in Labour’s Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and to me, it feels like it is steeped in myths about people coming over here to claim our benefits. Given the paucity of such benefits and the lack of knowledge people moving to the UK have of the inner workings of the benefits system, that has always seemed particularly unlikely to me. What we have instead is an expensive immigration system—as hon. Members have pointed out—and people caught in a double whammy where they pay a huge amount of money to be here, they are not a burden to the taxpayer, and they get very little back out of the system. They are, in fact, paying in more than most of us.
What this status has caused is poverty, destitution and an increasing strain on individuals and families, including those children who have been born here. There is also an increasing strain on charities and public services. Praxis has documented that two thirds of people with no recourse to public funds are struggling to feed their children. Some 59% are forced into debt to pay for essentials, and 50% are turning to food banks and charities for support, all at a time when the cost of living is soaring. The right hon. Member for East Ham correctly pointed out that the Prime Minister did not know about no recourse to public funds, and only on Tuesday this week, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury still did not know what no recourse to public funds meant when I asked him in this House. I said, “What happens to people who cannot afford to pay for their heating?” and he said, “They should just claim through the system.” They cannot—that is the very nature of no recourse to public funds. Ministers should really catch themselves up on the impact that their policies are having.
Another part of the problem is that we do not know how many people are affected by this status, both as a whole and within our individual constituencies. There are estimated figures of around 1.6 million people, but if we do not know how many of the people in our constituencies have this status, we will not know what support they might need and how to respond to those needs. Quite often, as the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) mentioned, it falls to charities and local government to pick up the pieces when everything else breaks down. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West correctly identified that this is causing huge food insecurity. I have spoken to Audrey at the Glasgow South East food bank in my constituency, which is seeing increasing numbers of people on no recourse to public funds coming forward and looking for help.
As a constituency MP, my heart sinks when I see somebody’s biometric residence permit stamped with “no public funds” in the back, because I know that that will limit my ability to help and support them, and there are people who desperately need that support. I have a constituent who has a disability and no recourse to public funds, so he could not get a disabled persons railcard because that is the gateway to getting that support. I had another gentleman who was medically unfit to work and on no recourse to public funds—what is he supposed to do in those circumstances? The Ferret reported recently on a family of five left homeless because of no recourse to public funds who were sleeping in a borrowed car in the streets of Glasgow. That is inhumane in our society.
Also, problems arise that people could not have anticipated or expected. I recently had a case where international students were being housed inappropriately in accommodation that was found to be unsafe, and all of a sudden, 40 families were put out with nowhere to live. The local authority stepped in and was able to help, but only on a limited basis, because those families could not claim benefits, housing support or anything else because of no recourse to public funds. The safety net has massive holes in it when it comes to these groups of people. The Minister closes his eyes to these real plights and circumstances that are caused by no recourse to public funds. When these crises happen and when there are those changes in circumstances, people are unable to get the support that they need.
The Scottish Government have done what they can. They have had the “Ending destitution together” strategy along with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. They are trying their best to try to plug these gaps and fill these holes, but without an understanding of the numbers involved or of how to reach those people—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North mentioned, they may have good reasons for not wanting to identify themselves—it makes it difficult to provide the support that is required. We may have two households next door to each other in identical circumstances, working the same jobs with children the same age, but one household is not entitled to support, because they have no recourse to public funds status. That seems fundamentally unfair.
The Scottish Government are determined to build a country where everyone is treated with fairness and respect. No recourse to public funds prevents Scotland from doing so. I look forward to an independent Scotland where we can build a more equal and fair society and we can be rid of the Home Office and its cruel hostile environment once and for all.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who has campaigned on this issue on behalf of his constituents and others across the country with such vigour and determination. I well remember his question to the Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee. It was a moment where he brought to the fore this often hidden issue. He made some important points across the board and reminded us of the particular problems that people with no recourse to public funds had during the pandemic.
I thank everyone for their contributions to what has been a calm and sensible debate on the issues at hand. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about the particular problem that London boroughs have. As a Croydon MP, I am, I think, in the top 10 for immigration cases in the Home Office, and I have dealt with many people with no recourse to public funds. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) talked about the increase in food bank usage and its disproportionate use. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) talked about that 10-year route to citizenship and the struggles that people have with that.
I should start by saying that we in the Labour party will always value the vital contribution played by migrants, including those here on a short-term visa, in keeping the wheels of our economy turning and the heart of our public services beating. We have a priority to ensure that Government and businesses are investing first and foremost in skilling up home-grown talent to fill job vacancies, but we recognise the vital contribution that migrant workers play in supporting Britain’s economy to strengthen and our people to prosper. That is all part of the firm and fair well-managed system of migration that the Labour party is committed to delivering.
Unfortunately, the policies of the Conservative Government have hit those workers and their families extremely hard, like so many of us. The cost of living crisis that we now face has been difficult for all of us, but it has been particularly challenging for those on low incomes and even more so for those with no recourse to public funds, such as those on short-term work visas who are on the pathway to British citizenship, as has been mentioned, their family members or those seeking asylum. They cannot access critical Government services such as the additional means-tested cost of living payment for poorer households, the additional cost of living payment for pensioners entitled to the winter fuel payment or the disability cost of living payment for people in receipt of disability-related benefits. That has consequences.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) talked about research by Praxis from April this year. It found that two thirds of parents surveyed had struggled to afford to feed their children because of the rising cost of living, with 59% having been forced into debt to afford the cost of basic essentials and 50% of those who cannot access public support relying on charities and food banks to meet their basic needs.These statistics are a damning indictment of the mismanagement of our economy over the past 13 years, and of the impact of the cost of living crisis on individuals with no recourse to public funds and their children.
The Labour party recognises that migrant workers and those on low pay often face other specific challenges. The Labour party is particularly concerned about working conditions and enforcement. Many of those affected by this policy are in low-paid work, in which their wages have failed to keep up with inflation, or they are forced into working underground in insecure jobs with precarious conditions.
In this context, it should be noted that there are particular vulnerabilities for people working on the minimum wage, given the lack of robust enforcement action from the Government. For instance, the number of complaints from workers received by HMRC’s national minimum wage unit has more than doubled from 1,500 five or six years ago to 3,300 last year. At the same time, there have been only nine prosecutions for non-payment of the national minimum wage in the entire period since 2015. In a report published in 2021, Focus on Labour Exploitation found that the UK’s overall ratio of inspectors to workers is approximately 0.4 inspectors per 10,000 workers. This is less than half the International Labour Organisation’s recommended ratio of 1:10,000. In practice, this means that a UK employer can on average expect an inspection by the HMRC national minimum wage team just once every 500 years.
Part of the issue is that the Government’s labour market enforcement agencies read like an alphabet soup, with the GLAA, or the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the EASI, or the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and the HMRC’s living wage enforcement team. Does the Minister acknowledge that the level of resources allocated to enforcing the minimum wage and other workplace rights is entirely inadequate to provide adequate protection against exploitation? Will he reaffirm the commitment made in the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto that his party will, before the next election, create a single labour market enforcement body to tackle exploitation and poor conditions?
Further to this, it is the Government’s stated position, as set out in the Immigration Act 2014, that their no recourse to public funds policy is intended to ensure that people support themselves and achieve financial independence. Does the Minister not agree that, unless they have genuine access to adequately paid work, such independence inevitably remains out of reach? Does the Minister accept that it is a shocking indictment of this Government’s record that there is such a high and growing number of migrants facing in-work poverty?
Much has already been said at the start and throughout the debate about the lack of data and the Home Office not routinely collecting data on the overall number of people subject to NRPF restrictions. In December 2022, in a letter to the Work and Pensions Committee, the Immigration Minister wrote that the Department’s transition to a new IT system, scheduled to be completed this year, would provide opportunities to capture more comprehensive data, but that until the transition was complete
“we are unable to make any commitment with regards to what further data we are able to publish”.
Can he tell us what progress he has made on this front, and whether this will include information on the impact of these restrictions on families with children? The Work and Pensions Committee has recommended that the Government improve their guidance and practice on the social security entitlements that people with no recourse to public funds already have, so can the Minister tell us what progress he is making on that?
We of course recognise that the challenges surrounding no recourse to public funds are extremely difficult as these issues are wrapped up in the dire state of the economy under the Conservatives and the weak state of the public finances. When Labour gets into government, we will look very closely at the public finances, the data around no recourse to public funds and the cost of any policy changes. We are looking very carefully at the recommendations from the Select Committee, particularly the two that were highlighted at the start, and I look forward to reading the article in The Times tomorrow by its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham.
We want to make sure that people with no recourse to public funds, like all others, are free to fulfil their potential in order to play a full and fruitful role in a thriving Britain as part of the firm, fair and well-managed migration system that the Labour party is committed to delivering.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I congratulate both the Backbench Business Committee and in particular the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) on securing the debate and his characteristically thoughtful and intelligent approach which raised some very important questions, and it is right that the Government and indeed the whole House carefully consider them. I thank Members from all parts of the House for their contributions and the tone and thoughtful nature of this discussion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) noted, as a former Local Government Secretary I have been interested in this issue for some time and in fact took the decision not only to create the Everyone In programme but to ensure that, as the name suggested, it included those who had no recourse to public funds. I appreciate the difficulties some of those individuals have found themselves in, particularly during the unique circumstances of the pandemic, which put huge pressure on both them and, as the right hon. Member for East Ham reminded me before the debate, their families back home in their countries of origin, some of whom might have been sending them help in times of straitened circumstances but were not able to do so during that particularly difficult period.
The right hon. Gentleman and others across the House are clearly aware of the context of NRPF policy, which has evolved over decades, but it might be helpful to set that out again. It is a well-established principle that migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and support themselves and their families without posing a burden on the welfare system. Successive Governments have taken the view that access to benefits and other publicly funded services should in general reflect the strength of a migrant’s connections to the UK and, in the main, only become available to migrants when they have become settled here with indefinite leave to remain.
We operate a comparatively permissive legal migration system in this country, enabling people to come here particularly for work and study purposes, and with respect to work at a relatively low salary threshold of approximately £26,000 per year plus other conditions. In order to maintain a relatively permissive legal migration system, it is important that we have regard for the taxpayer and encourage people to come who are able to look after themselves and their families. The alternative would be to tighten the legal migration system, and, for example, as some argue, to increase the salary threshold considerably. There are pros and cons to either approach, but I think there is broad consensus across the House that NRPF is required although we must manage it carefully to ensure that people who are in this country, particularly for a sustained period of time, can live appropriately and decently and we look after those in the most challenging situations. The position the Government therefore take is to ensure that those seeking to establish a life in the UK must do so on a basis that prevents burden on the taxpayer and promotes integration, and the vast majority of temporary migrants coming to visit, study or work here are subject to NRPF as a result.
It is recognised that some migrants will find themselves at risk of destitution, as I have said, and a response to that would be to say they can return home to their own country, but I appreciate that that is challenging in some circumstances and we do not want people to be in periods of sustained destitution in the United Kingdom. Appropriate safeguards have been introduced for circumstances whereby an individual is destitute or at risk of imminent destitution. Migrants with permission under the family or private life routes, permission outside the rules on the basis of article 8 of the European convention on human rights or the Hong Kong British national overseas route, can apply for free to have the NRPF condition lifted by making a “change of conditions” application. The latest data published in February, for quarter 4 of 2022, shows that 68% of the decisions taken on “change of conditions” applications were granted and that the Home Office and its associated organisations have now restored that process to pre-pandemic levels, which is the right thing to do. We have provided flexibility around the immediate impact on immigration status for accessing public funds. Families are no longer automatically moved from the five-year to the 10-year route to settlement when their NRPF condition is lifted; their circumstances are reassessed when they next apply for permission to stay, and they can remain on the five-year route only if they continue to meet all the requirements.
To give proper effect to the Government’s schemes in response to the cost of living crisis, the Home Office ensured that those with NRPF could access the measures as intended: for example, the energy bills support scheme, which has delivered £400 non-repayable Government discounts on electricity bills to help households in Great Britain, as well as the council tax rebate for those living in certain council tax bands. Subject to the relevant income thresholds, those with NRPF can access free school meals and early years education for two-year-olds. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman both for welcoming that and for having played a part in encouraging the Government to do so.
Statutory benefits including statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay and contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance are accessible to all those who have made sufficient tax contributions, including those with NRPF. Local authorities can provide basic safety-net support regardless of immigration status. I take the points made by a number of hon. Members about the variable application of that by local authorities and the guidance that the Home Office provides. We have a responsibility to improve those things.
Kirsty Blackman
May I check whether the Minister is making a commitment from the Dispatch Box to have a look at the guidance and ensure that it is as clear as it can be and applied consistently by local authorities?
Robert Jenrick
I am happy to do so, because that is a valid point that has been raised.
In the limited time that I have available, I would like to address the important question raised about the quality of data. As the right hon. Gentleman noted, data in this area will always be imprecise because, by its nature, it is hard for the Home Office to accurately assess the number of individuals in the UK in these circumstances, and particularly the cohort who have entered the UK illegally. However, it is right that we understand the number of people to whom we are granting leave in the UK who are part of the NRPF cohort.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, we have previously said that the right time to do that will be when we have completed the migration from the case information database to the new Atlas system, which is expected to be in the coming months. I am happy to commit to him today that, as soon as that is in place, we should publish statistics on the number of individuals subject to NRPF to whom the Home Office is granting leave. If I may, I will revert to him with a more precise date and our current estimate of when we will be able to do that. I hope that that is at least one useful outcome for him from his investigations and from the debate.
With that, I will bring my remarks to a close and thank him once again for organising the debate.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to everyone who has supported the debate and contributed to it, including those who have delayed their return to Scotland to do so. I am also grateful for the tone of the Minister’s response. I welcome the point that he made at the end about giving us information about when, in the next few months, the data will be available.
Let me underline the two key recommendations from the Work and Pensions Committee, reflecting the reality that children in families who have been here for five years and children who are already British citizens are here for good. First, families with children should automatically be exempted from NRPF after, at most, five years. Secondly, where the children are British citizens, child benefit should be payable, notwithstanding their parents having no recourse to public funds. It cannot be right for families in otherwise identical circumstances doing the same jobs to be £11,000 a year worse off even after they have been here for years because of the impact of the NRPF condition. It is, as others have said, a straightforward question of fairness. I am encouraged by the tone of what the Minister said and I hope that we will see some significant changes in this area in the coming months. It would be in everybody’s interests and in the national interest for that to happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of no recourse to public funds.
Economic Aid to Sri Lanka
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am grateful to have secured this debate on the UK’s economic aid to Sri Lanka. It is a great pleasure to see the Minister in his place.
My constituency is home to many members of the Sri Lankan diaspora, many of whom still have family in the country. Therefore, the economic and political circumstances of Sri Lanka are important to many of them and, indeed, to me. I thank all the constituents who regularly make contact to update me on the situation in the country. I have also been fortunate to be in contact with many sections of the Sri Lankan community and charities across the UK, such as the Sylvia Lanka Foundation, through my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka.
It goes without saying that the economic situation in Sri Lanka has been dire and remains so. The roots of the problem go beyond the global economic situation created as a result of the covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. For some years now, Sri Lanka has been undergoing severe macroeconomic stresses. Pre-existing conditions have simply been exacerbated by international circumstances. At points, the economy has been overvalued. Unnecessary populist reforms by the previous Government were mishandled, with significant tax cuts leading to a huge decrease in tax revenues, with an estimated loss at one point of over £1 billion. A severely misjudged ban on the import of chemical fertilisers led to a 30% annual drop in farming yields. Despite a reversal of the ban following protests, the damage was already done. In the throes of an economic crisis, the short-lived ban led to food shortages and heightened inflation.
A particularly important industry affected by the economic crisis has been tourism. Tourism to Sri Lanka once contributed 5% of the country’s GDP, and it saw a peak of over 2.25 million visitors in 2018. However, in 2019 the dreadful Easter bombings claimed more than 250 lives, and tourism struggled as a result. Before the industry had an opportunity to recover covid-19 struck, and visitors have slumped to just over 700,000 this year. Estimates put its contribution to the economy as low as 0.8%. That has impacted hundreds of thousands of jobs. The UK is Sri Lanka’s third largest source of tourists. I hope that UK tourism will increase, allowing a full return and boosting that vital sector.
All that, combined with congestion at ports in Colombo that has led to a lack of essential supplies such as pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, means that the situation in Sri Lanka is extremely worrying. Despite Sri Lanka taking great strides to reduce overall poverty over many years, the World Bank’s latest report in April estimated that the economic situation has led to the worst poverty levels since 2009, with the lower-middle income poverty rate going from 11% in 2019 to 27% today.
Currently, there are few signs of economic recovery. The International Monetary Fund predicts that the Sri Lankan economy will contract by 3.1% this year, on top of an 8.7% decrease in GDP last year. The global response has been mixed. It is the view of many that the Sri Lankan Government should have approached the International Monetary Fund much sooner than it did. In May last year, Sri Lanka defaulted on its debts, failing to pay back £63 million in interest payments. After lengthy negotiations, and hard work by the international community and the Government of Sri Lanka, in March the IMF approved a £2.4 billion fund to restore stability to the Sri Lankan economy and assist in unlocking its growth potential.
So far, the UK’s initial response has rightly been focused on humanitarian assistance. I am pleased that Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon announced a £3 million package of support at the UN General Assembly in September last year. I know the provision of pharmaceutical and medical supplies has been a great relief to many.
Beyond that, we are fortunate that the UK is already heavily involved in, and a large contributor to, many of the organisations assisting in Sri Lanka, such as the UN Central Emergency Response Fund and the World Bank. As a permanent member of the Paris Club, the UK will be heavily involved in the debt restructuring process. I hope the UK can support an early agreement on bilateral restructuring, which would release resources to revive the Sri Lankan economy. Will the Minister give an update on the UK’s involvement on that front?
It is increasingly vital that the UK uses its global influence in these organisations to assist in securing the best possible economic support for Sri Lanka and to provide debt sustainability. The UK must play a constructive role on the executive board of the International Monetary Fund during the full implementation of the extended fund facility, particularly during the biannual reviews.
Such influence is vital to counter the sway of nations such as China. I, in common with many of my colleagues, am increasingly concerned about the economic influence of China, which is using investment as a means of control. As the country’s biggest bilateral lender, China is owed some $7 billion by Sri Lanka. Many of the projects that were invested in by China have yielded little return for the country. Despite that, investments in major ports, such as Hambantota, have allowed China to have increasing access to trade in the Indian ocean, and a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman has said that the priority for Chinese diplomacy
“lies in China’s neighbouring countries”.
That is the very definition of what has been called debt- trap diplomacy.
I believe that the UK could always do more with regard to economic support, whether directly or indirectly through organisations such as UNICEF. Would the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office consider setting up a disaster emergency fund to ease the immediate crisis and assist the World Bank in reinvigorating the Sri Lankan economy?
Indeed, our own economic support to Sri Lanka can go far beyond humanitarian and direct financial support. Free trade is a global force for good and countries such as Sri Lanka thrive on the ability to trade their many goods across the globe. Sri Lanka has signed free trade agreements with countries including India and Singapore and is in the process of negotiating such an agreement with China.
Total UK imports from Sri Lanka increased by about 17% last year, to around £1 billion. While that is a promising sign, there remains an untapped market which would be hugely beneficial to the people of the UK and Sri Lanka. Now that the UK has reforged its way in the world as a global trading nation and is seeking new trading opportunities, I gently suggest that we focus on old friends, particularly those in the Commonwealth.
I am aware that this is not necessarily a matter for the FCDO. However, I would be interested to hear what conversations the Minister may have had, if any, with his counterparts in the Department for Business and Trade about how the UK can operate an aid-for-trade system with Sri Lanka. By using our aid as a mechanism to bolster Sri Lanka’s infrastructure, for example its ports, we can boost trade for the benefit of businesses, but also finance the ability to import essential supplies.
Beyond trade, Sri Lanka has an endless opportunity for the UK to invest. A long-standing and personal interest of mine is the environment and climate change, particularly investment in sustainable energy sources. I know from discussions with the former governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka that overall investment in climate-related projects in Sri Lanka is lacking, despite Sri Lanka having ambitious targets for transitioning to a green economy.
As a small island and a developing nation, Sri Lanka is acutely at risk when it comes to climate change and rising sea levels. There is a perfect opportunity for the United Kingdom to invest in something that is in the interest of us all: protecting the planet for future generations. Without the correct financial support, countries such as Sri Lanka will not be able to achieve the sustainable development goals set out in 2015. I know the Minister is passionately concerned about this area.
I am delighted that this Government have made a fantastic start on this. Through the UK’s climate action for a resilient Asia initiative, the FCDO has partnered with the United Nations Development Programme and the Sri Lankan Ministry of Finance to implement the Climate Finance Network. The network will focus on climate change-aligned budgeting and increasing direct access to international climate change finance. Importantly, it will also focus on ensuring peace and reconciliation in the country, which I will touch on in a minute. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the Climate Finance Network and on what discussions the Department has had with the high commission in Colombo on helping Sri Lanka secure its climate future?
I believe that more can be done in terms of direct investment, particularly in areas such as renewable energy. Some 98% of Sri Lankan households are dependent on an already unreliable national grid. The Ceylon Electricity Board is being unbundled into 14 units, and foreign support is required in the form of capital and technological knowledge.
I would also like to see UK action on maintaining and boosting biodiversity in the country. Sri Lanka’s unique island biodiversity is facing decline through pollution, river diversion, habitat loss, and even man-made natural disasters such as the X-Press Pearl incident in 2021. I know the UK has taken great strides in helping developing countries to meet the 30 by 30 target, but I would be interested to hear what financial assistance the Government are providing to Sri Lanka to help to protect its habitats.
Finally, I wish to touch on the need for continued peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. I do not need to lecture the Minister—who knows better than many Members —on the intricacies of Sri Lanka’s political history. However, it goes without saying that Sri Lanka lies in a delicate balance, which the economic and humanitarian situation in the country risks tipping. Food shortages can lead to conflict anywhere they occur in the world, so it is vital that the UK plays its part in assisting the country to achieve food security.
The situation in Sri Lanka is undoubtably complex. A complex financial history has been worsened by populist politics. An economic crisis has spiralled into a political crisis and is quickly creating a humanitarian one. Of course, all this is made even more complex by the remnants of a long-standing conflict still lingering in the country. Economic aid to Sri Lanka should of course focus primarily on alleviating the humanitarian situation out there, such as by providing medical supplies, as I mentioned on earlier. However, we must not doubt Sri Lanka’s ability to stand on its own two feet, and the UK can play a role in helping our friends to achieve that.
The IMF deal is just the beginning of the journey for Sri Lanka. The challenge now is to help implement the IMF deal successfully, to assist Sri Lanka in restructuring its debt, to provide the right economic support to strengthen its national growth, and to ensure a peaceful and prosperous future for the island. The people of the island deserve that, as it is a member of the Commonwealth and has been a friend to us over many years. I leave the Minister with one final point: the UK Government should not, as V. V. Ganeshananthan writes in her new novel “Brotherless Night”, leave in their wake
“peoples divided by colonial powers, ancestral angers, and bullheaded pride.”
Minister, I am sure we can do more.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) for securing this debate and for his well-informed and extremely interesting contribution. The Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), would have been delighted to take part but is currently travelling on ministerial duties. It is therefore my pleasure to respond on the Government’s behalf. I will try to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend, but if I omit any, I will of course write to him.
The UK and Sri Lanka have a long shared history, as marked by the 75th anniversary of our diplomatic relations this year. We are bound by strong relationships between our institutions, businesses and, most importantly, our people. Many UK citizens and parliamentarians have close ties to Sri Lanka, and it is a relationship that matters very much to the United Kingdom. It has therefore been troubling to witness Sri Lanka’s economic decline.
The fallout from the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, to which my hon. Friend referred, the covid pandemic, and the effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have all posed severe challenges to Sri Lanka’s economy. Those events have been compounded by structural weaknesses, including long-term financial mismanagement. Sri Lanka defaulted on its debt obligations last May and entered a severe economic crisis. Inflation peaked at 73%, one third of the population lacked access to affordable, nutritious food, and there were shortages of fuel, medicine and basic necessities. According to a recent assessment by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the country faced a multifaceted disaster. While the situation has since improved, many are still struggling, and a large number of Sri Lankans have experienced a profound decline in living standards.
Recognising the deteriorating humanitarian situation, the British Government provided £3 million of targeted support for those most severely affected, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. While it is unusual to provide humanitarian assistance to a lower-middle-income country outside a disaster situation, that reflected the level of economic hardship and urgent need, as well as the very close and friendly relationship between our two countries. Delivered through our UN partners and the Red Cross, our support has provided food for schoolchildren, hygiene kits for girls, and multi-purpose cash grants for poor and vulnerable families to meet essential household needs, including food. That complements UK support provided through multilateral agencies, such as the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund. The UK is the largest donor to the fund, having contributed more than $1.7 billion since its inception in 2006, and it has already provided $5 million to Sri Lanka.
My hon. Friend asked specifically how we were helping Sri Lanka to tackle its economic situation. The Asian Development Bank and the World Bank are providing emergency assistance under a joint action plan to help to reduce the impact of the economic crisis. The UK is also working with international partners and the Sri Lankan Government to address the causes of the crisis, and to support debt sustainability and economic recovery. We welcome the International Monetary Fund’s recent approval of a four-year programme worth $3,000 million to support Sri Lanka’s economic policies and reforms. That has now begun, with the first tranche of financing disbursed. We will continue to support Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring process, and encourage all creditors to engage constructively in these negotiations.
We recognise Sri Lanka’s commitment to the policy reforms that are required to keep its IMF programme on track, and we look forward to working with its Government on that agenda as well. Our conflict, stability and security fund programme is already supporting parliamentary Committees on the issue of public debt management. We look forward to working with the Sri Lankan Government on their proposed reform agenda, including their ambition to build back greener; that, too, was mentioned by my hon. Friend during his excellent speech.
On 18 April, the UK and Sri Lanka held an inaugural strategic dialogue, in which we discussed how we could further support the country’s economic recovery. We will continue to explore ways in which we can help the Sri Lankan Government to advance their reform agenda. Furthermore, the new developing country trading scheme will enable Sri Lanka to benefit from duty-free exports to the UK in respect of more than 80% of products, and will remove tariffs from more than 150 additional products.
My hon. Friend asked me specifically about China, and I wish to respond to his question in some detail. China is an important source of aid, trade and investment for many developing countries. Chinese investment, including investment under a belt and road initiative badge, can help to fill the global infrastructure gap, alongside other infrastructure initiatives, but we recognise the potential risks that this poses in relation to issues such as debt sustainability and China’s economic and political influence. The nature of Sri Lanka’s debt owed to China is complex and varied, and China’s past reluctance to provide debt treatments is a cause for concern. It holds 13% of Sri Lanka’s external debt stock, a level that is similar to the 12% held by the Paris Club and the 7% held by Japan, and lower than the private market borrowing level of 42%. We welcome the specific and credible financing assurances from Sri Lanka’s major bilateral creditors, including China, to help the country to secure an IMF support package. As I mentioned, that was approved by the IMF’s executive board on 20 March. We recognise the importance of all creditors, including China, engaging constructively in debt restructuring negotiations and policy reform, in Sri Lanka and in many other countries as well.
I turn now to the important issue of human rights. Some hon. Members from across the House have from time to time proposed conditions being placed on IMF assistance to Sri Lanka, but the fund is unable to impose those in relation to politics or human rights. We will closely follow Sri Lanka’s reform agenda to ensure social safety net protections adequately support all communities. We will also support the fund’s requirement for Sri Lanka to implement a comprehensive anti-corruption framework.
The UK, alongside our partners, has led international efforts to promote human rights for all communities in Sri Lanka, including through resolution 51/1 at the UN Human Rights Council. We urge the Sri Lankan Government to engage with key stakeholders, including victim communities, to ensure the success of those initiatives. As penholder on that resolution, we continue to call for progress on human rights, the rule of law and good governance.
We welcome Sri Lanka’s positive engagement in the universal periodic review process. However, we have made clear our concerns over heavy-handed responses to peaceful protests and the importance of upholding the rule of law and safeguarding representative democracy. I can tell the House that the Minister for the Indo-Pacific met Foreign Minister Ali Sabry on 14 March, where they discussed Sri Lanka’s plans for transitional justice mechanisms, along with many other matters.
We continue to be concerned by Sri Lanka’s economic situation for many of the reasons my hon. Friend set out in his eloquent contribution. Throughout this difficult period, the UK has been engaged in helping those who are worst affected. We will continue to work with international partners to promote Sri Lanka’s economic recovery and assist with its reform programme. We will also continue to play a committed role in supporting Sri Lanka towards an inclusive, democratic and a prosperous future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. The draft regulations, made under powers conferred by the Equality Act 2010 as amended by the Bus Services Act 2017, will require operators of local bus and coach services in Great Britain to provide audible and visible information on board.
A lack of on-board information on buses and coaches can make it impossible for many disabled people to travel independently, confidently or, indeed, safely. I wonder how many times right hon. and hon. Members have boarded a bus in an unfamiliar area or late at night, unsure how they will recognise their intended location when they reach it. They might ask the driver or other passengers for assistance, but the chances are that they will spend the journey anxious about missing their stop and being stranded in an unfamiliar location. That is probably an occasional experience for many, but for millions of disabled people it can be an everyday reality every time they travel.
Visually impaired passengers may be unable to identify bus stops as they pass them. Autistic people or passengers with cognitive impairments may need help to track their progress along a route. Wheelchair users travelling backwards in a wheelchair space may not even have a clear view of their location. I know that bus drivers up and down the country try their best to provide passengers with the necessary help, but the fact is that remembering to alert a passenger in time to alight may sometimes slip their mind, given the multiple other tasks that they must perform.
A 2014 survey by the charity Guide Dogs UK found that 70% of visually impaired respondents had missed a stop, having asked the driver to let them know when to get off, when the driver simply forgot because of all their other tasks. Disabled people with other impairments will probably relate to that unpleasant experience. Such incidents curtail the independence of disabled people affected and are likely to dissuade many people from boarding a local bus in the first place. Similar anxieties can have an impact on the confidence of women and girls, as well as other people made vulnerable while travelling, who might find themselves in unsafe situations or unsure where to alight, particularly in the evenings. Ultimately, that lack of confidence may prevent people from accessing the education, employment or leisure activities that vital bus services support.
What is the solution? Members who take London buses will know that on-board route and location information is nearly ubiquitous in the capital. In places such as Brighton, Blackpool, Edinburgh and Cardiff, passengers have also benefited from the roll-out of such technology, thanks to the efforts of their local operators; I recently did so myself up in County Durham, on the X15 between Lanchester and Durham.
Despite the benefits for passengers and the good work of some operators, however, the provision of such information remains far too inconsistent across the country. Since 2017, provision in Great Britain has crept up from 36% to 43%. That means that in practice disabled people still cannot board a bus with any certainty that the information that they need to travel with confidence will be provided as standard. With proven, time-tested technology already on the network in some towns and cities, it cannot be right that disabled people in so many communities are still being left behind. It is time for a change.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Guide Dogs UK encourages MPs to put a blindfold on, get on a bus and experience what people with auditory and visual impairments have to experience every time. It really is—I was going to say “eye-opening”—something we should all do to experience what disabled people suffer almost daily. Does the Minister agree that we should encourage MPs to take such journeys to experience what disabled people experience?
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member for that important point. As I said, many people will have had the experience of missing their bus stop because of a lack of information. I sometimes miss my stop just looking out of the window at the beautiful County Durham countryside. Missing their stop is an everyday occurrence for people who do not have the information to hand, because they are reliant on some senses but not others. The hon. Member makes an important point, as Guide Dogs UK has done with its campaign.
To level up services across the country, the draft regulations will create a new requirement for operators of local services in Great Britain to provide accessible on-board information. They specify that that must include information about the route, the next stop, route termination, diversions and hail-and-ride sections. The regulations are the product of engagement with stakeholders representing disabled people, bus and coach operators and specialists in the provision of information, as well as our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. They attempt to strike a balance between delivering meaningful benefits for passengers and minimising negative impacts on operators. They are about setting the outcomes that disabled people need, but leaving it to operators to determine how they should be met.
Passengers will be able to expect a minimum standard for on-board information across the country, helping them to travel with confidence. The limited number of technical requirements in the draft regulations, such as the minimum volume level, are intended to support that minimum standard across the board. Meanwhile, operators will be able to choose the technology that suits their business and their vehicles. We have already ruled out the option of forcing passengers to rely on smartphones to access information, as disabled people are much less likely than non-disabled people to own them, according to recent Ofcom research. However, on the wider question of technology, we recognise that one size does not fit all. We are certainly not in the business of telling operators to choose one brand of on-board system over another.
Although I am hopeful that most operators will embrace the new requirements as an opportunity to improve the service available to all passengers, I am conscious that, for some, any additional expense may be concerning. We have therefore designed the policy with the smallest, most marginal operators in mind. In particular, we have allowed more time for operators of older vehicles to comply. We have also exempted most community transport, including all vehicles operated under section 19 permits and all existing vehicles used under a section 22 permit.
Even with the proposed exemptions in place, by October 2026 almost every service that people use on a day-to-day basis will be expected to provide accessible on-board information under the regulations. In fact, with compliance focused initially on new and nearly new vehicles, passengers should begin to see and hear a difference from October next year. To be clear, that difference will be experienced by passengers across England, Scotland and Wales. We listened to stakeholders in all three nations while developing the regulations, and we expect the regulations to support independent, confident travel for disabled passengers and others throughout Great Britain.
To help the industry to understand the new requirements, we will issue guidance under section 181C of the Equality Act 2010. That will include advice about managing potential conflicts between passenger needs, as well as opportunities to go even further in making services accessible.
I will explain the enforcement processes for the draft regulations. We know that operators will want to do the right thing and that they will see the provision of audible and visible information as an integral element of a high-quality and accessible customer experience. If something goes wrong, however, passenger complaints should in the first instance be dealt with by the relevant operator. If they remain unresolved, they can be escalated to Bus Users UK or London TravelWatch for arbitration and potentially referred to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The DVSA will investigate alleged breaches, referring them to traffic commissioners in appropriate locations across Great Britain.
We want to work with the industry to establish accessible information as a mainstay on our buses. That will help to build the confidence that is so critical to getting people back on to local transport services, which is something that hon. Members have been in touch with me about. They are particularly concerned about concessionary fare users, many of whom will be disabled people who lack the confidence to come back on to the network. We hope that this will be a move in the right direction.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I thank the Minister and the Department for this very important legislation. It is common-sense and compassionate, so it is much needed. I am interested to know about the Minister’s discussions with the industry. As it stands, about 46% of buses have audible and visible information on board. For the 54%, what is the likely timescale for getting this stuff implemented and in action? Will there be a review to make sure that we are holding people’s feet to the flames to get things happening?
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. There are three deadlines in place: any new buses coming online by October 2024 must have the required information, buses built between October 2014 and September 2019 must have it by 1 October 2025, and pre-2014 buses must have it by 1 October 2026. It will be done in stages, but they will be quite quick stages over the next three years.
As I said, on a recent bus journey in County Durham I saw operators starting to retrofit services in anticipation of the deadlines. We expect compliance to be ahead of schedule, but we have important measures in place that can go right the way through to traffic commissioners, who will decide whether people can operate bus services at all if there is non-compliance. Having spoken at length to the Secretary of State, I am hopeful that we will not see non-compliance, however, and I know that the Department is engaged at length on the issue. I do not want to see people losing licences; I want to see people getting on board as quickly as possible.
We remain committed to the simple but powerful idea, set out in the inclusive transport strategy, that disabled people should have the same access to transport as everyone else. The draft regulations will level up local services, particularly outside London, and will encourage more people back on to the buses and support disabled people to travel confidently and independently across the whole of Great Britain. They will also have knock-on consequences for the rest of the population. Hopefully, providing access to extra information at people’s fingertips will encourage more people back on to our bus network. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
Good morning, Sir Robert. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to speak about this really important statutory instrument.
The SI will require bus and coach operators to provide information to passengers throughout their journey, such as the route they are on, the stopping places and when they have reached their final destination, and to inform them of any diversions. It will make a big difference to all who travel on buses—some 2.8 billion passenger journeys were made last year—but disabled and vulnerable passengers will see a particular improvement. That is why Labour welcomes the SI and will support it today.
However, I must note that we have waited a long time for this announcement. The Government announced their first partnership in 2019, with £2 million to provide audio and visual equipment for buses, yet as their own press release says, only 30% of buses outside London provide such information at the moment. That is just not good enough. It leaves 70% of services to cover, and the Government have announced £4.65 million in funding to finish the job. Disability charities such as Disability Rights UK are concerned that the money will not stretch far enough to deliver the accessibility that buses need: grants are lower in real terms than they were in the last round, and our bus fleet in England is the oldest since records began.
I recognise that under the ZEBRA—zero-emission bus regional areas—scheme, the new funded buses will have to provide audio and visual information as standard, which I strongly welcome. However, as I have said repeatedly, the scheme is being delivered far too slowly: only six buses are actually on the road. It would be helpful, in the context of the wider announcement, for the ZEBRA scheme to be speeded up in order to deliver the ambition set out by the Government in the national bus strategy.
Will the Minister share the details of any assessment that has been done on reaching that £4.65 million figure? Does he intend it to cover the remaining 70% of buses that need it? I note that under the previous guidance, wheelchairs were not given the extra display panels because they often face backwards on buses. I would be very interested to hear whether the 30% of buses that have already been covered will be upgraded further to add that extra level of accessibility.
Although Labour welcomes this legislation, we remain concerned about the cuts to bus services over which this Conservative Government have presided. More than 1,100 routes have been cut in England over the past year. In some parts of the country such as Leicestershire and Hertfordshire, nearly half of bus miles have been axed over the past five years. Bus users are being failed by this Tory Government, who are out of ideas on the reforms needed in the sector. That is why Labour’s plans for handing power and control of our bus services back to the communities who depend on them are so crucial.
Labour agrees that these changes will improve accessibility on our buses and coaches. We therefore welcome this SI, but we will continue to call on this Government to give communities more control over the bus services on which they depend and to speed up the pace of delivering on the commitments in the national bus strategy.
Mr Holden
I thank everybody who has attended today, and I thank the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wakefield, for welcoming the proposals. A couple of the highly charged political points that he made at the end of his speech were, I thought, slightly disappointing. The Government have put more than £2.1 billion into supporting the bus network since the start of the pandemic. I have been involved personally, as I know previous Ministers have been, in signing off huge devolution deals, which never happened under the last Labour Government. The deals will support enhanced partnership working or franchising right across the country, including for the Mayor of Greater Manchester and in Merseyside, along with the bus service improvement plans that we have put in place right across the country, providing millions and millions of pounds for local bus services.
In answer to the specific question about wheelchair users, the requirements will come into force for forward-facing wheelchair spaces from 1 October this year, and for all wheelchair spaces from October 2024. That is being phased in with the other requirements for the older buses. I hope that that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s specific points.
Before I draw my comments to a close, let me reiterate some of the strengths of the draft regulations, which are grounded in the idea that disabled people should be able to move around this country as easily as anybody else and that where barriers remain, we will challenge them at every opportunity. They also recognise the tremendous experience and expertise in our bus and coach industry and seek to harness them to provide proportionate solutions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned grant funding. We are providing £4.65 million for the smallest operators: that is targeted at those with 20 vehicles or fewer, and the cost estimates stand at about £2,500 to £5,500 for each of those vehicles. We estimate that the cost to the industry overall will be £8.6 million for the retrofitting, but we expect to see some of that cost being offset by increased use among disabled passengers. There will be an uplift for the industry as a result of having that in place, but we recognise that for smaller operators there may be up-front capital costs that affect their cash flow, which is why we are providing extra money. The legislation supports the idea that accessibility should be a universal right, wherever anyone lives in Great Britain.
May I say how immensely grateful I am for the sustained and pragmatic input of all our stakeholders, the devolved Administrations and particularly the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee in helping us to develop the draft regulations? In particular, the work of Guide Dogs UK has been invaluable to understanding the case for change and the human impact of a lack of accessibility and accessible information.
The draft regulations address one of the most pervasive and persistent barriers to accessibility on our bus network today. Once they come into force, they will represent a significant step forward in the usability of our local transport networks and will provide a big, tangible improvement for millions of passengers. Most of all, they will unlock the benefits of buses for disabled people up and down Great Britain. I hope that members of the Committee are looking forward to seeing and hearing the difference on their local buses in the years ahead. Once again, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Dangerous driving
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
Allergy Awareness Week
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Allergy Awareness Week.
This afternoon I will raise a number of points about improving allergy services in the NHS, but first I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate.
What we are talking about matters to an awful lot of people. Millions across the country suffer from at least one allergy. It is estimated that 44% of adults and some 50% of children in the UK have one or more allergic disorders. While allergies have increased globally in prevalence, complexity and severity over the last 60 years or so, the UK rates are among the highest in the world.
I pay tribute to the allergy community for its contribution throughout the year, which was showcased during the recent Allergy Awareness Week. I acknowledge the extraordinary work of charities, research bodies, academics and health practitioners, as well as numerous individuals and families, all fighting for support and help on food labelling, NHS services, awareness in schools and much more, given the extraordinary growth in allergic conditions over the last couple of decades.
It is worth being clear from the outset what we are talking about. An allergy is a hypersensitivity reaction, or an exaggerated sensitivity, to substances known as allergens, which are normally tolerated across most communities. Examples include peanuts, milk, shellfish, cats, medicine and grass pollens. These can trigger harmful antibodies and the release of inflammatory chemicals, causing symptoms such as sneezing, itches, rashes and falls in blood pressure, yet they may also cause narrowing of airways, shortness of breath and wheezing, and swelling that, if in the mouth, throat or airway, causes severe difficulty in breathing and can be life-threatening.
There is a modern-day epidemic in allergy, one that I would argue is neglected by the NHS. We are all aware of recent high-profile, tragic cases of fatal anaphylaxis brought on by issues such as food labelling, shortcomings in NHS service provision, and a lack of public understanding across the wider community. Those recent tragedies have brought all that into sharp focus, and they are occurring with a regularity that should worry us all.
The figures speak for themselves. One third of the population—some 20 million people in the UK—are living with an allergic condition, and 5 million have a severe enough condition to require specialist care. Fatal and near-fatal reactions regularly occur due to foods, drugs and insect stings, and have been increasing in recent years. There has been a 615% increase in hospital admissions related to allergic disease in the last 20 years.
The percentages of children diagnosed with allergic rhinitis and with eczema have trebled over the last 30 years. More than 200,000 people now require the prescription of emergency adrenaline due to the severity of their allergic condition, and each year new births add some 43,000 cases of child allergy to the population in need. The figures are quite extraordinary. Despite all that, specialist services delivered by trained paediatric allergists are available to only a minority of those with severe disease.
What is so frustrating for so many is that over the last two decades a series of reports have consistently demonstrated the prevalence of allergic disease, the patient need and the lack of UK service provision. I will list some of the reports. There were two Royal College of Physicians reports, in 2003 and 2010, on allergy and the unmet need. The 2003 report was so disturbing and so scathing that in 2006 the Department of Health conducted its own review of allergy services. We also had a 2004 House of Commons Health Committee report on the provision of allergy services and a 2007 House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on allergy. In autumn 2021, the all-party parliamentary group on allergy, alongside the National Allergy Strategy Group, published “Meeting the challenges of the National Allergy Crisis”.
All those reports consistently highlighted how allergy remains poorly managed across the NHS due to lack of training and expertise. All recommended significant improvement in specialist services, as well as improved knowledge and awareness in primary care. They all talked about the need for a national allergy action plan, and for a national lead person responsible for allergy services and provision at NHS England or the Department of Health and Social Care—often referred to in shorthand as an allergy tsar.
That is not to say that nothing has changed over the last 20 years. We have seen National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on allergy and care pathways for children with allergic disease. Natasha’s law came into force on 1 October 2021 to regulate labelling on pre-packaged food for direct sale. But the truth is that very little has changed over the last 20 years, apart from the increased prevalence of the conditions.
The economic case for prevention-orientated allergy services is strong. The estimated cost of allergy-related illness was calculated in 2004 as £1 billion a year. Since then, admissions to hospital with anaphylaxis have increased by 200% to 300%. Primary care visits for allergy have increased, now accounting for 8% of total GP consultations. Put simply, the complexity and severity of allergy has increased, as has the number of patients affected, placing huge strain on the system. Those are the basic facts and change is long overdue. Beyond the statistics, for the growing number of people living with allergic disease, their conditions can have a significant negative impact on the lives that they and their families live. It is frightening and restrictive to live with a condition that could cause a severe or life-threatening reaction literally at any time of the day.
Each report I mentioned concludes that allergy has largely been ignored and is poorly managed across the NHS due to a lack of training and expertise. The core problem is the very small number of consultants in adult and paediatric allergy, and the fact that most GPs receive no training in allergy. That basic mismatch between the rising demand and the poor service needs correction. There are only 11 specialist allergy training posts for doctors in England and only two qualify each year, despite the 2004 report recommending some 20 years ago that 40 doctors a year should qualify. There are too few consultants, and only 40 adult allergists and a similar number of paediatric allergists working in a very small number of allergy centres.
The day-to-day reality is that NHS patients face a postcode lottery. They are hampered by wrong referrals and re-referrals, or they get no referral. They face denial of choice and of the benefits of the improvement in allergy care. In short, there is significant unmet need. Paradoxically, the UK is one of the world’s leaders in allergy research.
The reports that I have referred to, which span some 20 years, offer an agenda for change. All four contain basic recommendations; there are themes that recur all the time. First, we need a national plan for allergy. We should make allergy a priority and invest in a national plan led by a designated Department of Health and Social Care civil servant or NHS lead with sufficient authority to implement change—a national clinical director for allergy.
Secondly, there is a need for specialist care. We should expand the specialist workforce as a priority and ensure that training programmes prioritise allergy so that specialists of the future are appropriately trained and can deliver safe care.
Thirdly, we need to ensure that all GPs and healthcare professionals in primary care have knowledge of allergic disease, that allergy is included in the GP curriculum and exit examination, and that allergy education is improved for already qualified GPs in ongoing professional appraisal. On a positive note, I should add that the Royal College of General Practitioners has recently added allergy to new GP exams, which is a welcome intervention.
Fourthly, we need to ensure that local commissioners understand the allergy needs of their populations. Commissioners should ensure access to adult and paediatric allergy consultants and allergy pathways.
Allergy remains a small specialism; not only do patients not know where to turn, but healthcare professionals themselves often do not know the best pathway to send their patients on. GPs receive so little training and the responsibility for managing adult allergy services remains unclear and ambiguous.
Every sufferer should have a right to receive quality care. To achieve that, Allergy UK has developed a patients’ charter, in consultation with patients and clinicians, to deliver a gold standard of patient rights and care for those living with allergic disease. It calls for a healthcare system that recognises allergy as a chronic long-term condition and provides continuity of care and timely diagnoses. It should not be beyond our collective wit to provide that, yet recent NHS reforms may mean that we are heading in a very different direction.
Today, 42 statutory integrated care systems, each with an integrated care board and an integrated care partnership, are responsible for planning and funding NHS services. It was recently announced that allergy services would be commissioned by ICBs and not centralised. What does that mean for the postcode lottery in the system and for the development of a national plan?
Allergy UK reports that 93% of ICBs responsible for commissioning services to support the allergic community have not even the scantest picture of the potential needs of their populations in terms of allergy services. Not one ICB held data on whether there were any specialist allergy nurses or dieticians in its region.
As it is, specialist allergy services are very limited outside the south-east. Two hospitals in the south-east—Guy’s and St Thomas’s, and Southampton General—are accredited as World Allergy Organisation centres of excellence, but even those living in the south-east of England struggle to access decent care and the right care. The north and the west of England, along with Wales, are especially deprived of services. As I mentioned, there are only 40 adult allergy consultants in the UK and even fewer paediatric allergy specialists. That is equivalent to one adult allergy specialist per 1.3 million of the adult population. As far back as 2003, the Royal College of Physicians advised that 200 consultant adult allergists were required.
I do not want to sound too negative, so I will point to two important recent developments. The first is an example of what can be done on the ground. Allergy UK recently invested £500,000 in a research project with the University of Edinburgh to trial a new nurse-led allergy centre in primary care. Thirty-eight clinical practices were allowed to refer patients to two specialist allergy nurses, who held six clinical sessions each week.
The trial resulted in 426 patients being referred to the specialist allergy nurse clinics, of whom 53% were young people and adults with a history of anaphylaxis or suspected anaphylaxis. Three hundred and eighty-three of the patients seen in a clinic would otherwise have been referred on to secondary care. Only 5% of those had an onward referral to secondary care. Eighty-two per cent. said they had seen improvements in their allergic conditions since attending the clinic, which is a very positive result.
The trial demonstrated that a nurse-led, primary care- based allergy clinic can work for patients and take pressure off other NHS services. Allergy UK is now calling for each ICS to have a fully funded specialist allergy service with a specialist allergy nurse and one specialist dietician. That sounds to me like quite a practical intervention that could achieve a lot very quickly.
Secondly, I want to acknowledge some progress in the Department over the last year and a half. The previous Minister for care and mental health, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), demonstrated real commitment in this area, and I put on the record our appreciation for what she did. Since autumn 2021, we have established a work programme and an ongoing dialogue between civil servants and representatives of the National Allergy Strategy Group.
The NASG has held several meetings with the long-term conditions team in the DHSC to discuss the need for a lead and expert advisers to support on development of a national plan for allergy. A proposal and terms of reference have been drafted, and they are currently within the DHSC. The hope is that those discussions will continue and move forward so that an expert group can be established in the very near future. That could be one of the most significant outcomes of the last 20 years. I commend the Government for that, and look forward to the Minister—I hope—recommitting to that programme of work and partnership working this afternoon.
I could have discussed many other issues today, including labelling, allergies in schools, and the regulation of products in takeaways and restaurants. On Monday, we will have a chance to discuss some of that territory when we debate the two e-petitions relevant to this debate. The first, e-petition 589716, calls for the appointment of an allergy tsar as a champion for people living with allergies. Over 20,000 people have signed it to date. The second, e-petition 585304, relates to “Owen’s law,” a change in the law on allergy labelling in UK restaurants. I think over 13,000 people have signed that petition to date. I congratulate the organisers. Tens of thousands of people are mobilising and demanding change, and businesses are responding too: in March 2023, the bosses of 11 leading food businesses, including Tesco and Sainsbury’s, called for clearer rules on food labelling following recent tragic and preventable deaths.
Next year marks the 20th anniversary of the publication of the Health Committee’s landmark report, “The Provision of Allergy Services”. The report recommended implementing a “modern allergy service” with specialist allergy doctors and a focus on primary care. Simply put, the vast majority of those recommendations remain unmet. We have lost 20 years, and nothing has really changed. On behalf of the many millions of people suffering from allergy conditions, I urge the Government to acknowledge allergy as a public health priority. Lives, as well as the quality of life of many of our fellow citizens, depend on it.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is great to see you in the Chair today, Ms Ali. It is a pleasure to speak in today’s important debate on allergy. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) for securing it, and I echo many of the sentiments that he expressed. I thank all the excellent campaigners across the UK whose lives have been impacted by allergies, especially those families who have tragically lost loved ones and continue to campaign to raise public awareness and to lobby for policy changes. They are an inspiration to us all.
As the Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, let me also highlight the crucial and often lifesaving work of Allergy UK, which is based in Sidcup and supports individuals and families across the country via a range of allergy-related guidance and services. Those include a helpline and a dietician service to help the parents of young children who have symptoms of food allergy and have not yet been referred to a dietician. I had the privilege of visiting the hard-working team in Sidcup last year to see its work at first hand. I am very sorry that Carla will soon be leaving, and I thank her for her fantastic leadership and all her hard work for the all-party parliamentary group on allergy.
As we have heard already, an awareness among patients and in the NHS of how allergies can impact our health can be a matter of life and death. That is why I support Allergy UK’s mission for everyone in the UK to take allergy seriously. I must admit that I never did so before I met the team and allergy experts from across the country. After I mentioned that I suffer with hay fever each year, they gave me more information on the various types of pollen than my brain could digest, and lots of great advice on how to manage my allergies. If they are watching today, I promise them that I did listen—I am sniffling a lot less than I would normally at this time of year.
Mine is just one relatively minor case, and hay fever is a common example of an allergy. Living with any kind of allergy is challenging and can impact the quality of a person’s life, but food allergies can trigger very severe reactions and, without emergency treatment, present a risk to life. Understanding that is vital, not just for patients but for medical professionals.
It is estimated that 41 million people in the UK live with allergic disease and that 50% of children are affected by one or more allergic disorders. However, there is a significant gap in both awareness and healthcare services for those affected by this disease of the immune system. That is why I signed the patient charter, and why I back Allergy UK’s campaigns to raise awareness, including in schools, and to introduce allergy nurse and dietician services in GP practices.
Regional integrated care boards have a clear role to play in the new NHS structure in helping to close that gap. I look forward to hearing more from my hon. Friend the Minister about how the Government can support that endeavour with the significant money being allocated to the NHS to help to improve health outcomes, and how the Government can address the estimated £1 billion annual cost of NHS prescriptions to help to manage allergy symptoms and the increase in hospital admissions highlighted by the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham.
The service specification sets out that providers should deliver a diagnostic package for the investigation of suspected allergic diseases, including initial consultation and follow-up in a dedicated allergy clinic and specialised allergy tests, but the evidence is clear that we need more specialists across the country to avoid a postcode lottery for individuals and families. There are resources available to support healthcare professionals in making referrals to specialist services, including guidance from the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, but we must continue to promote them to medical professionals.
We have made progress in recent years. The most obvious example is Natasha’s law, which came into force on 1 October 2021. It requires all food retailers and operators to display full ingredient and allergen information on every food item they sell pre-packed for direct sale. That gives the millions throughout the UK who are living with food allergies and intolerances better protection and more confidence in the food they buy. I again thank all the campaigners across the country, including Natasha’s family and Allergy UK, as we continue to raise awareness and make vital calls, not just in Allergy Awareness Week but throughout the year.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali, and to follow the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). I hugely congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) for securing this really important debate. I am pleased that this important issue has been given the attention in Parliament that it deserves. As my hon. Friend said, on Monday colleagues will be debating two widely signed petitions on food labelling and allergy healthcare. Given that Allergy Awareness Week was just a few weeks ago, it is right that colleagues come together this afternoon to mark its importance.
I put on the record my heartfelt thanks to the campaign groups and individuals who got in touch with me ahead of this debate, including Owen’s Law, Allergy UK and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. It is thanks to their tireless hard work, often following tragic events, that we are to have this important series of debates over the coming days.
Marking Allergy Awareness Week gives us a timely opportunity to discuss an important issue that affects thousands upon thousands of people, if not millions, every year. Often, their difficulties go unnoticed. A shocking one in three people in the UK are living with some sort of allergic condition, and sadly that figure rises to one in two among children. I know that all too well because this issue is personal to me: when my son Sullivan was six months old, my husband and I made the terrifying discovery that he is severely allergic to peanuts. He had to be rushed to hospital, which would make any mother’s stomach drop with fear. I am pleased to report that he is now a happy, healthy four-year-old, but we will forever need to pay extremely close attention to what he eats and comes into contact with. Hundreds of parents across the UK can speak of similar experiences.
I was shocked to learn that there has been a massive 600% increase in allergy-related hospital admissions in the past 20 years, but despite that massive influx there are just 40 adult allergy consultants across the whole UK. That equates to one allergy specialist per 1.3 million adults.
Ahead of today’s debate, a constituent emailed me to share her experiences of caring for her son, who has severe allergies: he is allergic to milk, wheat, egg, soy and peanuts and to pollen and dust mites, among many other things. As I am sure hon. Members can imagine, her son’s condition has massively affected his quality of life, as well as hers as a mother. Navigating daily life is a constant struggle for my constituent and her son in ways that those of us who do not live with debilitating allergies give little thought to. She told me that her son’s ability to participate in activities that other children routinely enjoy has been completely hampered by his condition. It is a truly heartbreaking situation for all involved. One of the main barriers that my constituent and her son face is the complete lack of joined-up thinking across services, including education, healthcare and hospitality. She feels that there is a real lack of awareness and understanding of what her son requires in order to be given the basic opportunities that we take for granted. Among those everyday issues is food labelling in hospitality.
I am pleased that one of the petitions to be debated next week is on Owen’s law, which would see stronger regulation on allergy labelling in restaurants. For colleagues who are not aware, Owen Carey tragically died of anaphylaxis in 2017 after eating chicken marinated in buttermilk, to which he was severely allergic. On the menu at the restaurant he ate at, the chicken was erroneously listed as plain grilled. Owen’s family have been tirelessly campaigning for a change in the law, and they have my full support.
I welcome the fact that the UK Government stated last year that the Food Standards Agency was considering how to improve food labelling, and I am pleased that Labour has acknowledged the importance of clearly labelled allergen information, but for many families, such as my constituent and her son, action is urgently needed now, not at some point down the line. The current regulations require hospitality businesses to provide consumers with information about 14 allergens, but, crucially, the format in which that information is to be conveyed is not specified in law and can vary greatly in certain restaurants.
Owen’s law would ensure that accurate allergen information is put on the face of restaurant menus and that there is more stringent training for staff. Together, these simple measures would make an enormous difference and prevent any further tragic deaths like Owen’s. The changes would also make a small but significant difference to the lives of those who are blighted by allergies and anaphylaxis. For my constituent and her son, clear and standardised allergen labelling would make navigating the otherwise extremely difficult experience of attending any restaurant just that little bit easier.
The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation secured a monumental victory in changing the law on pre-packaged food labelling following the tragic death of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse in 2016, but it is absolutely right to say that we have so much more work to do to prevent us from letting vulnerable people down any further. The foundation is now calling for the appointment of an allergy tsar at the heart of the NHS to champion people with allergies across the UK and ensure that they receive appropriate support. I would welcome that move.
I hope that the Minister is able to feed back to her colleagues in the Government on the proposals as far as NHS England is concerned. I also invite her to set out a timeline for when we can expect Owen’s law to be implemented. Allergies can ruin lives, but often that is forgotten by so many. I sincerely hope that the Minister recognises the severity of this issue. I look forward to working with her and her Government to tackle the issue at its root, once and for all.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
May I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) for securing today’s debate and for the comprehensive manner in which he opened it? He said much that I can agree with. Indeed, there is not that much left to say, because it was a very comprehensive introduction.
I am grateful to the patient charity Allergy UK for its very informative briefing ahead of the debate and for its sterling work over more than three decades in raising awareness and supporting people living with allergies, who represent a significant proportion of the population across these islands. Allergy Awareness Week was held from 24 to 28 April and was initiated by Allergy UK, which is urging every NHS integrated care board in the UK to appoint at least one allergy nurse and dietician. Allergy UK believes that this measure would enhance the standard and the promptness of the care, advice and support available to allergy sufferers. It is hard to disagree with that. We really must ensure that all people living with allergies can access the best possible care and support, and we must recognise that rising food prices are having a disproportionate impact on many of those with allergies. We must also acknowledge that climate change, which is extending the length of the pollen season, is having an adverse effect on many people.
Across the UK, 21 million people have an allergy. That is one of the highest rates in the world. We have seen an increase of 650% in hospital admissions for allergic conditions over the past 20 years, which is truly staggering. An allergy is the immune system’s reaction to normally harmless substances such as pollen, food or house dust mites, which can trigger an adverse response in allergic individuals, ranging from localised itching to potentially fatal anaphylaxis. According to Allergy UK, the most common causes of allergic reactions are pollen from trees and grasses; proteins secreted from house dust mites; mould; food such as peanuts, tree nuts, milk and eggs; pets such as cats and dogs, and other furry or hairy animals; insects such as wasps and bees; and even medicines. It is quite a lengthy list.
I have been fortunate not to have any allergies. Looking back on my life, I do not recall allergies being on the same scale as they are now. When I was a young man, I was sent to school with peanuts as a treat on occasion. I thought that was great, but we would never dream of doing it now.
The world has changed quite dramatically, and not for the best. Allergies are very common in children; some go away as a child gets older, but not all do. We know that fewer pensioners have allergies and that incidence is significantly higher among under-35s. It has also been suggested that we may be paying the price for being too hygienic and insufficiently exposed to bacteria that would help to train the immune system. Sometimes in life it seems that you can never win.
In Scotland, most allergic conditions are treated through primary care. The Scottish Government are committed to ensuring that people living with an allergic condition receive the care they need when they need it. GPs in primary care are at the heart of the healthcare system. The Scottish Government are investing in multidisciplinary teams to increase the capacity in primary care, which will allow patients to be seen at the right time by the right person.
Asthma continues to be the most common allergic condition, accounting for 69% of the approximately 5,100 allergy-related hospital admissions each year in Scotland. The Scottish Government are providing guidance to education authorities, health boards and schools to fulfil their obligations to students and their healthcare requirements. In December 2017 they published guidance for supporting students’ healthcare needs, including a section on allergic reactions and anaphylaxis. I think we would probably all benefit from knowing a bit more about what to do if someone is exposed to that situation. I would be lost if it happened in front of me in my office, so I think there is a lesson there for all of us. We need to know more and to be able to help when something goes wrong.
Food is a large factor. I welcome the new legislation, which has been referred to as Natasha’s law, requiring food businesses in Scotland and throughout the rest of the UK to label all pre-packed food for direct sale with a complete ingredient list. The law, which came into effect in October 2021, was implemented after the sad death of 15-year-old Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction to a pre-packed sandwich containing undeclared sesame seeds. It applies to products such as pre-wrapped sandwiches, fast food and daily items such as cheese and meat that are already wrapped for service. The Food Standards Scotland chief executive, Geoff Ogle, said:
“This is a huge step in helping improve the quality of life for around two million people living with food allergies in the UK—with 200,000 of those living here in Scotland.”
I echo his comments. I also echo the calls from other Members to see more progress with Owen’s law so that anyone can eat out safely.
Grocery prices are continuing to climb, and those with allergies or special dietary requirements are being disproportionately hit. I urge the UK Government to better support people with allergies during the cost of living crisis. Statistics from January this year show that households with specific dietary requirements can be paying up to 73% more for their food than those who do not need to buy “free from” products, according to analysis by the allergy team. Pea milk is £2 per litre, roughly 50% more expensive than cows’ milk. Gluten-free penne pasta at Morrisons jumped by 125% in 12 months, from 60p in January 2022 to £1.35 this January. The cost of Sainsbury’s Nurishh vegan cheddar-style cheese slices alternative increased by 67% from £1.50 to £2.50, while the cost of Alpro soya growing-up milk at Asda increased by 27% from £1.50 to £1.90. For a lot of people who have no alternative, that is simply not affordable.
In Scotland, people who have been clinically diagnosed with coeliac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis—I probably pronounced that as badly as I typed it last night—can receive a range of gluten-free food on prescription at no charge. Perhaps the UK should look at that. There is more that each of our nations need to do for the increasing numbers of people who are living with allergies. That does not just go for health treatments; we must also tackle the cost of living and climate change.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) for securing this debate and for his continued commitment to this issue. The petitions that are coming forward highlight the level of concern and interest in this area. It is right that we are debating it in this place.
We are witnessing a burgeoning rise in allergic disease in the UK. This country is in the top three in the world for the highest incidence of allergies. One third of the UK population are living with a condition and, perhaps more worryingly, 50% of children are affected by one or more allergic disorders. They are stressful and worrying conditions, with continual and often costly adjustments to guard against allergic reactions. In a few tragic cases, they can be fatal. Allergies can cause not only symptoms such as sneezing, itches, rashes and falls in blood pressure, but airway narrowing, shortness of breath, wheezing and swelling, which in the mouth area leads to severe difficulty in breathing and can be life-threatening.
As we have heard, allergies are most common in children. As my hon. Friend said, it is terrifying when people, particularly children, are rushed to A&E, sometimes with tragic results. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) highlighted her experience with her own child, and it is something that I too have witnessed with a family member.
We have heard about the too frequent fatalities, mostly of young people, including Natasha Ednan-Laperouse. It is thanks to her parents and others that full ingredient and allergen labelling on pre-packed food for sale was introduced in October 2021. We pay tribute to them and to all families who have raised awareness in such circumstances. It is not something that any parent would want to have to do.
We have also heard about the incredible rise in hospital admissions over the past 20 years. I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) that it was perhaps not recognised much when we were at school. The growth has been quite phenomenal. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) has found out what we have all found out: that the great privilege of coming to this place is learning so much from our constituents and campaigners about issues that we may not have been aware of, and being able to present them in this place.
We now know that there are only 40 allergy consultants in the UK, and even fewer in paediatrics—the equivalent of only one per 1.3 million of the adult population. As far back as 2003, the Royal College of Physicians advised that 200 consultant allergists were required. Despite further warnings and criticism over the past two decades, the provision is wholly inadequate. The first Health Committee report highlighting the inadequacy of service was in 2004. In 2006, there was a report so scathing that the then Labour Government’s Department of Health conducted a review. In 2007, 2010 and 2021, we had further reports from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, the Royal College of Pathologists and most recently the APPG, all of which further acknowledged the continued failures without much progress.
After 13 years, we look forward to the Minister giving us a bit of hope for the future. It is vital that there are allergy services across all integrated care systems, but as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham, more than half of ICBs have said that they do not hold that data and are not across the issues in their own populations. Last year, the then care Minister, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), said that
“we will continue to support people living with allergies through NIHR research and exploring and investing in new treatments.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 134-135WH.]
We would welcome an update from today’s Minister on what steps have been taken to ensure that allergy services are available in all ICS areas.
The NHS’s capacity to tackle allergic disease has been lowered by the unprecedented pressures it is facing under this Conservative Government. More than 7 million people are waiting for NHS treatment, compared with more than 4 million before the pandemic. They are waiting in pain and discomfort, on record waiting lists, and there are staff vacancies of more than 100,000. Those awaiting treatment for allergies face long wait times as well as delayed diagnosis and treatment. That, in turn, increases the chance of more severe allergic reactions developing, which will often require admission to secondary care— something that none of us should want to see. Again, that is increasing the pressure on services by taking up time in A&E and is resulting in more expensive treatments.
Will the Minister explain what her Government are doing to tackle the waiting times for diagnosis and treatment? Last year, the then Minister also stated:
“The FSA is currently undertaking a programme of work to improve the quality of life for people living with food hypersensitivity and provide support to make safe, informed food choices to effectively manage risk.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 134WH.]
Those are words that I am sure today’s Minister recognises. Again, we would all welcome an update on where that work has got to.
There is hope for people living with an allergy. Given the right amount of research funding in the next couple of decades, treatments can be found that will potentially eradicate many allergies. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what action is being taken to support forward-looking research into potentially lifesaving treatments.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I thank the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) for securing a debate on this important issue, and for his continued work advocating on behalf of those with allergies, particularly through chairing the all-party parliamentary group on allergy.
Millions of people, many of them children, are affected by allergy, so I am sure that the points raised by hon. Members will resonate with families across the country. My brother has asthma, which at times has had a severe impact on his life, and which can be very frightening. I also have a close cousin who has multiple food allergies; I remember that when we were children, those allergies could be worrying or even frightening. Members here and many people across the country have experience, whether directly or through close family and friends, of allergies that can make life really difficult and at times very scary.
Among other things, the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham spoke about the huge number of people affected by allergies, their increasing prevalence, and the resulting increasing need for healthcare and support. He also spoke about how frightening and restricted life can be for people living with a severe allergy, and the need for more specialist NHS staff and generalist allergy training. He acknowledged that the UK is a world leader in allergy research, and I heard his several clear asks for Government support for people affected by allergies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) is a hay fever sufferer, but he spoke today because his constituency hosts Allergy UK, which does very important work to raise awareness of allergies, and to support people with allergies and their families. He spoke of the importance of diagnostic services, the need for specialists, and the variation across the country in the services and support available. He also spoke about the progress we have made in recent years, which includes, very importantly, the introduction of Natasha’s law, which has improved food labelling. I thank him for the work he is doing to raise awareness of allergies and their impact on people’s lives.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) spoke about her personal experience with her son, and how she found out about his allergy. It must have been extremely alarming to find out, when he was only six months old, how allergic he is to peanuts; I can imagine that that was just at the point when he might have been moving on to solid foods. Parents do not know what they will find out. I can imagine how alarming it must have been to rush to hospital with such a small child. Clearly, there are things that must make life difficult day to day for her son, but I am glad that it sounds as though he is doing well after that very frightening experience. She also talked about the hard work of campaign groups, including the amazingly effective campaigning of families who have tragically lost loved ones as a result of their allergies. She also spoke about the huge increase in hospital admissions in the last 20 years of people who have severe allergic reactions.
Like the hon. Lady and other hon. Members, I recognise the work of all the organisations that support people with allergies, including charities such as Allergy UK, Anaphylaxis UK and the National Allergy Strategy Group, which has been instrumental in ensuring that the voices of all those affected by allergy are heard across Government.
This debate has the heading “Allergy Awareness Week”, but it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to mention, as other hon. Members have done, other allergy debates happening next Monday, involving the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), who has responsibility for primary care and public health. One debate that he will respond to next Monday will cover vital issues about food safety, which have been raised in this debate. I will refrain from talking at too much length about those issues, because I know that he will cover them substantially on Monday.
That being said, I pay tribute to the work being done to support better food labelling, which is being spearheaded by families who have been bereaved following the tragic deaths of their children from severe anaphylactic reactions. Their campaigning has already led to Natasha’s law, introduced by the Government in 2021. I hope that it will protect and reassure those living with allergy.
Allergy Awareness Week’s focus on allergy support from GPs and specialist staff makes a lot of sense. Most people can be treated through locally commissioned services, for which integrated care boards are responsible, and GPs clearly play a crucial role as the first point of contact for many people with allergies. We know the huge demand for primary care services and the pressures that GPs are under. That is why the Government are investing in and increasing the primary care workforce. In fact, we already have a quarter more staff in primary care than we did in 2019, and 2,000 more GPs.
Looking ahead, we have increased the number of GP training places. Last year, the highest ever number of doctors accepted a GP training place; there were over 4,000 trainees—up from around 2,500 in 2014. That means that there will be more GPs who can be the primary care point of contact for those with allergies. In recent years, there has also been a 100% fill rate for doctors in the two relevant specialist training pathways—allergy and immunology. Many hon. Members spoke about the importance of specialists in this area.
The number of people with allergies is set to increase even further, and NHS England takes into account future and current demand when considering the training needs of the workforce. Hon. Members will know that NHS England is soon to publish the long-term NHS workplace plan, which will include projections for the number of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals needed in five, 10 and 15 years’ time.
Specialist allergy services are provided for patients with severe allergic conditions, or those who have common allergic conditions but require specialist treatment. Those services are jointly commissioned by NHS England specialised commissioning and integrated care boards, in line with the published “Prescribed Specialised Services Manual”. Specialised services must comply with the relevant specification. For allergy, that includes the need for physicians, dieticians and nurses who are trained in allergy, and who keep up to date through continuing professional development on specialised allergy services. As Allergy UK’s patient charter outlines, it is crucial that people with allergies have access to quality care, underpinned by skilled healthcare professionals, and can access services wherever they live.
There have been calls over recent years—I have heard them echoed today—for stronger leadership on allergy. I am pleased to take this opportunity to outline the allergy leadership that we already have in place. In October 2022, Dr Claire Bethune was appointed national speciality adviser for specialised immunology and allergy. Dr Bethune chairs the NHS England clinical reference group that provides clinical advice and leadership on the specialised immunology services, and advises on how specialised services can best be delivered.
Clinical reference groups, through their patient and public voice members, rightly ensure that patients and the public are involved in any changes to the commissioning of special services. The specialised immunology and allergy services clinical reference group is commencing a review of the specialised allergy services specification. The outcome will be an updated specification that references up-to-date guidance and takes into account the latest evidence base. It will clearly define the standards of care for commissioned specialised services, and notably will cover the transition to adult services.
That work is not the only thing we are doing to support children and young people with allergy. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has produced a range of guidance to support the care of people with allergies, including specific guidance on food allergy in under-19s. The guidance covers assessing and managing food allergy in under-19s, including referral to secondary or specialist care as appropriate. It has recommendations on what information and support should be provided to the child or young person and their family. That includes signposting to the invaluable work done by organisations such as Allergy UK and Anaphylaxis UK, which have a wealth of information on how to live well with an allergy.
NICE also has more specific guidance available on diagnostics and specific treatments for allergies. That is not limited to food allergies. I urge all those who are involved in the care of people with allergies to familiarise themselves with the information available. The NICE guidance, alongside the service specification and training materials I mentioned, represent a comprehensive portfolio of resources that healthcare professionals and commissioners can draw on to ensure that people with allergies receive the right care to live healthy and independent lives.
I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by some of the measures that I have outlined. I assure them that the Government are committed to a high standard of ongoing care and support for the many people in this country living with allergies. Together with the Minister who has responsibility for primary care and public health, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, I will continue to look at what more we can do to address the needs of the huge and growing number of people affected by allergies, and at the asks of hon. Members. Finally, I thank all hon. Members here for their work in keeping the spotlight on this important issue, so that allergy awareness remains constantly in the public eye, not just in Allergy Awareness Week each year.
Jon Cruddas
I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) for their positive words, as well as others who contributed to the debate. It seems that across the political aisle there is common agreement about the escalating problem and the need for viable remedies, as well as a basic right to proper care for all our fellow citizens experiencing those problems. They should not have to wait any longer.
I will make one political point. There is an election coming, and if a party was to really grip this issue and prioritise it, they could achieve much, given the sense of an epidemic out there. I do a lot of work in this area, and as soon as I talk about it I am inundated with people’s experiences. I have listened to colleagues in the Chamber, and am struck by the number of people with direct personal experience of the issue. It speaks to what is happening in the country. Any political party that could tap into that could gain much from it—but enough of the low politics.
In conclusion, I echo what colleagues have said and thank the allergy community. We were going to have this debate in Allergy Awareness Week, but it got bumped for reasons relating to the coronation. That is a pity, but I am glad that we have given an airing to some of the issues. I put on record the appreciation that we all have for the practitioners and healthcare professionals dealing with allergy; for Allergy UK; for members of the National Allergy Strategy Group; for Anaphylaxis UK; for the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation; for the researchers in the area seeking new remedies; and for the insights of all the families and campaigners fighting on behalf of those with allergic conditions. That will be echoed by many MPs from across the House on Monday. Those people do a fantastic job, but they need help—lives depend on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Allergy Awareness Week.
High Street Bank Closures and Banking Hubs
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of high street bank closures and banking hubs.
I thank you for being in the Chair, Mr Davies, and Members from both sides of the House for joining us in this debate. The numbers may be low, but I think that is because it is a Thursday, and we have just had the coronation. I know that this is an important matter, as it has been raised across the House for some time.
Banks are an important part of the fabric of our high streets and communities, providing access to cash, a vast range of banking services and, importantly, advice. At a time when we are all concerned about cyber-security, scams and fraud, this is particularly relevant. I appreciate that, like many businesses and commercial entities, banks are understandably facing changes in customer transaction patterns, requirements and behaviour. Some of these started before the covid-19 pandemic, but much has changed since that time, when the pandemic necessitated us all to live our lives very differently, not least in terms of technology.
Despite that, banks still provide an essential service—one that I believe neither a call centre nor a phone app will ever be able to fully replicate for all customers. When I heard in March this year that NatWest in Aldridge was due to close at the end of July, I was quite alarmed and disappointed. That will leave not only Aldridge but the entire constituency with just one bank—the HSBC. Surely that cannot be right. The issue does not just affect the Aldridge-Brownhills constituency or the west midlands; we are seeing a worrying pattern and up and down the country. The stats for 2023 alone show that 114 HSBC branches, 95 Barclays branches, 52 NatWest branches and 23 Lloyds branches have closed or are scheduled to close. That is 352 closures altogether. I know there are other bank branches closing on top of that, including TSB and more.
This topic is of interest to colleagues on both sides of the House, as I have said. That is clear from the number of parliamentary questions about it that have been submitted to the Treasury, which I am sure the Minister is aware of. On the day I raised this matter in the Chamber with the Leader of the House and requested a debate, I was not alone. I maintain that MPs should be champions of their communities, which is why I am standing here today bringing this matter to the attention of Ministers. Why am I doing it? Because every time a bank closes, our constituents—often the most vulnerable in our communities, who need a little bit of extra help —lose a service.
Our high streets, the very streets we seek to regenerate, risk seeing a reduction in footfall. Our businesses, charities and local organisations find it all so much harder to do business and transactions. I want to share a couple of examples. A local charity explained to me at the weekend how they always had an informal arrangement with their local bank so that when they did major fundraising collections in the village, they could go early to that branch and the staff would take the collection buckets and count out the change for them—hopefully there were some notes in there too, not just loose change. That is a service we cannot always expect a small local post office to offer.
A local business, Taylors Auto on Northgate, set the scene very well when on the closure of Lloyds last year they said that they have been running the business for 12 years, trading there for years and been customers for all that time. Without the bank in Aldridge they would have to go to Lichfield or Walsall. So many businesses in my constituency are family-run small and medium-sized enterprises. They are part of the community as well as the business network. My local residents are also affected. The number of elderly people in my constituency is above the national average: 26.7% of people are over 65 in the Aldridge Central ward, compared with the UK average of 18%. Although IT is familiar to many, it is by no means accessible to all. That can be because of a lack of tech skills, or a lack of access to a smartphone, a laptop, a computer or even the internet.
I will make two further points. First, if IT must be the only option, access to IT must be affordable and available. As many know, the cost of an internet connection has increased because of inflationary pressure. Secondly, personal independence must be maintained. Not everyone wants, or is able, to ask their children or their partner to help them every time they want to pay a bill. This is about dignity. Unless Members generate greater awareness of these issues, I fear that we will simply see these invaluable services continue to disappear quietly from our streets. When they are gone, they are gone.
Experts warn that in-person banking will not exist in a matter of years. While researching this topic, I discovered that 5,391 branches were lost between January 2015 and January 2023—an average of 54 branches a month. Do the maths: at that rate, there will no longer be in-person banking anywhere by 2027.
The recent announcement of the closure of NatWest’s Aldridge branch, which came so soon after the closure of Barclays and Lloyds branches, will be our fourth loss in just three years. That highlights the speed of loss. In-person banking offers clarity on payments and trustworthy advice, as well as convenience and accessibility to people’s own money. Surely that is a freedom that we should all have.
Alongside the end of in-person banking on the high street, we are also witnessing the decline of ATMs, especially those that are free to use. Before the pandemic, the magazine Which? produced a worrying report setting out that one in 10 free cashpoints across the country closed or switched to a fee-paying machine during a 17-month period. The rate in poorer communities was higher than in the least deprived areas of the country. Some 979 free-to-use machines in the poorest communities were lost. That will inevitably force those most reliant on cash, who can least afford to pay for withdrawals, facing charges or being forced to travel to access their money for free; surely, that cannot be right. By its very nature, cash is transactional. We must ensure that people and businesses of all sizes that depend on their ability to freely deposit and withdraw cash at a time of their convenience can continue to do so.
Businesses such as Pat Collins Funfairs, which is a long-standing family business from my constituency, have raised this issue of access to cash with me. It is by no means the exception. In 2021, a Treasury consultation proposed ensuring “reasonable access” for withdrawal and deposit facilities for personal customers, and deposit facilities for small and medium-sized enterprise customers. I ask my good friend, the Minister—I know that he has not been in post long—whether that commitment remains. If so, how is it that we are allowing such a decline in access to cash and banking to happen?
It is time to incentivise and attract people back to the high street, so that we can continue to support local businesses and communities and ensure that our town centres survive and thrive throughout the 21st century. We hear that shared banking hubs and post offices must play a greater role. I agree, but we must put this into some sort of perspective and be proactive. Banking hubs offer a counter service where customers of all major banks and building societies can carry out regular transactions throughout the working week. The hubs also provide dedicated rooms where customers can see community bankers from their own banks to discuss more complicated banking issues. That seems like a sensible and straight- forward approach.
However, according to Link, even with the closures in my constituency, which I have already addressed, Aldridge-Brownhills requires no additional services and certainly has not been recommended for a hub. In fact, the vast majority of Link’s investigations when banks are due to close conclude with “no additional services recommended”. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us why we have to wait until a community has lost everything before we take action? Surely that is too late and we need to get ahead of the game. I think that NatWest is still part of the Royal Bank of Scotland, in which I think the Government may still have a stake. If they do, I gently urge the Government to take another look at the issue of hubs for communities.
I turn to the role of post offices. We have some good post offices across Aldridge-Brownhills. Banking framework 3, announced in February, is to be welcomed. It will allow the customers of 30 branches across the country to carry on making cash payments and withdrawals in a post office, and it will allow small businesses to deposit cash until 2026. But the question is, what happens then? Again, the framework relies on access to post offices. In Aldridge, the post office sits outwith the main shopping centre. It is not on the high street or in the precinct; it requires the crossing of a two-lane carriageway, and there is no dedicated car park. That is not a good enough alternative to the bank. Citizens Advice reports that we are losing two post offices a week on average—we lost one in Walsall Wood, in my constituency, just this year.
It is important that we support both post offices and banking hubs as part of the solution when discussing the future of in-person banking on the high street and access to banking services and cash. In his response to a written question earlier this year, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stated:
“the government believes that everyone, wherever they live, should have appropriate access to banking services.”
I agree. Can we ensure that that happens? It is also important to recognise that what might be an appropriate situation or solution in one place is not necessarily the right solution everywhere. There needs to be a much more tailored and localised approach. Perhaps that is something that the Government can work on with local councils, but they must not just pass the burden on to local councils—they must give them the resource to do it.
I appreciate that decisions on opening and closing branches and the provision of in-person services are a commercial matter for banks and building societies—absolutely, I do. But I press the Minister to take a more holistic, future-proofing approach that acknowledges the bigger role that our banks have always played at the heart of our communities. It is time to work in particular with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which holds the policy pen on high streets and regeneration, and to look at the social and not just the economic impact of bank closures. Driving footfall into our town centres and local high streets is the key to the ongoing rejuvenation of commercial and retail areas and to the regeneration and success of thriving communities. As I said, we must also consider working with local authorities on where we can provide hub services.
I met with NatWest this morning, and I will continue to work with it. NatWest is reaching out to customers across Aldridge-Brownhills. I impress upon the bank the importance of the needs of my constituents, businesses, organisations and charities. We had an incredibly productive meeting, but the bank is still closing. I welcome the fact that NatWest is holding a community outreach event next week for local residents. The announcement of the closure of Aldridge NatWest within a matter of months highlights exactly why we need to look at the bigger picture now, before it is too late.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. Between 2012 and 2022, Yorkshire and the Humber saw a 43% decrease in the number of bank and building society branches. Earlier this month, the Barclays branch in Hoyland announced its closure, which is of great concern to many local people. It follows a string of other branch closures in Barnsley, such as Yorkshire Bank in Wombwell, and will leave my constituency of Barnsley East with no bank branches at all, four having closed in recent years.
Physical branch closures are often justified by the rise in online banking, which has undoubtedly been a great convenience for many. However, closures risk financially excluding communities, and it is regrettable that people are no longer able to choose whether to bank online or in person. More than 3 million people aged 55 and above have still never been online, with those aged 75 and over most likely to be excluded. Furthermore, Age UK found that four in 10 over-65s with bank accounts—amounting to more than 4 million people—do not manage their money online.
While there has been a shift towards online banking, connectivity should not be assumed across the country. Rural areas are less likely to have reliable digital infrastructure, which therefore impacts their ability to access online banking. Although Labour is calling for mandatory, well-advertised broadband social tariffs for those who need them, they have not yet come about. As the cost of living continues to rise, many people find using cash easier for budgeting purposes, but it is not just access to physical money that people are seeking. It has been found that more people report wanting to speak to a real person as they become increasingly worried about their stretched finances.
There is some provision in place to establish shared banking hubs, which will offer people access to cash services. These hubs have the potential to help many suffering with bank closures, but there are still some issues to be resolved with this system. A routine trip to the bank often turns into footfall for local businesses, helping them to keep their doors open and our struggling high streets to stay alive. I hope that banks will take local needs into consideration—particularly those in rural areas where public transport is not as frequent or reliable—before continuing with further closures, and recognise the impact that removing branches can have on different groups in the community.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing today’s debate and on an excellent opening speech, which set the scene as to why community banking is still so important. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock).
The matter we are discussing is indeed very important. A lot has been said about rurality and access in more rural areas, but even in suburban towns such as Carshalton and Wallington, just outside London, this is proving to be a difficult issue. The main high street in Carshalton no longer has any banking facilities left whatsoever. There is a post office, but all the high street banks have left; I think Barclays was the last to leave, and that was quite a few years ago. The high street in Wallington lost Halifax a few years ago, and it has just been announced that Barclays is closing its branch on the high street as well. Of course, people can vote with their feet and switch to another bank that has a high street presence; Wallington does still have a NatWest, a Nationwide, a TSB, an HSBC and a Santander. However, the worry is that the Barclays branch will not be the last closure, and that many if not all of them will eventually close. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, at this rate of change, the next few years could see the end of high street banks altogether. We have seen it in other parts of the London Borough of Sutton, too: Cheam village, for example, has no high street banks left, having lost four over the course of the past decade.
In my short contribution today, the question I want to touch on is what is left behind when banks decide to close? Of course, the nature of banking is changing, and I respect that tough business decisions need to be made around the future model. However, as the hon. Member for Barnsley East mentioned, it is a huge issue that many people, for a number of reasons, are excluded from digital participation in online banking, and the same is true of those who rely on cash transactions, be they small businesses, charities or individuals. It is important that there is a left-behind service for them.
I thank Barclays for being very constructive in engaging with me since its decision to close. It has agreed to set up a Barclays van for customers, which will be in the car park of Dobbies Garden Centre—no relation to the house elf—twice a week every fortnight, on Tuesdays and Saturdays, I believe. It has also agreed to retain a single member of its staff so that it has a presence in another location on Wallington high street five days a week. That is very welcome news. I welcome the fact that Barclays realises that it needs to leave something behind, but that is sadly not always the case when other banks decide to close. They simply point to ATMs or the post office in the area, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills pointed out, access to cash and ATMs—particularly free ATMs—is also in decline.
There is a big problem with an over-reliance on the Post Office, which is not without its own problems. The post office in Wallington often has massive queues stretching up the road, particularly on a Saturday, and its opening hours are a lot more restricted than those of a bank. Over-relying on the Post Office to provide a banking service to people once a branch decides to close is wrong; we need to take a more holistic view.
I absolutely support the idea of banking hubs. It is a great idea to have representatives from all major high street banks in one place. It is a way for the banks to save money on rent for buildings that are not being used as well as they could be, so it is a good deal for banks and customers. However, I worry that they are often considered only when everything is lost. They can take a long time to set up from scratch, so potentially absolutely nothing will be in place for years. Will the Minister outline whether the Treasury will consider using its convening power and its influence to persuade banks to work more collaboratively and holistically to look at community need and plan in advance for these things to happen? We should not wait for every high street bank to close and then try to set up something from scratch. That is probably the best way forward.
We all understand and appreciate that the nature of banking is changing, but for so many—not least those who are digitally excluded—having that in-person service is not only desirable but vital. I hope the Minister will outline what work the Treasury is doing and will continue to do to ensure banking remains fair and accessible for everyone.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) set out the case very well for why bank closures are a problem and why they cause such concern in our constituencies. It feels like I have stood here innumerable times deploring the loss of another local bank in one of the towns in East Renfrewshire. I really related to the comments of the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock): bank closures are highly frustrating and cause such difficulties and challenges for people in our communities.
Sometimes, the way the banks deal with closures adds to the frustration. Some have reduced the number of hours they are open to provide a service, and they tell us in all seriousness that the reason they are closing is that fewer people are attending the bank. Well, of course fewer people are attending the bank if there are fewer hours available for them to do so. The reduction in the availability of service is a challenge and a self-perpetuating issue.
The hon. Lady’s comments about rural areas were absolutely right. This is an issue for people in rural areas—some of my constituents feel that very strongly—but we also heard about issues in more suburban areas. The suburban communities of East Renfrewshire are scunnered; they are fed up to the back teeth of banks disappearing from their high streets and leaving behind big gaps in the local shopping areas. That is particularly an issue for groups in our communities such as disabled people and the elderly, and for local businesses. Our local high streets face not only the challenge of bringing in customers but the additional challenge of the closure. A bank is a destination in and of itself, but people who go to banks may then visit local businesses—that will not happen if the banks are not there. Bank closures leave a gaping hole behind, which is unattractive, and the service that local businesses may also wish to avail themselves of is no longer available, so this is not just a one-dimensional issue for our high streets. I do not think that the banks are paying due care and attention to that.
Local residents are also aggravated by the correspondence they receive from banks that are going to close. Without asking in advance what they think about it, the closure is presented as a fait accompli—whether the community likes it or not, and regardless of its views, the local bank is closing, and people are unable to scrutinise the facts and figures. The bank also tells them not to worry because they can go to another bank that is 5 miles away. Well, it might be 5 miles away for a crow, but that is entirely irrelevant for a human being who has to catch two buses, with a half-hour wait between the two, to get from A to B, or if people do not have time to make the journey because they have other commitments. Such messaging from banks is profoundly unhelpful and insults the intelligence of their customers. The banks seem to be assuming that everybody is standing outside the closing bank, ready to make the journey, but some of the people affected may live in a town that has already lost its bank, which means that they will have to travel even further. It is understandable that people feel vexed.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills pointed out that when a bank is gone, it is gone—it is not coming back—and that is one of the reasons why people are so concerned. There are many other reasons why in-person banking is valuable, including the opportunity it gives people to have a conversation about their money. We all value such conversations, which can advise us on how to stop fraud attempts, particularly those targeted at elderly and vulnerable people. Obviously, if there is no bank branch, such discussions cannot take place.
The ability to access cash is a huge issue in my community and others. If there are fewer free-to-use ATMs and fewer banks, we are taking away the opportunity for people to choose how they transact things in their day-to-day lives. Again, that is a bigger problem for those who have the least cash and for those who are most marginalised in our communities.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) is right to worry that banks might just be disappearing from our high streets altogether. Technology is great—I absolutely accept that a lot of the banking technology is really helpful—but it is not always what is necessary. We need to appreciate that both approaches are necessary. Technology and the ability to access it are valuable, but face-to-face services also need to be made available, whether for reasons of accessibility or because the relevant technology is not available. Such services also help us put criminal elements in perspective. The fewer the number of bank branches, the more opportunities for online and digital frauds. I have spent a lot of time recently looking at push payment frauds, and it seems to me that there would be fewer of them if people had access to someone they could speak to about their banking on a day-to-day basis.
Are banks doing what we need them to do? I am not sure that they are doing so. There is a very unfortunate assumption that communities will just cope with banks disappearing from their high streets. When I moved to the home I have now lived in for about 15 years, there were numerous bank branches on my local high street, but that is not the case any more. People in towns all over East Renfrewshire will feel the same way. The banks have just disappeared—they have walked off the pitch. The promises we heard about never closing the last bank in town are laughable. My constituents would think that that was ludicrous, which is a shame, because they and our town centres need bank services.
Our post offices do a brilliant job. I have stood here before and waxed lyrical about the brilliant post offices in East Renfrewshire. They are fantastic. I know it is a strange thing to suggest, but people should come to our local post offices. They are great, but they have their own job to do. They have a long and varied list of things they can do, but they are not banks, so although they are doing a great job, there are still gaps. The banking hub in Cambuslang is certainly a model to look at, and I am encouraged by others following that. But whatever the model, people on our local high streets and communities, particularly those who are most marginalised, must be able to access cash and banking services. I do not think that it is an unreasonable expectation that we should have that in our local communities, and I very much look forward to hearing what others have to say today.
This conversation will become all the more pressing in the next couple of years, as banks continue to close apace and people begin to really wonder what the banks are for, who they are providing a service to, and how we ensure that we have access to cash and banking facilities, which is what people need.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I think that I am about to reiterate a lot of what has already been said, but I think it is worth saying again. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this really important debate. Before I start, I should declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. I do not think that I technically have to declare that, but I do know a fair bit about post offices as a result.
Scotland has been hit harder by bank closures than anywhere else in the UK. Scotland is geographically bigger than any region of England or any other nation in the UK, and consequently it has a very spread-out population. Because of that spread, bank closures can be more damaging to us, which is why it is shocking that last year’s Scottish Affairs Committee report found that Scotland has also lost a greater share of bank branches than any other country in the UK. That is diminishing the ability of people to access cash and other banking services. Since 2015, 53% of Scotland’s bank branches have closed, which is the highest percentage loss of all the nations in the UK. In 2009, 56% of transactions were in cash, but today’s cash payments represent only 17% of transactions. Despite that drop, cash remains the second most frequently used form of payment, second only to debit cards.
Wendy Morton
We talk a lot about services and access to cash. Does the hon. Lady agree that for people who are on a fixed budget and for whom managing money is difficult, having cash makes that very tricky job just that little bit easier? They can see what they have in their purse, wallet or pocket in front of them. That is why I think—and I hope she agrees—that that is another reason why the banking service and access to cash and advice, particularly at a time of cost of living challenges, are even more important.
Marion Fellows
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member. If someone is poor, they cannot afford to run up bank charges. They cannot afford to be overdrawn. I am old enough to remember my mother having pots of money—some was used for this, and some was used for that, but if it was not there, we could not spend it. It is a better way to keep oneself in the black altogether.
Before 2021, about six branches a month were closing in Scotland, but since 2021 that has increased to about eight a month. Post offices are also now closing: between 2011 and 2021, we lost 112 post offices to closure in Scotland alone.
Kirsten Oswald
My hon. Friend is making a really important point about both banks and post offices potentially being lost to communities. Does she agree that when banks close and abdicate their responsibility, their suggestion that post offices will simply take over their services is unfortunate and unacceptable? It is as if the banks think they are not at all accountable. That is not how we should address this.
Marion Fellows
Absolutely. Banks are allowed to say, “Well, it is okay if we close, because there is a post office nearby.” That will not always be the case, as more and more sub-postmasters struggle. I will come on to that later.
The head of policy at Age Concern Scotland has noted:
“These closures often hit older customers hardest, leaving them cut off from vital services and making it harder for them to manage their money...As we battle through this cost of living crisis it is more important than ever that older people can access their money as cash, for free, and use it whenever they need to.”
The number of cash machines that are closing is disgraceful. For example, in my local area in Lanarkshire we have lost nearly 100 cash machines in four years. In July 2018, Lanarkshire had 650 cash machines but that had fallen to 561 by last February. And the really important point is that the number of free-to-use ATMs in my area had dropped by 555 to 426. That means that the only ATMs that people can access are ones that charge them for taking out their own money; they are paying a poverty premium. That is ludicrous and it is really affecting people on a daily basis.
As I have said, for years banks have said, “It’s okay if we close our local banks, because there will always be post offices nearby.” However, as I have also already said, post office closures have picked away at their number, too. What will the Department do to protect network and community services that are run through post offices, especially in relation to people who cannot get to banks?
Given the different ways of running post offices, it is really difficult to tell how many sub-postmasters who have taken on banking to a great degree are now struggling. I do not know whether folk here are aware of this, but 70% of the members of the National Federation of SubPostmasters are only earning the national minimum wage, despite the good work that they do in providing post office services and now banking services. That figure came out before the cost of living crisis, so the situation will be even worse now.
It is also very difficult for Post Office Ltd to encourage people to take on post offices or sub-post offices because of the Horizon scandal. The other thing is that the Post Office lozenge—the sign that we are all very familiar with—goes outside a building and says, “Post Office”, but inside that particular building there might only be a drop and collect service for parcels. So, people think that there is a post office where there is not one.
On banking transactions, many Members have already said that many local businesses now use local sub-post offices to pay in takings in cash. That is important, because it keeps money in the local area and it really keeps some high streets going. However, last year new regulations to combat money laundering were introduced by the Financial Conduct Authority—actually, I have found it difficult to find out if it was entirely the fault of the FCA or UK Finance. Recently, it has been very difficult for local businesses. There are no banks, so they take their money to the post office, but a limit was imposed on how much each business could deposit.
I am very pleased to say that last month the FCA noticed that a more tailored approach should be taken by banks for cash deposits by business customers, on the basis of expected business customer activity. However, that also links back to the problem that sub-postmasters have, because they were losing money as customers could not deposit all of their takings and many customers then had to travel many miles to be able to deposit their money safely. I am hopeful that, when this issue is properly sorted out, a tailored approach will allow local business owners to go back in and carry out their business the way they did before.
Real clarity is needed on banking hubs. I have visited the banking hub in Cambuslang, and one is to be opened quite near my constituency in Carluke, hopefully reasonably soon. The building in Cambuslang was fantastic. The way it works is that each bank that has signed up sends a representative to the banking hub once a week to give business advice. As many Members have pointed out, people go to banks not just to take out money; they need advice, help with filling in forms, and other things like that. Those things were being done in the hub. I spoke to many customers that day, and they were very happy with the service given. It was a pilot programme, and it is still unclear what effect it had on the local post office branch, so we have to bear that in mind. The NFSP is concerned about the fact that there is no third-party oversight of the banking hub recruitment process. It is not known how those who gained the right to run the banking hubs were selected. I have already written to LINK about that, and I am awaiting a response.
Consumers are able to access cash at a post office only if their bank has signed up to the banking framework agreement. Which? has raised concerns about the long-term viability of the agreement, as it is voluntary and there is a time limit on it—I think the last one to which banks signed up was for three years. Barclays bank originally did not sign up, which was quite a loss for its local customers. I am calling for access to cash at a post office to be placed on a firmer and more sustainable footing in areas where local cash needs are unmet. Can the Minister comment on that, and update us on where we are going?
Returning to the post office argument, if banking hubs have an impact on local post offices, then that is something that we have to be very careful about. Part of the difficulty is that the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade are both involved, and there is not a great deal of communication between them. I know it is getting sightly better, but this Government have for many years almost had a silo mentality, in which one Department did not really know what the other was doing. That is to the detriment of people who have to use banks and post offices—if they are still there. I would really welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
I again thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and all the other Members who have spoken. This is a real ongoing problem, and like my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), I have stood here to speak on the subject innumerable times. I have come at this problem from different angles, and have tried to say something different each time, but hat is proving harder and harder. It is time that the Government got a real handle on the issue, and started to protect consumers more, as well as those who cannot use digital banking. That is not just older people, though many older people struggle with either bad broadband or the inability to handle new technology. We need a joined-up approach from the Government to ensure that people can still access banks, post offices and cash.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate, and for eloquently laying out the case for why bank branches are still important in many of our constituencies, whether rural or suburban. Too often the political discussion on bank branch closures focuses only on concerns around cash. While the issue of cash is important, and I will touch on it later, there is also the issue of the many other essential services that bank branches provide. They have been outlined in this debate.
Age UK and others have rightly highlighted the importance of the local bank branch to communities across the country. It provides vital in-person services that older people rely on, whether they are opening accounts, applying for a loan, making or receiving payments or need help with a standing order. It would, however, be wrong to assume that it is just older people who use bank branches. There will always be a significant part of the British population that needs the extra face-to-face support that hon. Members have mentioned.
Natalie Ceeney has been working on the issue for a long time. She is the chair of UK Finance’s access to cash action group, and she has made it clear that there is a substantial overlap between the people who rely on access to cash—around 10 million adults across the UK—and those who depend on their local bank branch for financial advice and support. In her report of her research and engagement with local communities, which I encourage hon. Members to read, she found that it was often the most vulnerable—ethnic minorities, people whose first language was not English, and the poorest in society—who relied on cash and in-person help with their finances in their day-to-day life. That point was echoed by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), who talked about what happened in her constituency, and noted that many people from hard-to-reach communities needed those services. That is why some of the figures that we heard in today’s debate are so concerning.
Analysis published by Which? found that over half of the UK’s bank and building society branches have closed since January 2015. That is a shocking rate of around 54 closures each month, and there have already been 158 closures in 2023, with another 274 branches expected to close by the end of this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said that that is taking place in her constituency, and explained how it has cut off countless people in her area from the goods and services that they require. Unfortunately, last year, when the Government introduced provisions on access to cash in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which I led on, they did not introduce protection for essential face-to-face banking services, which was a glaring omission. I wonder whether the Minister will comment on that. It risks leaving millions of people behind—not just those without the digital skills needed to bank online, but people in rural areas with poor internet connections, and the growing number of people who cannot afford data or wi-fi because of the cost of living crisis. That is another point made powerfully by my hon. Friend.
The Opposition recognise that it is inevitable that payment and banking systems will continue to innovate, which is a good thing. Online banking is a far more convenient way for people to manage their finances, but we have to ensure that the digital revolution does not further deepen financial exclusion in our country. That is why the Labour party wants to give the FCA the powers that it needs to protect essential in-person banking services. To be clear, I am not calling for banks to be prevented from closing branches if they are genuinely no longer needed—quite the opposite. I recognise that access to face-to-face services could and should increasingly be provided through banking hubs, whether those are delivered by the Post Office, as we have heard, or take the form of shared bank branches or other models of community provision. If a branch is genuinely not being used, it makes sense that it should not exist, but if it is well used, I do not see why we would close it.
I anticipate that the Minister will say that the Government support banking hubs. We have heard that time and again, but let us be honest: the roll-out of banking hubs has been pathetic. Communities have lost 5,605 bank branches since January 2015, while only four hubs have been delivered so far. That is just not good enough. Figures from LINK reveal that only a further 52 are in the pipeline. The figures do not add up or make us feel very positive. People in our constituencies are telling us that it is not enough, and a lot more has to be done. On top of that, many of those planned banking hubs will not even provide essential in-person services. They must provide a more comprehensive service when they are built. That is why we must empower the FCA to review the community’s need for access to essential in-person banking services, and get a clearer picture of what is needed in our constituencies.
That, of course, will not be enough on its own to tackle financial exclusion. Alongside that, we will need to put in place a proper strategy for digital inclusion. Banking hubs will have to play a role in that. The Post Office has called for banking hubs to have financial inclusion advisers, who can ensure that no one is left behind. That is a very interesting idea, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it. Labour believes that banking hubs have the potential to tackle digital exclusion—for instance, through dedicated staff, who could teach people how to bank online and provide internet access to those who need it. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about those proposals, although I recognise that this is not his brief; perhaps he could comment on behalf of his colleagues.
We of course welcome the fact that the Financial Services and Markets Bill finally introduced some protection for access to cash, but it sadly falls short of what is truly needed. It does not make any commitment to protect free access to cash. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) talked a bit about free access to cash and the community need in his constituency, which I know well. I was born in St Helier Hospital, like him—many years earlier, I have to say. I think his point was important. It shows that it is not just rural areas that are affected; suburban constituencies in London still have that community need. We need free access to cash.
Data collected by Which? shows that there has been a rapid drop in provision of free-to-use ATMs in recent years. There must be something in legislation that protects free access to cash; otherwise, our constituents will be in trouble. We saw a decline of 30,000 free-to-use ATMs between August 2018 and February 2023. That is a stark 26.1% fall. It is a shocking statistic. It is forcing the poorest people in the UK to pay for access to their own money. That seems ludicrous. We know that a massive 3.8 million people are in financial difficulty, and 15 million people in total use cash for budgeting purposes. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made the point that more and more people are using cash to budget because of the cost of living crisis.
The need to protect cash services will only grow in importance as the cost of living crisis increases. The data collected by the Post Office that I looked at showed that the use of cash has actually risen in recent months. The cost of living crisis is deepening. The poorest in society are increasingly turning to cash to manage their budgets day to day, and week to week, and we should help them by providing free access to cash.
I hope the Minister will take on board the concerns that have been raised today. If his Government are serious about leaving no one behind, there are three fundamental questions he must address in his closing remarks, or take back to the Minister who has this brief. Does he agree that the rate of bank branch closures is reaching an all-time high? This is the time to empower the FCA to protect in-person services. If not now, then when will that happen? Secondly, does he recognise that the Government must work with industry to accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs if the initiative is to have any impact at all, and that banking hubs must provide all the services that people need, not just a select few? Finally, how will he ensure that everyone—particularly the poorest in society, who rely on doing so—can access their own money, without it burning a hole in their pockets?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
It is a particular pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies, because I know that if you were not in the Chair, you would be making an impassioned speech. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for bringing forward this debate. There is strong feeling on this subject across communities and constituencies, including mine. She spoke with great passion and knowledge on behalf of her constituents, whom she serves very well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) quite rightly said that banking is changing. In recent years, innovation has led to an increase in online banking, which many people find quicker and more convenient than banking in branch. We know this from our experience, as well as seeing it in the data. In 2021, the industry body, UK Finance, found that 86% of UK adults made contactless payments; 72% banked online; and 57% banked using their mobile phone. That is not just young people. The latest data shows that more than 70% of people aged over 65 use online banking.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) pointed out, given the rise of online banking, we have to ensure that digital connectivity and mobile phone coverage are strong. In 2020, the Government announced a £1 billion deal with mobile operators to deliver the shared rural network, which will see operators collectively increase mobile phone coverage across our country. As for speed, in 2021 the Government launched Project Gigabit, which commits £5 billion to expanding gigabit coverage to 85% of households in the country.
The basic fact is that local bank branches receive fewer and fewer visitors because, frankly, many customers’ needs can be met digitally through video calls, banking apps or on the phone. In that environment, banks and building societies have a decision to make about how to provide in-person services to those who need them in the communities in which they operate. Those decisions are nuanced, local and, most importantly, commercial. The Government rightly cannot and do not intervene in them.
That being said, we recognise the real concerns expressed more widely about losing access to bank branches, which, as has been said, are important to many communities. For a variety of reasons, some members of our communities, such as those who are vulnerable, may need to do their banking in person. All firms should follow the FCA’s guidance to ensure that they carefully consider the impact of planned closures on their customers. That guidance sets the expectation that if a branch closes, firms will put in place reasonable alternatives in order to meet customer needs. Where firms fall short of that expectation, the FCA has the power to ask for closures to be paused, or for other options to be put in place.
Wendy Morton
I am interested to know the number of occasions on which an intervention has been made after a closure. I hope the Minister agrees that this is important. Banks should not close a branch and then review the engagement and so on, because then it is too late. Too much is happening on the back foot.
Gareth Davies
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I will have the Economic Secretary to the Treasury write to her with any figures that we have on the pauses that have taken place as a result of FCA guidance. LINK carries out reviews in order to suggest and recommend the services that can be put in place. If there are no bank branches left in a community, a banking hub can be suggested. However, if my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will ask my colleague to write to her with more detail on that point.
The industry is innovating and finding new ways to respond to customers who want and need to access in-person services. I am pleased that we have heard a lot of discussion today about post offices, because they play a vital part in this issue. It is right to point out the statistics, which I was quite shocked to learn when preparing for this debate. Some 99% of personal banking customers, and 95% of business banking customers, can do their everyday banking—can do such things as withdraw cash or check their balance—at one of 11,500 post office branches across the country. I was also shocked to learn that 93% of people in this country live within just 1 mile of a post office, so almost everyone can access their everyday banking services locally.
Kirsten Oswald
Does the Minister appreciate that that will be cold comfort to people who no longer have a post office, or who have an on-and-off post office, which is not a very reliable way of doing business, or who do not live in the heavily populated areas that presumably make up that 99%? That is probably an unhelpful comment, in their opinion.
Gareth Davies
I accept the challenge, of course. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) also asked me to comment on what support the Government are providing to post offices. I can respond to both points.
In the 2021 spending review, some £227 million was secured in Government investment between ’22 and ’25, including a subsidy of £50 million to protect access to post office services in commercially challenging locations. That later increased to £335 million, including a £150 million subsidy to those in commercially challenging locations. I therefore accept what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) says, but the reality for the 93% who live within 1 mile of a post office cannot be ignored. For those who are not within that catchment area, the Government have stepped in with subsidy and significant funding to ensure access to a post office.
Tulip Siddiq
We are lucky in this place, with two post offices that hardly ever have queues, but in my constituency there are massive queues outside the post offices, in which people have to wait a long time. Also, some of the services that constituents want to use a bank for are just not appropriate in a post office. Some post offices, certainly in my constituency, are based in WHSmith or another shop; it would not be appropriate to go in there to talk about personal banking services. Will the Minister comment on that?
Gareth Davies
What services banks provide is a commercial decision for them, but they provide a lot of different ways to interact with them these days, including several online options. As I pointed out right at the start, the majority of the British public access banking in those ways, whether online through a website, web chat or a mobile banking app, or via the telephone. Customers of commercial banks have a variety of ways to interact and get advice, and I would encourage them to do so. It is not the Government’s place to intervene in the commercial decisions of banks on what services they provide and where.
In addition to what I have just laid out on the variety of online services, many banks and building societies have programmes in place involving community centres, libraries, mobile banking vans or semi-permanent banking pods. The pods are structures that provide a dedicated private space to support customers with banking services. They can be moved around to different locations, depending on demand—the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) may wish to engage the banks on those for her area. For people who need to speak to their bank face to face, such places can make a vital difference.
Alongside those programmes, there is the high-profile innovation of shared banking hubs, which many Members have referred to in the debate. The hubs provide a dedicated space where customers can meet community bankers, who support them with more complex services. The hubs also offer a range of everyday banking facilities, allowing customers to deposit cheques, check their balance, and withdraw and deposit cash. More than 50 shared banking hubs have been announced for communities across the country, as has been said. Four have opened their doors already and two more are expected in the coming weeks.
Wendy Morton
Does the Minister agree that 52 hubs are due to open, which is great, but only four have opened? What more can he or his Department do to encourage, or gently push or prod, the organisers of the hubs to get them in place? The point made by Members across the Chamber today comes down to banks closing and hubs not opening.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Government recognise and share the frustrations that she has voiced about the pace of the roll-out of the hubs. Those are commercial arrangements and the industry is working to deliver the hubs quickly. We expect the delivery to accelerate over the coming months, but I share the frustration. The Government have laid out very clearly, as I have today, our expectation: we want the delivery to speed up. We welcome these initiatives, which clearly demonstrate how innovation is supporting access to banking in the longer term. We believe that the impact of branch closures should be mitigated where possible, so that all customers, wherever they live, continue to have access to appropriate banking services.
We are also taking strong steps to protect access to cash, as has been asked of me today. It is true that electronic payments are being used more and more, and cash less and less. Over the last decade, the use of cash to pay for goods and services has declined by almost three quarters. However, cash continues to be important for millions of people across the UK, including businesses and people who may be in vulnerable groups. There is, as ever, a balance to be struck. As more and more people and businesses embrace the benefits of new payment methods, the Government should not stand in the way, particularly when those innovations can make it easier to start and grow a business or to manage family finances, but we must offer reassurance and protection for those who do need cash.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked me to make a commitment on this, and I will say that the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is going through Parliament right now, does just that. It will enshrine access to cash in legislation. In doing that, we are helping to ensure that everyone, whoever they are and wherever they live, is able to manage their finances in a way that works for them. I hope that that commitment has been heard today by not just my right hon. Friend but many of her constituents, who I know will be concerned about that.
Like many of the speakers in today’s debate, the Government understand the challenges that these changes have brought, and the nervousness that can accompany any change, but supporting customers, communities, businesses and people across the country remains our key duty. Of course, we will always welcome innovation, especially in financial services, to support competition and grow our economy. We will continue to work with the sector, the public and all Members across the House to ensure that we have a modern, flexible banking system that caters to the needs of every person and business in our country.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to all colleagues, from across the House, who have made contributions today. None of us here is anti-innovation at all, but what we are seeking from the Minister is continued reassurance that the Government are on the side of customers, be they residents, constituents, businesses, charities, organisations or the most vulnerable in our society. I think we will continue to watch this issue; I certainly will. It would be really helpful to have greater clarity on hubs. I appreciate that that is a commercial matter, but I will continue to look to the Government to see what they can do to ensure that the people whom we all seek to represent have access not just to banking, but to banking services, information, advice and, most importantly, cash. I am grateful to the Minister for his time and contribution this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of high street bank closures and banking hubs.
Written Statements
India Trade Negotiations
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
The eighth round UK-India free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations took place from 20-31 March. The ninth round took place shortly afterwards, from 24-28 April. As with previous rounds, these rounds were conducted in a hybrid fashion, a number of officials travelled to each other’s nations for negotiations and others attended virtually. Detailed talks took place across a range of policy areas.
The UK-India trade relationship was worth £36 billion in 2022. A deal which respects the domestic sensitives of both sides will strengthen the economic links between the UK and India, boosting the UK economy and bringing benefits to UK businesses, families and consumers.
In this negotiation, as with all our FTA negotiations, the NHS and the services it provides is not on the table. This Government will continue to work towards a high level of protection of the environment in new trade agreements.
We have provisionally closed 17 chapters across the FTA, and both sides continue to work towards a modern and comprehensive agreement. We will only sign a deal that is fair, balanced and ultimately in the best interests of the UK.
The 10th round of negotiations is due to take place in the coming months.
The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated as these negotiations progress.
[HCWS766]
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery: Implementation
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill represents the Government’s pledge to address the extremely complex and sensitive legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. The Bill aims to deliver better outcomes for those most affected by the troubles, while at the same time putting in place mechanisms to encourage and promote reconciliation. In seeking to achieve this critical objective, the Bill establishes a new body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (the ICRIR).
The Government believe that the success of the ICRIR will rely on its ability to operate independently of Government. This is why it is being established as an arm’s length body. It will not report to Ministers, but instead to a board of commissioners, and will be staffed by public servants and seconded police officers who will be accountable to the commissioners.
Last month Lord Caine, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, provided Parliament with information about the Government’s proposed approach to appointing ICRIR commissioners. This included criteria for each role and the selection processes which would inform the exercise of my power to make ICRIR commissioner appointments. The Government outlined the importance of beginning the process of advertising and identifying candidates for commissioner roles, so they could begin work to design and set up the body as soon as the Bill completes its legislative process.
Following the process set out for the selection of the Chief Commissioner, having received advice from the judiciary, I have identified the right hon. Sir Declan Morgan to be appointed Chief Commissioner of the ICRIR. His appointment will take place following Royal Assent and the establishment of the ICRIR, taking account of any further considerations and final requirements of the Act.
Sir Declan brings a wealth of experience from his previous role as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland from 2009 to 2021. A hallmark of his distinguished career has been his commitment to addressing Northern Ireland’s past. I am confident that he will bring the highest level of experience, expertise and integrity to this post, which will help build public confidence in the ICRIR.
Sir Declan will begin work from early next month to identify other commissioners and to design how the new commission will carry out its role. In particular, the Chief Commissioner will lead the process to recruit the commissioner for investigations and provide a recommended candidate to me. The broadest possible field of experienced candidates is sought to fill this important role. The role is currently advertised and is subject to fair and open competition, with appointment on merit.
In light of the announcement of the Chief Commissioner, the deadline will be extended until 1 June to allow him to lead the appointment process and form a panel.
The Government are committed to delivering the legislative framework to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland troubles and promote reconciliation, and to ensuring that, subject to parliamentary process, it is implemented swiftly, and in the best possible ways, so that it can serve the people of Northern Ireland.
[HCWS767]
Fraud and Error National Statistics
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
The annual statistics for fraud and error in the benefit system for the financial year ending 2023 were published on Thursday 11 May 2023, at 9.30 am.
Today’s figures confirm that fraud and error in 2022-23 fell to 3.6% of welfare expenditure. This includes a reduced rate of both fraudulent overpayments at 2.7% (£6.4 billion) and claimant error at 0.6% (£1.4 billion). The rate of official error has remained the same at 0.3% (£0.6 billion), whilst the rate of underpayments has increased by 0.2 percentage points to 1.4% (£3.3 billion).
This fall in the value of fraud and error shows that our plan for fighting fraud in the welfare system is working. This is a positive step in the right direction after an increase in fraud and error during the pandemic, but there is more to do.
Prior to the pandemic, fraud and error rates across the welfare system were falling. This was driven by our action to prevent fraud from entering the system and to detect and recover it when it does. At the outset of the pandemic, we took the right and necessary decisions to protect millions of people who suddenly required our support. This meant we eased some of our control measures to manage the surge in universal credit claims and pay people in need on time. While this allowed the Department to process millions of universal credit (UC) claims in the first weeks of the pandemic, unfortunately this was exploited by some.
Our fraud plan, “Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System”, which we published last year and is backed by £900 million of funding, sets out how we are stepping up our approach to drive out fraud and error from the welfare system.
We have already revisited and reinstated our normal checks and assurances that were eased over the pandemic. The return of our defences has had a positive impact in preventing fraudulent claims, and this is now starting to be reflected in the fraud and error statistics, as published today. We also continuously improve our systems to keep pace with fast-evolving criminal tactics. From our findings we are implementing policy and technological solutions, including enhanced verification and improved customer communications.
We have continued to build on our effective counter-fraud function. This focuses on individual and organised crime threats meaning we can disrupt attacks on the system by both individuals and organised gangs, stopping criminals taking from those who need this support.
As part of our plan, we will review millions of UC claims over the next five years by way of targeted case reviews. This will see the DWP review cases that are at risk of being incorrect, clearing the stock of fraud and error that entered during the height of the pandemic and addressing any overpayments or underpayments, ensuring claimants receive the right amount.
Finally, as our fraud plan set but, when parliamentary time allows, we plan to introduce a new range of powers to strengthen our ability to tackle fraud and error in the benefits system. This includes: strengthening our penalty regime by introducing a new civil penalty for cases of fraud, which will help act as a deterrent; a requirement for organisations such as banks to share data securely on an increased scale to help us check levels of savings and whether claimants are living abroad; and to support us to tackle serious and organised crime, increase DWP officers’ powers to conduct searches, seize evidence and make arrests, giving fraudsters no place to hide.
Fraud is a major issue, but we are also taking further steps to minimise errors, ensuring the right people are paid the right amount at the right time. For personal independence payment, we ask all claimants in our key communications with them to inform us if their condition has changed for better or worse. We would encourage anyone who thinks their condition has changed to get in touch so that we can review their case and ensure we pay them the right amount. Details on how to get in touch are available at Personal Independence Payment (PIP): Change of circumstances - gov.uk (www.gov.uk).
For the state pension, our legal entitlements administrative practice (LEAP) exercise continues to identify and reimburse those people affected by historic underpayments. We also continue to work closely with HMRC, to understand more about the scale, potential causes, and options to correct historical errors relating to home responsibilities protection.
We will report more on both overpayments and underpayments by way of our annual report and accounts, which are due to be published early in July 2023.
[HCWS765]
Grand Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Thursday 11th May 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-VII Seventh marshalled list for Grand Committee - (9 May 2023)
Lord Coaker
“Compensation for victims of economic crime
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 180 days beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for the potential establishment of a fund for the compensation of victims of economic crime.(2) Any such fund must comprise the proceeds of property recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to economic crime.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy on the potential establishment of a fund to provide compensation to victims of economic crime within 180 days of this Act being passed.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Good afternoon, everyone. I want to make just a few remarks on my Amendment 106D, which is obviously a probing amendment seeking some information on the Government’s thinking with respect to compensation for victims of economic crime. The proposed new clause to be inserted by this amendment would require the Government to prepare and publish a wide-ranging strategy on efforts to ensure that the necessary financial compensation is made available to victims of economic crime, wherever they may be. This could and should be applied to victims of international crimes, of which the war in Ukraine is without doubt an example, but it could also be applied more broadly as a means of providing a measure of justice to the victims of any other kleptocratic regime around the world. As I say, the proposed new clause would provide a mechanism for compensating victims of economic crime in the UK, including thousands of British victims of online scams every year. That briefly sets out the purpose of my Amendment 106D.
I thought it might also be helpful to the Committee for me to read into the record from the Government’s Fraud Strategy. As the Minister will know, it is dated May 2023; it does not state the day so I do not know whether there is a later version but that is where we are. I want to do so in case the Committee has not had an opportunity to read the report. I have not read all of it—I have just dipped into it for the purposes of this amendment—but it is quite staggering when you read the statistics. I will quote the report; I hope that the Committee will bear with me because it is important for those who read our proceedings, as many people do, to see the facts as laid out by the Government.
The report—the Government’s own words—states:
“In the year ending December 2022, 1 in 15 adults were victims of fraud. 18% of those victimised became victims more than once. The sums of money involved are staggering. The total cost to society of fraud against individuals in England and Wales was estimated to be at least £6.8 billion in 2019-20. This includes the money lost by victims, the cost of caring for victims, and the costs of recovery, investigation and prosecution of fraudsters”.
It continues:
“In the year ending March 2021, Action Fraud received victim reports totalling a loss of £2.35 billion … There is also considerable cost to business and enterprise. UK Finance, the trade body for the banking and finance industry, reported that in 2021 its members lost over £1.3 billion to fraud”.
The figures just go on. Clearly, this is a huge problem, as all of us recognise.
Can the Minister outline something for us? Among all the points made in the strategy, I could not find anything concrete and specific with regard to compensation. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out the current arrangements on compensation for victims of fraud. Given the scale of the problem, which the Government have helpfully just published in their Fraud Strategy, what are their proposals in respect of compensating individuals? I know from speaking to Members of the Committee here and many people, including friends and family, that the cost to individuals is immense. It is not just a financial cost but an emotional one; I know that the Minister understands that. It is important for us to know the answers to these questions.
The other point is what the current rules on compensation are, how much someone could expect to get back, what the Government propose to improve that situation, and the perennial question we keep coming back to: how that will be made real.
I found paragraph 7, on page 4 of the strategy, particularly interesting. The Government say:
“We will ensure victims of fraud are reimbursed and supported”.
Again, we go back to previous questions: does that mean under the current reimbursement regime, or are the Government proposing a new one? How will people be “supported”?
I think the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, will be particularly interested in the next sentence, the first part of which says:
“We will … Change the law so that more victims of fraud will get their money back”.
Where in the Bill before us is this change to the law so that more victims of fraud will get their money back? It may well be in here. I am not trying to trip anyone up; I just could not find it myself. It would be helpful if the Minister could point out where it is. If it is not in the Bill, where will that change in the law be put, when is it coming and what change do the Government propose?
The second part says that the Government will:
“Overhaul and streamline fraud communications so that people know how to protect themselves from fraud and how to report it”.
Again, how will the Government “overhaul” and “streamline” those communications? Added to that, how do people know what their rights are and—a question we keep coming back to—how does an individual citizen take on a bank, financial institution or whoever to assert the rights that the Government say they will give them to get compensation back for the money they have lost through fraud? Those are really important questions.
I will stop there. I could go on and on repeating the same thing in different words, but I think the Minister gets the nub of what I am saying, and I think the Committee would be interested to hear the Government’s views, as well as those of other Members of the Committee. With that, I beg to move Amendment 106D.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I am sorry I have been unable to engage more fully and consistently with this Bill, but this amendment prompted me to come here when I had a few minutes. I was recently speaking to someone I met at a social gathering. In the course of the evening, we were talking about a whole range of things, and he was talking about the fact that he had been defrauded of some money and how it is now materially affecting his retirement. His comment was: “I feel so embarrassed, because I’ve always tended to think it was simple people who didn’t understand financial matters who were likely to lose money. I’m highly literate, I’ve done all the right things, but I’ve been defrauded”. This is having a big effect.
Also, as we are becoming increasingly cashless and more and more transactions are online—it looks like that will be the trajectory for quite some while—there is far more potential for these sorts of frauds. For example, I note that fraud on lost and stolen cards had increased by 30% by 2022 and card ID theft, where a criminal opens or takes over a card account, had almost doubled in the previous year. In other words, this crime is getting worse.
It is in everybody’s interests that we encourage people to use what is, for most of us, a great convenience being able to pay with our cards—but we need to make sure that people have confidence. The statistic that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, gave us—that one in 15 adults has been a victim—is particularly interesting. In other words, it is now widely assumed among groups of ordinary people chatting that this is a very real problem. There is a good side to that—hopefully, we are being far more cautious and savvy—but, nevertheless, that will not encourage people to invest and use some of the financial services that we might hope they will as they plan their retirements.
I just want to add my words of encouragement and ask the Government whether they can give us some idea about whether this amendment, or something similar, might be a way forward. It would give people confidence if they knew that there was clear and simple way to find redress when they were a victim of fraud. Also, could this be built on in some way, not least because the proceeds of property recovered under this future Act could then be directed towards compensation?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for their words. I am not going to try to add to the issue of individuals; instead, I note that we should remember that this also involves businesses. The Home Office survey said that one-fifth of businesses have been hit by fraud. Such fraud can be existential to those businesses—at the very least, it is a tax on growth because money that is stolen is not reinvested in that business—so this matters.
In earlier debates, we have talked about the other side of this: stemming the cause of fraud. We have talked about the failure to report as well as the facilitation issue. The Government seem much more interested in picking up on the failure to report side than on the facilitation side. I ask the Minister to go back and find a middle way between what was being proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and her committee and what we have now, which is nothing—that is, to find some sort of code of conduct with teeth that starts to address the facilitation issue. It is through facilitation that this fraud is happening, in many cases. At the same time as addressing questions about compensation, we must go back and find effective ways of preventing this happening.
With noble Lords’ indulgence, I will slightly broaden the scope of my speech because, over the course of the last day or so—since we debated this issue—the United States has repatriated seized assets to Ukraine. Can the Minister ask his officials to have a look at how that was achieved? Which international laws were used to facilitate that repatriation? In previous Committee debates, we have discussed freezing and seizing, so it would be very useful for your Lordships to know more about this before we get to Report; it is an issue that we remained concerned about. Although I realise that the United States is a different legal domain, it sits in the same international climate of law. Therefore, it would very much help our deliberations if the Minister was able to talk to the department’s officials and get some sort of readback as to how this seizure and repatriation to Ukraine was achieved.
Otherwise, Amendment 106D is a good way of trying to find out where the Government sit on compensation, although I would open it up to include business compensation as well. Perhaps there are also issues around the insurance industry that the Government should be thinking about.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for this amendment. Of course, the Government take the compensation of victims of economic crime very seriously, as it is crucial for limiting the harm of these ruthless crimes.
The noble Lord referred to the fraud strategy. I will come back to that in a second. Of course, the object of that exercise, as well as going after stolen money, is to prevent it happening in the first place. So this has to be considered in the round. These are obviously anti-crime measures, as well as enforcement and mitigation measures.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox: fraud is an attack on growth and we should bear in that in mind. Fraud and the reimbursement of fraud, as we know, costs the banks many billions a year already under the existing arrangements, which I will come back to. Clearly, somebody has to pay for that and it is not easy for society to bear, never mind the banks themselves.
Asset recovery powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 already provide the court with the ability to prioritise the payment of compensation orders to victims. We have had extensive conversations on all manner of asset seizures and reimbursements, including on the Ukraine question, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just referred. I have absolutely no doubt that those conversations will continue. We are looking at the situation that he described, which developed, as I understand it, overnight. I do not know the details—we will find out.
The Government are legislating, through the Financial Service and Markets Bill, to remove any regulatory barriers to the Payment Systems Regulator making reimbursement mandatory for victims defrauded through the faster payments system. We are therefore already taking active steps to improve compensation routes and consider that there are already means of redress available.
Having said that, I also point to the fraud strategy, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to. There is only one relatively small paragraph on this but if he goes to page 24, he will see that the City of London Police
“are also working with the private sector on a limited pilot to explore whether civil debt recovery and other powers can recover more of victims’ money. As this pilot develops, we will review whether there are further civil enforcement powers that could be applied to fraud”.
I will come back to that in more detail, obviously, but clearly it is very much at the pilot stage at the moment. That is explicit in the text. But the interests of victims are being actively considered via the fraud strategy. Again, there is more to be said on that, which I will do shortly.
As I have said before in Grand Committee, victims’ interests are at the heart of the new powers introduced by Part 4 of the Bill, which will allow applications for stolen crypto assets or funds in accounts to be released to victims at any stage of civil forfeiture proceedings. This will ameliorate the negative impacts of criminal conduct, including economic crime.
More widely, and I have referred to this from the Dispatch Box in the Chamber, victims need to have the confidence and trust to come forward to report fraud and to know that their case will be dealt with. That is why we are providing £30 million to the City of London Police to upgrade Action Fraud, which, as noble Lords will know, has not been widely applauded in this House. The new service will use the latest technology to drastically improve reporting and support for victims and provide far greater intelligence to policing, which will allow greater prevention and disruption at scale. The upgrade is already happening. It will be fully operational in 2024 and we are implementing consistent support for victims across England and Wales by expanding the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit, to which I have also referred.
Where there are overseas victims in bribery, corruption and economic crime cases, the Serious Fraud Office, Crown Prosecution Service and National Crime Agency compensation principles have committed law enforcement bodies to ensuring that compensation is considered in every relevant case, and to using whatever available legal mechanisms to secure it where appropriate.
The Government are also fully committed to utilising suitable means to return the proceeds of corruption to their prior legitimate owner and/or to compensate victims, in line with international obligations under the UN Convention against Corruption. This is set out in detail in the Government’s Framework for Transparent and Accountable Asset Return.
Of course, the private sector also has responsibility for the protection of its customers, and we are increasing that further. Victims of unauthorised fraud, where payment has been taken without the victim’s permission, are already reimbursed by payment service providers. The contingent reimbursement model code has improved the reimbursement by payment service providers of victims of authorised fraud where a fraudster has manipulated the victim into approving the payment.
On the subject of PSPs, the right reverend Prelate made a good point about consumers becoming more savvy. I recently read in a briefing—I cannot remember whether it comes from the Fraud Strategy or some other current initiative—about the level of information sharing by PSPs, which will enable potential victims to identify the platforms that tend to be the most used. If they can be appropriately savvy when looking at those platforms and, perhaps, a little more suspicious and questioning, that will help enormously in stopping this happening in the first instance. I will come back with more detail on that, because I cannot quite remember under which regime that sits.
On the contingent reimbursement model, in 2021, £583 million was lost to APP scams. According to UK Finance data, the faster payment system was used in 97% of APP scams by volume in 2021. Under the contingent reimbursement model code, which is the voluntary scam reimbursement code signed by several major banks, the level of reimbursement is just over 50% of total APP scam losses for those signatory firms. Following PSR action, we expect that consumers will be reimbursed more consistently and comprehensively.
I realise that there is a lot more work to do on this. Clearly, the picture is fast evolving, as I am sure all noble Lords would acknowledge. There is clear intent on the part of the Government to make sure that victims are front and centre in the current regimes and all future planning. With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, feels reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response. I am somewhat reassured, because I believe he has his own personal commitment to this. However, as with many amendments that we have discussed here, you get the feeling that it needs a bit of a boost a surge of urgency.
There is clearly a lot of good will and a lot of good government policy. There is nothing in particular wrong with the Fraud Strategy, which has some really good stuff in it, but the example that the Minister gave from page 24, which was perfectly reasonable, is a pilot. It does not say, “We will change the law”, but “we will review” what the pilot tells us, whereas, if you go back to the much stronger commitment at the beginning of the Fraud Strategy, it gives you some expectation that something will happen. It does not say, “We will review” but “We will ensure”—which is the sort of language that people want to hear—that
“victims of fraud are reimbursed and supported”.
It does not say, “We will review the law” but
“We will … Change the law so that more victims of fraud will get their money back”.
I get what the Minister said—that it is a pilot and a review, which is good—but a pilot and a review is not the same as what is promised in paragraph 7 on page 4 of the Fraud Strategy. We are talking about colossal sums of money and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans pointed out to us, people are embarrassed; large numbers do not know what their rights are under the current law and cannot get their money back. That is the reality. The simple question for the Government, who I am sure want to improve it—there is no doubt about that—is: what five practical things will it mean? We cannot change the past, but we could do something about the future.
I also take the Minister’s point that this is about prevention, too. I absolutely accept that; we need double authentication and so on. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for his support and helpful comments in this short but important debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for reminding us that businesses and enterprises are also subject to fraudulent activity and that this is about them too. That was an important point to make.
To conclude, I thank the Minister for his response but ask him to speak to his department about how we get that surge of energy into the Bill and make what the Fraud Strategy says a reality so that we make a real difference. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Register of beneficial ownership: freeports
Each Freeport Governance Body required—(a) to undertake reasonable efforts to verify the beneficial owner of businesses operating within the Freeport tax site, and(b) to make this information available to the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, law enforcement agencies and other public bodiesmust also register this information with the registrar for public inspection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require governing bodies of freeports to make the information they are required to collect about beneficial ownership of companies operating within the freeport available to the public.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The first addresses freeports. I think even the Government recognise that freeports are catnip to criminals and money launderers. We discussed the issue pretty extensively in relation to the National Insurance Contributions Bill, the piece of legislation prior to this which gave an opportunity to discuss freeports. The Government made it clear that they were very conscious that there were potential issues of criminality around freeports that we had to take exceedingly seriously. I am glad of that, but I have still been waiting for replies to help me understand what kinds of actions will be taken to minimise that risk.
Since that period of discussion, we know that at least one of the major freeports will be under the Dubai Ports World regime, which already has ownership of major docks in London. Its various purchases of port facilities around the world have typically been very controversial. Of course, the most recent controversy in the UK occurred when Dubai ports summarily fired 800 British-based sailors, I think by Zoom, to replace them with much cheaper agency staff. The law has since been changed to ensure that there cannot be a repetition of this kind of behaviour.
I would make the point that the kind of people who are attracted to freeports tend to be those who absolutely push the law to the limit, even when they do not go beyond it. We have so many examples from around the world where the players in various different freeports have gone well beyond it. Again, I do not want to spend time on this because we did so on the National Insurance Contributions Bill, but because there are no customs declarations, customs inspections or tax-related declarations in freeports, the normal mechanisms that provide data and direct monitoring and enforcement agencies are simply not available.
My understanding from what we have been told by the Government and which we have certainly read is that the entities that own freeports are to make a reasonable effort to identify the beneficial owners of facilities within their port complex and, in effect, make a register of that to pass on to enforcement agencies. Nowhere is that in statute, so the first two paragraphs of this amendment would put that into primary legislation.
More important is the third part of the amendment, which is that that register should be available “for public inspection”. In all the debates and discussions on Companies House and the British regime for cleaning up business in every kind of way, going back to George Osborne, we have heard that transparency is important: that the sunlight of a public register enables not just enforcement agencies to see what is happening within the complex world of foreign ownership but civic groups, people with an interest and a much wider population—a phrase I sometimes use in relation to whistleblowing is a citizens’ army—to look in and therefore be much more effective in countering abuse and misuse.
As I asked in the national insurance contributions debate: why is the register that is going to be put together for freeports not to be made public? If I understood the answer that I got, it was, “Oh, this will all be dealt with when we get to Companies House legislation”. Well, here we are: that economic crime Bill 2, with Companies House at the heart of it, but I cannot see anything that deals with making that register of beneficial owners in freeports public, nor can I understand that anyone going to Companies House and searching through the information would in any easy way be able to extract from that whether the various declarations of beneficial ownership were from companies that were engaged in freeports in any way—it did not seem that that was a required part of any of the discussion. I would really like the Government to bring us up to date on this and, because they recognise that there are real risks both of criminality and of money laundering, to have some answers. I hope that they have re-examined their determination not to make public the register that will be held and will explain to us why. We are dealing with Companies House legislation, so the answer cannot be, “Just wait for that”.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, because I would certainly have attached my name to these two amendments had I been able to get my head sufficiently above the parapet in the face of the barrage of legislation that your Lordships’ House currently faces. They are terribly important amendments, as was highlighted yesterday in the other place in Prime Minister’s Questions, when the Prime Minister in response to a question about what is happening on Teesside said:
“Contracts at the site will be a commercial matter for the companies involved”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/23; col. 334.]
There is great public concern about what is happening on Teesside, and it is at the moment extremely opaque.
I shall concentrate mostly on freeports, because, as the noble Baroness said, investment zones are such a “fluffy” area that is very hard to grasp on to it. As to what we know about freeports and what is happening, a lot of the questions are being asked by the independent media and the civil society organisations referred to by the noble Baroness. I would point anyone who is interested to an excellent, 44-page report from the Byelines Network that was put out by local journalists from around the country in areas directly affected. It does a great job of examining some of the issues, but butting up again and again against commercial confidentiality and lack of recording. One of those reports notes that in 2020, the Royal United Services Institute Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies submitted evidence to the International Trade Committee saying that
“there is evidence of criminal activity taking place in multiple freeports around the world. It often involves trade in counterfeit goods, drug trafficking, smuggling of untaxed goods or trade-based money laundering”.
If we were to think of something that is essential to the purposes of the economic crime Bill now before us, shining the light, opening the doors and being able to see what is happening would clearly be it. What we are talking about with freeports are huge concessions from the Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, they include freedom from all kinds of usual customs controls, but also stamp duty land tax relief, enhanced structures and building allowance, enhanced capital allowances, employer national insurance contributions relief, and business rates relief and retention. Those are huge concessions. Surely it would only be absolutely fair and reasonable to demand full transparency about who is responsible and who is making those decisions.
It is very evident that there is great public concern. This is one way that the Bill or some other mechanism—I directly put the question, “If not this Bill, where else?”, to the Minister—will make sure of what will happen if we create these structures. The reason why people are so suspicious about this seems to go back to an uncredited blog from 2010 on the website of a right-wing lobbying group, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which raised the idea of charter cities. People are very suspicious. Surely the Government would want to dispel some of those suspicions by ensuring that there is absolute transparency and openness.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I rise because I hope that I might be able to provide some help to my noble friend the Minister, as this is obviously not his area of expertise; this is at the Companies House end.
Right at the beginning of Committee, I tabled Amendment 44. Its explanatory statement says:
“This amendment mandates companies to disclose whether their shareholders are acting as nominees. Nominee shareholders protect the identity of the beneficiary of the shareholding. This measure will help mitigate the risk of abuse through nominee shareholders. Failure to comply would incur a penalty”.
Last night, I met the Minister, my noble friend Lord Johnson, who indicated to me that the Government were sympathetic to this approach. I do not want to put words into his mouth, as he is not here now, but I suggest to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Sharpe, that he talks to my noble friend Lord Johnson to see whether there is any way that we could look at this; that would deal with the specific concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in relation to freeports.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I was not going to say very much but I have been provoked by what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, have said.
I very much support the thrust of what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. One wonders why transparency is such a difficult notion for the Government. I suspect that the Minister will send up smoke by saying that we are all in favour of freeports, that they are a great way of generating employment, and so on. It is certainly what I would say if I were him—that freeports are a great thing for creating jobs and that we should not stand in the way of free enterprise, which is developing enterprise zones in some of the most difficult and challenging areas in the country. However, this is not about that—it is about transparency and knowing how this is funded—so I hope that the Minister does not send up smoke. The issue is transparency; the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was right to point that out.
I will not repeat the list from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of concessions and allowances made to ensure that businesses can operate—perhaps in an area that they would not operate in—as that is something for the Minister to discuss.
On what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said, has the Minister had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Johnson? Is it right that the Government are considering some concessions? Is that what the Minister is going to tell us—that he is going to go away and talk to the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, about what we have just been informed about? Is there hope for this amendment or will the Minister just reject it? Is it something that we will hear more about as we go to Report? Will we get a government amendment on transparency around this issue, if not from the Minister then from the noble Lord, Lord Johnson?
With those questions, I will listen to the Minister with care.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the four noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her Amendments 106EC and 106ED. Amendment 106EC would require an overseas entity to apply for registration in the register of overseas entities if it is operating in a freeport. Amendment 106ED would require an overseas entity to apply for registration in the register of overseas entities if it is operating in an investment zone tax site. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his eloquent support for freeports.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can I clarify that I was saying what I thought the Minister would say, not what I think?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
It was spot on so I suspect that the noble Lord has nobbled my notes at some point.
The economic merits of and progress in delivering freeports and investment zones remain at the heart of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, and good progress is being made. However, that is not quite within the scope of this Bill, so I will focus on the core points raised in relation to corporate transparency and illicit finance. I will endeavour to answer the questions asked of me while noting, as my noble friend Lord Agnew has, that this is not necessarily my specialist subject.
Turning first to Amendment 106EC, I am assured that, throughout the bidding prospectus and subsequent business case processes, freeports were required to set out how they will manage the risk of illicit activity. I will go into this in some detail because it is important and, as I am not a specialist in this subject, I asked for extra detail. These plans were approved by officials in the Border Force, HMRC, the NCA and other relevant crime prevention bodies, including the Home Office, the police, the Department for Transport and DLUHC.
At business case stages, freeports are required to commit to further requirements to mitigate risk. That includes commitments to the OECD’s code of conduct for clean free trade zones and they were required to establish robust local governance structures in place to monitor risk and ensure effective co-operation between relevant bodies with remits to prevent illicit activity. In most cases, that included most of the bodies I have already referenced—the police, NCA, and so on. Those plans were approved by officials who have responsibility for security and preventing illicit activity across government, and they are also required to carry out an annual audit of security each year to ensure that these structures remain effective and the risk mitigations remain robust and relevant. These audits will be reviewed by the Government annually.
Freeport status in no way undermines or weakens existing port security arrangements. Special customs status, which has been noted, builds on, rather than radically departs from, facilitations available elsewhere in the UK, and is available only on specific customs sites within the wider freeport footprint. These are secure sites administered by a specially authorised customs site operator—CSO. CSOs are required to obtain AEO or equivalent authorisation from HMRC, an international gold standard for safety and security, and remain subject to robust ongoing oversight from HMRC. Freeport customs sites therefore uphold the UK’s high standards on security and preventing illicit activity and should not be conflated with some entirely different international free trade zones.
I hope I have been clear that the Government require each freeport governance body to undertake reasonable efforts to verify the beneficial ownership of businesses operating within the freeport tax site. As I have said, freeports uphold the UK’s high standards on security, safety, workers’ rights, data protection, biosecurity, tax avoidance and evasion, and the environment. They are subject to the same legislation and regulation to protect them as the rest of the country. To impose additional requirements on businesses investing in freeport tax sites would directly undermine the objective of freeports: to facilitate investment and regenerate some of the most deprived areas of the UK. The Government therefore do not think it is proportionate to impose this additional cost and administrative burden on freeports compared to elsewhere in the UK, which would also risk acting as a disadvantage for bringing in investment.
I turn to investment zones. The Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement that the investment zones programme was being refocused to catalyse the development of clusters in areas in need of levelling up in order to boost productivity, growth and jobs. At the Spring Budget, the Government announced eight areas in England that it had identified to co-develop an investment zone proposal with the Government, with a view to agreeing proposals by the end of the year, subject to requirements being met. The Government will work with these places to co-develop proposals, ensuring that the same high standards that are required for freeport tax sites are met for any investment zone tax sites designated.
Given the early stages of policy development on investment zones, it is too early to set out the governance arrangements in any detail. However, I am clear that businesses within investment zone tax sites will need to comply with the same laws and high standards regarding transparency as any other business investing in the UK. I am also afraid that both amendments would duplicate existing requirements on UK-registered businesses. If a business in either a freeport or an investment zone, once established, is a UK-registered company, it is already bound by the requirements to report its people with significant control to Companies House. This information is publicly available on the Companies House register.
It would also partially duplicate the requirements of the register of overseas entities. Any overseas entity owning, buying or leasing land or property in a freeport or an investment zone, once established, would be required to give information about their beneficial owners to Companies House. This information is also available to the public and would help law enforcement track down those abusing freeports for money laundering or other nefarious purposes. In both cases, all information held by Companies House is available to law enforcement, even information which is not publicly available; for example, the information about trusts.
I also draw noble Lords’ attention to the far-reaching impact of the amendments, which refer to “businesses operating” in free ports and zones. A “business” goes beyond companies and similar corporate entities and includes, for example, sole traders; “operating” is also an imprecise term. Let us imagine a truck of goods arriving at a freeport: the amendment would require the freeport governance board to determine the beneficial ownership of the haulage company owning the truck as well as the beneficial ownership of every business whose goods are being carried on that truck. One company may own the truck and another the trailer, both are caught. Under this scenario, even the delivery driver bringing sandwiches to the businesses located in the zone would be impacted by the amendment. I am sure that was not the noble Baroness’s intention and she will say that it could be improved at the drafting stage, but it is worth pointing that out.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I suspect your Lordships will guess that I am not terribly happy. I will be perfectly happy if the Government go away and clean up my drafting; I do not pretend to be at all expert at it. The kind of niggles that the Minister identified could, I am sure, be dealt with extremely efficiently and quickly by his team.
The Minister raised an issue that we have heard about before: the cost of having a transparent register. However, if all this data is being gathered anyway, the cost of putting it into a public format is de minimis. We are not asking for the collection of all kinds of additional information; we are asking for transparency on the information that the Government keep saying they are definitely going to collect anyway. It is the public’s ability to view it that matters.
Can the Minister help me with one issue? He said that, actually, one can see all this just by going to Companies House. That is not the feedback I have had from officials, although I accept that my understanding could have been wrong. They said that, when you look at the register in Companies House, you will never know where to begin because you have to have a name to start with in order to track down the company; of course, you do not know the name. If the Minister can help me through that process, that would be extremely helpful. Will he also publish his advice? Civil society groups all over the world are keen to be able to carry out these activities but, so far as I can gather, they are currently completely befuddled. They do not know about the access that the Minister implied is present so, if he could do that, I would be grateful. Further, if he looks at this issue and finds out that, actually, this does not work and outsiders cannot get a look at the system, will he go back and look at providing transparency?
I base this point on policies from the Minister’s own Government—at least, from George Osborne’s time as Chancellor—in that transparency is thought to be absolutely crucial as a key pillar of cleaning up the complex, difficult world of financial services, which always has such potential for corruption because of the amount of money that is available in abusing the system. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new clause (Fraud offences: supplementary) and ensures that the requirement that regulations under the Bill must be made by statutory instrument only applies to regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, these government amendments concern commencement and cut across several clauses. Amendments 106F, 106H and 107A are consequential on the regulation-making powers introduced by the new clause headed, “Fraud offences: supplementary”, which is one of the Government’s new clauses introducing a failure to prevent fraud offence. Amendments 106G and 107B, and the proposed new clauses to be inserted by Amendments 109 and 110, replace Clause 191 with a new commencement clause and a separate transitional provision clause. The clauses are being separated into two to make the commencement provisions easier to follow and avoid having one long and complex commencement provision.
They include a number of small, technical changes to ensure that the commencement provisions in the Bill work as effectively as possible and bring the devolution aspects of the commencement powers into line with previous similar legislation. They also bring into force, on Royal Assent, procedures in the Bill about the codes of practice which will govern the strengthened information order powers. This will ensure that those powers can quickly start to be used. Certain money laundering reporting measures are also being commenced on Royal Assent: the exemption for “exiting and paying away” and the new defence against failure to report, which we debated earlier in Committee. That will give certainty to businesses about their reporting duties as soon as the Bill is passed.
I hope noble Lords will support these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly—I am sure the Minister will be glad to know that. I am intrigued by Amendment 109 because it complicates the process of bringing the Bill into being quite a lot. There are a lot of moving parts set out in Amendments 109 and 110 for the Bill to start to be effective. The simple question is: from start to finish—from Royal Assent to when everything is working and all parts are moving—what is the Government’s estimate as to long it will take to fulfil all the steps set out in these amendments?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I too will speak very briefly. I note the comments about consultation with devolved authorities. Given concerns about the extent of consultation in other areas, can the Minister reassure us that it is adequate, and deemed adequate by the devolved authorities? That is a clear theme running through some of the legislation.
We have discussed—we will revisit it, I am sure—the issue of failure to prevent and the specific mention of large organisations. We understand that keeping it to large organisations will not capture a broad enough spectrum of the businesses that we are covering. Having said that, I recognise that this is a tidying-up exercise. With further amendments we might revisit some of the issues at a future stage, but I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those comments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their brief comments. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about when the powers in the Bill will be brought into force, obviously I speak with authority only for the Home Office measures in the Bill. Certain measures in the Bill that are necessary to issue codes of practice will come into force on the day of Royal Assent, as will some of the money laundering reporting measures that we discussed previously in Committee. It is our intention for some of the remaining measures to be brought into force in autumn. This is subject to obtaining Royal Assent before summer.
The operalisation of these powers is a priority for the Government and our law enforcement partners. That is why we have taken steps to provide pre-commencement consultation for a number of measures in the Bill, to facilitate it coming into force as early as practically possible.
Some of the Companies House reforms will require consequential changes, including secondary legislation and guidance. Certain reforms, such as identity verification, will also require system development following Royal Assent. Some changes will be implemented almost immediately but others will take longer. We cannot commit to precise dates at present but work on implementing the measures is already under way at Companies House. Companies House is an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade and there are various governance mechanisms to hold the agency to account on those reforms.
As I mentioned previously, these amendments are technical. They are designed to ensure that the Bill is effective and to make changes following amendments debated previously in Committee.
Before I wind up, I thank all noble Lords for their participation in the Committee, in particular the Front Benches. It has been a lively, extremely interesting and well-informed Committee. It will certainly improve the Bill over the course of its passage through Parliament. I thank my officials for the constructive spirit in which they have engaged with all interested Peers. From a personal point of view, I also thank them for guiding me through some fairly tricky questions. I hope that noble Lords are satisfied with the amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My profuse apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. I am assured that all discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations and that they are all content with it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(2A) For regulations made under this Act by the Scottish Ministers, see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (Scottish statutory instruments).(2B) Any power of the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to make regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is about the classification of certain instruments made by the Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
“(ea) regulations made by the Secretary of State under section (Fraud offences: supplementary) (1);(eb) regulations under section (Section (Failure to prevent fraud): large organisations) (5) or (6);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under the specified powers to be subject to affirmative procedure.
“(4A) But subsection (4) does not apply to a statutory instrument that only contains regulations appointing the appointed day for the purposes of section 51.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the regulation-making power to specify an appointed day for the purposes of Clause 51 is not subject to any procedural requirements since it is similar to a commencement power.
“(4A) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section (Fraud offences: supplementary) (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(4B) Regulations made by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland under section (Fraud offences: supplementary) (1) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new clause (Fraud offences: supplementary), which confers new powers to make regulations on the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom that leave out Clause 191 and insert new Clauses in relation to commencement and transitional provision.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Commencement
(1) Except as provided by subsections (2) to (5), this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.(2) The following come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—(a) this Part;(b) any provision of, or amendment made by, Parts 1 to 5 so far as it confers a power to make regulations or relates to the exercise of the power;(c) paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 so far as it inserts section 303Z25 into the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;(d) paragraph 16 of Schedule 7 so far as it relates to that section;(e) section 168 so far as it relates to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d);(f) section 170;(g) section (Money laundering: offences of failing to disclose);(h) section 172(12) and (13);(i) section 173(13) and (14).(3) Section 187 comes into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(4) The following come into force (so far as not brought into force by subsection (2)(b)) on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint after consulting the Secretary of State—(a) Part 2 of Schedule 6, and(b) section 167 so far as it relates to that Part.(5) The following come into force (so far as not brought into force by subsection (2)(b)) on such day as the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by order appoint after consulting the Secretary of State—(a) Part 3 of Schedule 6, and(b) section 167 so far as it relates to that Part.(6) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) bringing into force any of the following provisions, so far as they extend to Scotland, unless the Secretary of State has consulted the Scottish Ministers—(a) Schedule 7, and(b) section 168 so far as it relates to that Schedule.(7) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) bringing into force any of the following provisions, so far as they extend to Northern Ireland, unless the Secretary of State has consulted the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland—(a) Schedule 7, other than paragraphs 6(7), 10 and 11, and(b) section 168 so far as it relates to that Schedule, other than paragraphs 6(7), 10 and 11.(8) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) bringing into force section (Failure to prevent fraud) unless the Secretary of State has published guidance under section (Guidance about preventing fraud offences)(3).(9) Regulations under subsection (1) or (4), and orders subsection (5), may appoint different days for—(a) different purposes, and (b) where regulations under subsection (1) appoint a day for the coming into force of any provision of Schedule 7 or 8, different areas.(10) A power of the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to make an order under subsection (5) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out Clause 191 and inserts a replacement commencement Clause that provides for additional provisions to come into force at Royal Assent and for consultation requirements to apply in relation to certain cryptoasset provisions. See also the new transitional provision Clause to be inserted after Clause 191.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Transitional provision
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act, other than a provision mentioned in section (Commencement) (4) or (5).(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of a provision mentioned in section (Commencement) (4). (3) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by order make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of a provision mentioned in section (Commencement) (5).(4) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) or (2), and the power to make orders under subsection (3), includes power to make different provision for—(a) different purposes, and(b) where regulations under subsection (1) make provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of Schedule 7 or 8, different areas.(5) Transitional provision and savings made under subsections (1) to (3) are additional, and without prejudice, to those made by or under any other provision of this Act.(6) A power of the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to make an order under subsection (3) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause contains the powers to make transitional provision that were previously in Clause 191. It also includes additional powers for the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to make transitional provision and savings in connection with the coming into force of certain cryptoasset provisions.
House of Lords
Horizon Europe
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the United Kingdom to join the Horizon Europe scientific research programme.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—and, as it is the fourth time I have asked it, I am hoping for a more encouraging reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
I hope to oblige the noble Viscount. The Government are moving forward in discussions with the EU on the UK’s involvement in Horizon Europe. We hope that negotiations will be successful, and that is our preference. But participation must be on the basis of a good deal for UK researchers, businesses and taxpayers, reflecting the lasting impact of two years of EU delays. If we are unable to secure association on fair and appropriate terms, we will implement Pioneer, our bold and ambitious alternative.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, that is a less encouraging reply than I had hoped for. The scientific community, notwithstanding any intransigence by the EU, feels that the tragedy of Brexit has been the damage done to British science. Does the Minister not accept that there are many aspects of Horizon Europe that are of key importance to the UK, and that we have benefited from it in the past? I had a letter the other day from Cancer Research UK, pointing out that Horizon Europe offers
“unparalleled opportunities for the promotion of cancer research in the UK and Europe”.
Is this not sufficient to drive the Government to join, rather than to continue talking about the possibility of a plan B? We want plan A, and I wish that the Government would bring it about.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for his question, and let me take the opportunity to commend the work of Cancer Research UK. The Government’s preference is to associate to Horizon, for the reasons he very ably sets out. However, it must be on fair and appropriate terms that reflect not just the past damage done by our missing two years, during which we were not associated with Horizon Europe, but ongoing and future uncertainties that not being associated have inevitably created for us. We have done the responsible thing by putting in place a suitable alternative, but I stress that it is not our preferred outcome of these very welcome talks with the EU.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Following on from the question from my noble friend Lord Stansgate, the Government must explain exactly where they are here. We were led to believe that after the Windsor Agreement, the UK’s transition to the Horizon research programme was to be straightforward. What has made the Government go through this rethink? How much has the country lost in net worth in investment in research and development by doing the hokey-cokey with the Horizon programme, given that we were massive net beneficiaries under the old EU scheme? We need clarity. We were promised this, and I do not understand why the Government are messing around with research and development in this country. We were promised that we would get better results by coming out of Europe, but we are not. We are going backwards.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I stress again that our preference is to go back into the Horizon programme. We are in negotiations with the EU to achieve that. We have understood our own requirements for doing that and are seeking them. The noble Lord would not expect me to comment on an ongoing negotiation, but our hope is that we can arrive at a deal which is fair and appropriate for UK taxpayers, businesses and, of course, universities. As to the results over the last brief period of negotiation since the signing of the Windsor Framework, I cannot put a figure on exactly how much research has not been conducted over the two months of the ongoing negotiations.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Can my noble friend reassure us that the Government understand that there is a world beyond white Europe? At least 15 other countries have signed up to the Horizon programme. It is not just research in Europe, but research in the world—India, the United States and elsewhere. We should look well beyond white Europe and accept not just any deal on Horizon, but one that benefits British scientists too.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. Regardless of which route we go down, multilateral global collaboration across the scientific and research community is crucial and highly valued by all participants. If we take the Horizon route, then, as my noble friend says, there are 15 countries outside the EU 27 that are associated with Horizon. If we go down the Pioneer route, which is not our preference, that will emphasise global collaboration, whether with the EU 27 or beyond. Additionally, we recently launched the International Science Partnerships Fund to support UK researchers and innovators to work with international partners on some of the most pressing themes of our time.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the Windsor Framework agreement came forward on 27 February, some two and half months ago, and there is mutual harm to both the UK and the EU—the damage is the same on either side, to both our science spaces. A discussion about money should surely not take two and a half months. Can the Minister give us some reassurance that this is being treated as a matter of extreme urgency? There is damage to both sides and active discussions are going on to try to reach the middle ground.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the question—I am absolutely able to provide that assurance. It is being treated as a matter of great urgency and as I said, our preference is to reassociate to the Horizon programme on terms that are fair and appropriate to us. I cannot comment on the specific terms of the negotiation or our specific negotiating purpose and outcomes, but it is being treated very seriously and is in hand.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, do His Majesty’s Government understand that rejoining Horizon is not about just the financial aspects? The Minister has talked several times about the benefits and cost to the taxpayer. This is about international networks, which are invaluable and without price. I refer to my declaration of interests.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The UK is on record as seeking to become a science and technology superpower by 2030. Our preferred outcome, Horizon, is absolutely a key component of that. If we are obliged to go down the Pioneer route because we are unable to establish a fair and appropriate agreement with Horizon, that will be a key component as well. As she said, this goes beyond simple financial considerations.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, some of us in this Chamber were still in the European Parliament for the three years following the referendum. Many of us noted the European Union’s unfortunate intransigence on not only Horizon but other matters. This was not necessary, because it was not cut and dried that the UK would not be involved with the Horizon programme in the future. Does my noble friend agree that there is no justification for this procrastination? It is up to the EU side to get cracking and sort out this extremely important matter.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. When the TCA was agreed in 2020, our association to Horizon was agreed as part of that. That no longer happened, but it remains the UK’s wish to rejoin Horizon. With respect to the attitudes on both sides, I welcome the EU’s current openness to engage constructively in these negotiations.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as Sir Paul Nurse has pointed out, science and the arts depend on the exchange of ideas, and that one of the most vital things is social and intellectual intercourse with other countries? At the moment, musicians and scientists are finding it terribly hard to come here, and we are finding it hard to go there. Thus, a vital source of inspiration is being lost.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I cannot comment specifically today on musicians and cultural exchange. Whether we go down the Horizon route or the less preferred Pioneer route, we will seek global collaboration with the EU 27 and beyond on all research and development matters.
NHS: Allocation of Financial Resources
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask His Majesty’s Government what financial resources are being allocated for (1) additional beds, (2) extra ambulances, and (3) the recruitment and training of extra NHS staff.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The delivery plan for recovering urgent and emergency care services sets out how we will provide 5,000 additional permanent beds, backed by £1 billion of dedicated funding to support capacity. We are also providing ambulance services with £200 million of additional funding in 2023-24 to grow capacity and improve response times, alongside delivering 800 new ambulances. We are committed to publishing a long-term workforce plan for the NHS, which will be published shortly.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, over the years, we have had many promises for the NHS. I wonder how the 40 new hospitals are getting on. We were also promised £350 million a week if we came out of Europe. The present Prime Minister made promises earlier this year; are they any more sound? Are there 5,000 more hospital beds, 800 extra ambulances and thousands of staff? Given the conflict over nurses’ pay and other NHS pay and conditions, we are suspicious. I ask the Minister for a full, detailed Statement on the funding and progress of all these pledges.
Lord Markham (Con)
We have been giving a lot of Statements. Just this week, I was telling the House about the primary care plan; we announced the social care plan earlier in April; and we had the emergency recovery plan and the elective recovery plan. The plans are in place, and they are starting to show improvements, which will continue.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is it not possible that the great British public just might be prepared to see a far greater proportion of their taxes diverted from ill-thought-out and often totally unnecessary tax concessions to the better off, which invariably fail any incentive testing anyhow, in favour of a properly funded National Health Service that slashes waiting times, properly funds health professionals and meets the health requirements of the British people? That is what the public want. Just ask them and look at the polling data.
Lord Markham (Con)
We are putting in record investment. Right now, we are spending about 12% of our GDP on health services; a few years ago, the figure was more like 7% or 8%, so there is record investment. I think the whole House would agree that how we use that investment is the most important thing. We have seen that certain hospitals have a 13% lower cost per patient treatment than others because of effective use of technology. That is where I want to see investment take place.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I welcome what His Majesty’s Government are doing to try to get on top of this very difficult problem. Will the Minister give us a little more information, particularly about ambulance services? In Hertfordshire, which is in my diocese, category 2 call-outs, for strokes and hearts attacks, should have an 18-minute response but the response is averaging two hours and six minutes at the moment. There is a great deal of anxiety among ordinary people when these things happen. When do we think that the money going to the ambulance service is going to bring response times down?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am pleased to say that the figures announced today show that response times are coming down. For category 1, the most serious, we achieved the 15-minute target for 90% of calls. We are moving in the right direction, albeit there is a lot more that needs to happen in this space. That is what the investment in 800 new ambulances is about, as well as the £200 million of funding. Most importantly, it is about making sure we have the right services in place. Some 50% of ambulance calls do not result in a trip to the hospital. There are fall services, which are often best placed to help, which will pick people up in their home.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Genomics England. Some 3.5 million people live with rare diseases but only 5% of those conditions have a specific therapeutic. Condition management is essential, but patients struggle to find it because of poor awareness and a shortage of specialist clinicians and nurses. The England Rare Disease Action Plan 2023 commits to a workforce strategy but it does not commit to anything on capacity. What are the Minister’s plans to resource the rare disease workforce?
Lord Markham (Con)
This will be another element covered in the long-term workforce plan, making sure that we have got every route covered. My noble friend mentioned signposting people to those services. We are shortly launching a new app service—some 30 million people already have it—to make sure we are signposting to the place where people can get the right treatment for everything, including rare diseases.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to help the health service would be if the Government would allocate money dedicated to social care services? This would relieve the pressure on beds. Many beds would be relieved—thousands of beds—and it would prevent people having to go into hospital. Is that possible?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, and we are doing it. We have committed to an up to £7.5 billion increase in funding over the next two years. We announced last month a social care plan which is addressing this and reforming the sector, and we are starting to see the changes.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine described as unambitious the Government’s plan to see 76% of A&E waits meeting the four-hour standard by 2024. As this target has not been achieved in the past two years, how does the Minister see it working to drive down waiting times? How will the Minister ensure that hospitals are not prioritising patients with minor conditions at the expense of those in greater need of admission simply to allow them to meet the target?
Lord Markham (Con)
Numbers out just this morning show that we are now at 75% of people being seen within four hours, so we are close to the 76% target. That is the best since September 2021. I am the first to admit that we want to go further, as the noble Baroness states. It is about making sure we have got the care in the right places. We are triaging to make sure that the most important cases are seen first and, as I mentioned in a previous answer, we have things such as fall services, which can avoid trips to A&E in the first place, and more primary care in place to avoid visits in the first place. That is what the primary care recovery plan is all about.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, sometimes the NHS is a bit like a greedy child, always needing more. In his Question, my noble friend mentioned additional beds, extra ambulances, and recruitment and training. Will the Minister tell us what budget each of these items comes from? Will the Minister enlighten the House about this issue?
Lord Markham (Con)
The budgets are in the allocations for each ICB and each hospital, and within them there are specific allocations to make sure that these fundings are rooted in the place where they have the most effect. As for making sure that really does happen, it is the responsibility of each ICB to make sure it is doing that. Ministers hold them to account by each having seven ICBs to take care of and make sure that they are hitting those targets.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we will hear from the Conservative Benches and then the Cross Benches.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the significant sums of money that have been put into the NHS to date by the Government. It is not just increases in beds that we need in hospitals. We live in an age where we have made significant inroads and innovation in technology, diagnostics and so forth, including artificial intelligence. Will my noble friend the Minister say how new technologies are being used to ensure that patients are not needing the extra beds in hospitals and creating the old mistakes we know of?
Lord Markham (Con)
I shall answer quickly. As I said, there is already a 13% lower cost in a hospital which is digitally mature. We have virtual wards going in to make sure that we can treat as many as 50,000 patients every month to improve the flow and improve services.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
The Minister has mentioned the long-awaited workforce plan. While we have been waiting we have seen a number of interesting initiatives, such as the greater use of pharmacies and the proposal to put SAS doctors into GP surgeries. Will the workforce plan look holistically at the totality of healthcare professions and qualifications, so that in future the workforce can be used in the most efficient way possible?
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. The plan is looking at the use of Pharmacy First, as the noble and gallant Lord mentioned, and at the use of technology and the productivity improvements that will make. It is looking at the use of apprenticeships and at how we can bring people back into the nurse and doctor workforce. It is obviously looking at things such as pensions, which we are improving so we can retain more of our doctors. It is a holistic and very detailed study. I know it is taking a while to come out, but it will be worth the wait.
Army Foundation College: Welfare Inspection Regime
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Ofsted’s welfare inspection regime in respect of the Army Foundation College in Harrogate.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome that Ofsted rated the Army Foundation College in Harrogate as outstanding in all areas and for overall effectiveness, reflecting the excellent standard of the provision of duty of care and welfare. Ofsted praised the strong ethos of emotional and psychological safety, inclusion and teamwork that it identified as firmly embedded. The college continues proactively to engage with Ofsted’s recommendations to ensure that all recruits are prepared for and supported throughout their training.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. In 2013, 2018 and 2021 Ofsted graded welfare and safeguarding at AFC Harrogate as outstanding. Answers to Parliamentary Questions and the MoD’s own records reveal, among other examples, that between 2014 and 2023 the college itself recorded 72 complaints of violence by staff, at least 13 of those cases being proven; that in 2018 a prosecution of 16 accused members of staff collapsed for procedural reasons due to the flawed handling of the case by the RMP; and that in February this year Simon Bartram, an AFC instructor, was found guilty of disgraceful conduct and sexual assault over a nine-month period between 2020 and 2021. Ofsted, despite being invited so to do, says it cannot engage with the information relating to any of these events. How can the Ministry of Defence be comfortable with this? What steps, if any, is it taking to improve the inspection of welfare and safeguarding at the AFC?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord refers to profoundly regrettable and utterly unacceptable incidents, but it is important to put the period of nine years to which he refers into a more specific context. First, the college, having learned from those earlier appalling incidents, has introduced important changes, reflected in the much-improved environment on which Ofsted commented so positively in its 2021 report. Secondly, the MoD has introduced new policies and changes to deal with sexual offences and unacceptable sexual behaviour below the criminal threshold. It has taken steps to improve the complaints system, has created the Defence Serious Crime Unit and has a zero-tolerance policy for sexual offences and sexual relationships between instructors and trainees. All of that now reflects a much-improved climate at the college.
I can confirm that the specific case to which the noble Lord referred was dealt with through the service justice system. The individual was found guilty of nine charges. He was sentenced to detention, reduced in rank and discharged from the Army. Sadly, we cannot ever eliminate the prospect of something unacceptable happening, but significant steps have been taken to try to reduce that possibility.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I must admit that we in Harrogate are very proud of the work of this foundation college in training thousands of young men and women to serve their country in the military and, in the process, educating them both in general terms and in specific skills. Does my noble friend therefore agree that we should pay tribute to the hard work of the trainers, instructors and those who run the college, as well as to the young people who come out ready to serve this country?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that clearly very knowledgeable assessment of what happens at the foundation college. I will simply repeat an excerpt from the Ofsted report:
“Recruits are emphatic about the high standards of care and welfare at AFC. They report that there is no bullying at the college and that they are confident that permanent staff would deal firmly and promptly with any incidents that may arise”.
My noble friend is right that the college enables people coming from a diverse variety of backgrounds, many of them disadvantaged, to learn skills and be provided with training and opportunities that will greatly assist them, not just in relation to a career in the Army but later on in life, because the Army is an engine for social mobility moulding young people like that to be the very best they can be.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the Minister for the Armed Forces who oversaw the introduction of the foundation college, so some people may think I am biased, but I agree entirely with the noble Lord who has just spoken. Does the Minister agree that Ofsted is not generally renowned for overgenerosity—particularly in the light of recent events, it is the opposite that it is accused of—so when one of the institutions in our Armed Forces is regarded by it as outstanding, we should take a degree of pride in that? Will the Minister take some comfort from the fact that, whatever the past travails, there has been a marked change, and pass our congratulations on to the staff, the students and the young soldiers who will form the backbone of the future British Army?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord on his vision in creating the foundation college, which has been an extremely important development for the Army. What happens in this Chamber resonates well beyond it, and I know that the noble Lord’s very welcome and apposite words in relation to the college, its governance, its staff and the young people themselves will be very positively received.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I accept that some things happened at the college that were unacceptable and I am grateful that the Minister acknowledged that, but I also want to put on record that the college is doing enormously valuable work and deserves our support. Can she assure us that all the safeguards that she has announced have been put in place to prevent a repetition of those events are not just an immediate knee-jerk reaction but are sustainable and will ensure that the college can continue to do the valuable work it does without incurring undue publicity?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, I can provide that reassurance to the noble Baroness. That is a very pertinent question. A junior soldier can now report crime via a multitude of platforms. It need not be within the chain of command; it can be via the Service Police Crime Bureau, via a confidential crime line, directly to the service police or the Defence Serious Crime Unit, or indeed directly to the civilian police.
In relation to behaviours that may not constitute criminal activity but cause concern and give rise to a complaint, I can reassure the noble Baroness that junior soldiers are encouraged early and frequently to report any concerns that they have. The commanding officer speaks to them about zero tolerance on their first day of training, so that is done immediately. The commanding officer also holds a confidence-in-reporting discussion with all female junior soldiers in week one, committing to take all allegations seriously and encouraging them to speak up should they need to do so, and there are mechanisms for the junior soldiers to deploy to do that. That perhaps underpins the finding by Ofsted that I quoted earlier.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I seem to recall that at some point in Grand Committee, probably in the midst of Covid, the Minister undertook to arrange a visit for the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and me to visit the college. I was wondering whether that could be instituted, and perhaps we could take the noble Lord, Lord Browne, with us. My question is: does the Minister believe that she could say to parents of 15 and 16 year-olds, hand on heart, “Yes, your children can safely apply; they will be in good hands if they go to Harrogate now”, after the changes that have been made?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, I can comfortably give the noble Baroness that assurance. I have seen at first hand the variety of mechanisms now available to the young soldiers in order to voice any concerns. It has been recognised not just by Ofsted but by the independent advisory panel that there is a very open and transparent atmosphere, which is reflected in the comments from the young soldiers themselves.
I remember the undertaking that I gave and I am delighted to repeat it. In fact, I mentioned it just this morning to the commanding officer at Harrogate, and I can tell the noble Baroness that she, the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Browne, and any other noble Lords who care to tag along would be very welcome to visit Harrogate. I think they would all find it a stimulating and extremely positive experience.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to tag along, particularly as I had forgotten about that. The serious point that I want to make, following the contributions by all noble Lords and sparked by my noble friend Lord Browne’s Question, is about the controversy that sometimes surrounds 16 and 17 year-olds being able to join the Armed Forces. I am a strong supporter of that, for the reasons that many people have outlined here. That is why, in supporting the principle of 16 and 17 year-olds being able to join our Armed Forces, the reassurances that the Minister has given us about what happens in Harrogate and elsewhere are so important.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his positive observation. I reiterate to the Chamber by way of reassurance that the recruitment of under-18s into the Armed Forces meets all legal policy requirements, both national and international. The Army also meets in full its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. I agree with the noble Lord: this offers an opportunity to many young people—who, frankly, would be denied that opportunity anywhere else—to have a chance to make something of their lives and acquire skills that will endure for all their lives.
Coronation: Policing
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the policing arrangements during the Coronation weekend.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my policing interests in the register and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—which of course was submitted before the decision on yesterday’s UQ was made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the policing of the Coronation was a tremendous success. The event passed off without incident and tens of thousands of people were able to witness it, while hundreds who do not support a monarchy were able to express their views. I am grateful for the opportunity once again to pay tribute to the police, volunteers, staff, military and everybody else who was involved in delivering such a momentous day on behalf of the nation.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I would want to be associated with precisely that tribute, as I think would all the Members who spoke yesterday in the UQ. I think the Minister said to us yesterday that some 600 people had been arrested under the Public Order Act.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
The Minister corrects the figure. I am sure I listened, but it does not really matter. My point remains this: one of those who was arrested was a 59 year-old woman volunteering for Night Stars, which is run by Westminster City Council, providing slippers, vomit bags and rape alarms for vulnerable women coming out of nightclubs. She was arrested in the early hours of Saturday morning and held for 14 hours. I suggest that this sort of incident—I am not privy to the sort of intelligence that the Metropolitan Police may have had—suggests that we need to look at how the powers, which were highly criticised in this House, are used in practice. Will the Minister ask the Home Office to ask His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to look at all the cases of people arrested and charged under the new Public Order Act—not just at the Coronation but over the next few months—so that this can be reported publicly, we can see whether the actions were proportionate and appropriate and whether new guidance needs to be issued or the law itself needs to be tweaked?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
There were a number of questions there and I will go into the detail. There were 64 arrests. Only six were under the new powers in the Public Order Act, all of which were under Section 2, which is about locking on. Regarding the specific case the noble Lord referred to, and in particular rape alarms, as I mentioned yesterday at the Dispatch Box, there was serious intelligence that was enough to disturb the military—it provoked a call between the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Home Secretary and the mayor quite late on Friday night—suggesting that rape alarms would be used in an effort to cause disruption to the procession. That may have included disturbing horses, which were on display in large numbers. I will not comment on the operational background to this particular arrest because I cannot, but obviously there are powers of redress and if a person thinks they were wrongfully arrested, they should absolutely use those. It will then be for the police to justify their reasonable suspicion and to prove that it was proportionate.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Will my noble friend the Minister pass on the congratulations of the majority of people in this House and the overwhelming majority of people in the country on a very well policed and very important occasion? I do not think anybody can doubt that it was well done. Can he also pass on the feeling that, while we all allow peaceful demonstrations, the idea that such an important occasion should have been disrupted by self-indulgent young people—or indeed middle-aged people—is outrageous? I think the majority of people in this country support that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the thrust of my noble friend’s remarks, but of course it is important that people are aware of the powers the police have. I should have said yesterday, in answer to a question from the right reverend Prelate, that the College of Policing did issue guidance on the day of Royal Assent. The police chiefs’ lead on public safety also wrote to chief constables and the Police Powers Unit in the Met wrote to five particular organisations it felt might be affected by this. Also, as Sir Mark said, the police explained in advance that there would be low tolerance of disruption and zero tolerance of security and safety threats. No one can say they were not warned, but I agree with my noble friend that, overall, the whole event passed off magnificently.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, my question does not detract from the superb job the police did in managing what they had to do to make the Coronation work as it did. However, from the figures that the Minister has just given us and information we have received from the Metropolitan Police, there were some six of those arrests for which an apology was given. That is an apology rate—or an error rate—of between 10% and 12%. Does the Minister accept that that is an issue he would be concerned about? Does he also agree with the chief constable of Manchester that the powers in general given to the police force need to be re-examined because they are too broad?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree that an apology was given for these arrests. The Metropolitan Police expressed regret that six people who were arrested were unable to join the protest—not that they were arrested but that they were unable to join the protest. This is what I agree with: “Most people say police need powers to deal with Just Stop Oil and some of their tactics. They do need powers to deal with that. Legislation needs to bed down. We need to let it bed in. We need to look at how it operates in practice”. That quote was from Sir Kier Starmer.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I want to ask particularly about one arrest, because in the Public Order Act it was agreed that people covering protests—journalists, film-makers et cetera—were not going to be arrested. However, Rich Felgate, who was filming both the wonderful ceremony as well as the protest, was stopped by a policeman. He said:
“He stopped my filming, they handcuffed me behind my back”.
He started to say,
“‘the police are arresting a journalist’ and they proceeded to rip off my press pass lanyard, I presume because they didn’t want it to be visible that they were arresting a journalist”.
He was taken into police custody, held for 18 hours, interviewed and released under investigation. Could I have the Minister’s comment on this case and whether what was passed in the Public Order Act actually does stand?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I failed to answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on when this part of the Act will commence. I can give her a better answer today. It is on 2 July this year. However, I can also say that this gentleman was not arrested under the Public Order Act. He was arrested for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. I cannot go further in commenting on the specifics of the case.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, why did the Government not bring in the protection at the same time that they brought in the new powers?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I cannot answer that, I am afraid. I do not know.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, obviously the ability to protest is one we take incredibly seriously in a constitutional democracy. Weighed against that are the rights of the hundreds of thousands of people who turned up, queued patiently and filed behind barriers. Many actually camped out. They have rights as well. Would the Minister reflect on this very simple point? Had there been a major incident of any kind during this remarkable day of the Coronation, the police would have attracted a huge amount of castigation from many people—the same people who are criticising them for what they did with the arrests.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We all supported the actions of the police in enabling the Coronation to take place and praised them for it yesterday, but we also said that certain questions arose. I did not ask yesterday who decided that the Home Office was the appropriate authority to write letters to individual protesters warning them of the consequences of the Public Order Act and telling them what it was about. The Minister always makes a great play of the operational independence of the police, and that it is Parliament that makes the law. What happened with respect to the Home Office doing that? Who signed the letters to individual protesters? Is this a new tactic? Can we now expect the Home Office to write letters to protesters, rather than it being a matter for the police, which I thought it would have been?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I understand it, an operation called the Police Powers Unit wrote to five protest groups to inform them of the changes to public order legislation. It is obviously right that people who may fall foul of changes in legislation should be warned. As to who signed it and where that unit sits, I am afraid I do not know but I will find out.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, in general, would the Minister agree—I think he has already said this—that the operation seemed to go really well? I think over 11,000 officers were deployed. Hundreds of thousands of members of the public were able to attend and people were able to protest. There was a collection of heads of Government from many countries across the world, including our own, which always invites security issues, as well as protest and all the other things that go with it. The fact that so few people were arrested is pretty remarkable. If individual cases need looking into, people should take the opportunity to make a complaint or take civil action. That should not detract from the overall operation, which seems to have gone so well, together with the great ceremony on the day.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Well, I absolutely could not agree with the noble Lord more.
Lord Beith (LD)
The success of the police’s actions over the Coronation as a whole surely does not prevent us from considering the long-term dangers, which we started to learn about during the Covid regulation period, of creating situations in which police officers are felt by citizens to be interfering with legitimate rights, whether it is protest or just the ability to walk in the countryside during the Covid regulation period, or to take home a tube of glue to repair some domestic damage. Surely we have to consider those long-term issues, while rejoicing in the fact that a good job was done by so many police officers.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord: all of those matters should stay under active consideration, particularly as the nature of crime, disruption, protest and what have you evolves. But, overall, I also agree with the noble Lord that last weekend was a magnificent one in the life of the nation, and all of those involved should be applauded, including the people who went and those who protested peacefully.
Post Office Executives: Bonuses
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role and look forward to working constructively in the months ahead. I thank him for coming to this House to address these concerns.
The Post Office Horizon IT scandal is the most widespread miscarriage of justice in UK history. For more than a decade, this Government have allowed the scandal to drag on. Thousands of lives have been ruined and, tragically, more than 30 families have lost loved ones. Despite all this, continued delays mean that thousands of victims have yet to receive financial compensation.
It is appalling that, instead of these victims seeing anyone held to account for their lives and livelihoods being ruined, they are instead suffering the indignity of watching those who contributed to their suffering rewarded. CEOs who allow such behaviour disgrace the business community. Does the Minister agree with me that this is pure corporate greed? Does he really believe that paying nearly half a million pounds in bonuses to those involved in the scandal is justifiable in this case? Does he agree that the payment of these bonuses undermines the fight for justice and insults the hundreds of victims for whom Members on both sides of this House have campaigned so hard and for so long?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, no doubt this is a serious error in corporate judgment, coming on top of the Horizon scandal and the misery and false accusation that it caused. In this regrettable situation, the Post Office was right to apologise. This is an extremely serious issue, at a time when it is essential that the public have confidence that the culture and processes at the Post Office have been improved. Government has acted swiftly, calling for an immediate explanation from the Post Office of how this mistake occurred and what steps its board is taking in response.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to his seat. Your Lordships did not need reminding, but this demonstrates again that the executive and board of the Post Office regard themselves as, somehow, a law apart from the rest of us and do not understand the situation that they have created for so many innocent victims. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Kevin Hollinrake MP, said in the Commons that
“more needs to be done”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/23; col. 341.]
So what is “more”, and when will it be done?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
Initially, Amanda Burton, the new chair of the Post Office remuneration committee and a non-executive director, will have two weeks to find out the precise facts about what has gone on here. At the same time, there is another review on the whole question of remuneration within the Post Office, because, clearly, something has gone very wrong. Within a couple of weeks, I hope that we will have a reasonable report with which we can come back to the House.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend reflect on how often predecessors of his—we welcome him warmly today—have stood at the Dispatch Box, talked about the great scandal that has been highlighted so brilliantly by my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, and said that we are within sight of a solution? We are still not, and that is an utter disgrace, made even more disgraceful by the subject we are discussing today.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I cannot disagree with the motive behind my noble friend’s question. The Government set aside £1 billion to deal with the compensation for the scandal. Of that, over £100 million has been paid out. But due process has to follow its route, and it continues to do so.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Post Office’s previous management seems to have got away scot free on this. It has been going on for a good 10 years, and some of them even get promoted to other jobs. Should they not be implicated and called to account, along with the IT provider that caused all this?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, management clearly has a very serious responsibility, as the Post Office provides all of us, throughout the entire land, with some extremely valuable services. The specific management team in place has apologised and, while this is not the appropriate time to go into great detail about what might happen to it, it must be fully aware of the errors that it authorised.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, every member of that board should have been aware of the bonuses paid and the reasons why they were. If they were not aware, they were failing to do their duty, but, if they were, they showed appalling judgment. Is the Minister content that they should stay in office for even two more weeks?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness’s sentiment. Certainly, in my experience, every member of the board is fully aware of exactly what the remuneration package is for each individual director and everyone within the organisation, whether it is fixed or bonus-related. Having said that, at this moment it is important that the two reviews under way take place. A decision can then be made at the appropriate time.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, this is the worst miscarriage of justice in the history of this country: 555 convictions have been declared unsafe. These people have been campaigning for 20 years, and some of them have died. The best that I can work out is that fewer than 100 of those convictions have been overturned. The scandal will be worsened by the fact that so many people are likely to die before their convictions are overturned. Can we not do something to speed this process up? One Bill with two clauses in this House could pardon them all.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
There can be absolutely no doubt about the seriousness of the Horizon disaster. I am sure that the noble Lord is absolutely right that things should be done quicker. I am not clear about what we can actually do about it, but I will certainly find out and get back to him.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, justice must be done and be seen to be done, of course, but it must be done in a timely fashion if it is to be justice. This has not happened in this terrible case at the Post Office or with Windrush. One of the reasons for the Illegal Migration Bill is that we need to make sure that justice is done at our ports and for those coming in. Is not the one common thread in all this that we have corporate lawyers, pressure group lawyers and special interest lawyers who are there not to deliver justice but to delay it, and therefore to deny it to those who deserve it?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend makes a very interesting point. Lawyers act for their clients. Their clients instruct them in so doing. The speed through the legal system in every country in the world is not as fast as one would like.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
What due diligence are the Government doing with regard to Fujitsu being a preferred bidder for government contracts on an ongoing basis, given its history with the Horizon project?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. I am not aware of the exact situation. I will find out and write to her.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I live three miles from the market town of Fakenham. The post office has been virtually closed for nearly four years. Surely the executives should provide a service that Fakenham and other communities need. Any bonus should be linked to providing that service.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend is right. Bonuses should be awarded based on performance against specific measurable and recorded targets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, everybody within the organisation should know this. Part of my noble friend’s question was about the commitment of the Post Office to the network. At the moment, there are about 11,500 post offices. During the last 10 years, the Government have poured about £2.5 billion of funding into the network. It is obviously very important that towns such as Fakenham have a proper post office. I shall take this up.
Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill
Thursday 11th May 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 10 May 2023 - (10 May 2023)
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Thursday 11th May 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-IV(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (10 May 2023)
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment deletes “continued or” from Clause 34(1).
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 155 and 156, and to consequential amendments 152 and 157 to 161. These are supported variously by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friends Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. My preference would be to see the removal of Clauses 39 and 40 from the Bill, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friends Lord Murphy, Lady Ritchie and Lord Hain. However, I will restrict myself to the amendments in my name.
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his continued engagement on the Bill with me and others. I am sure we will have an opportunity in future to discuss some of the significant lengths he has gone to since the Committee last met to deal with some of the issues we have raised. In my view, some of these amendments make parts of the Bill—which I do not fundamentally support, but that is another matter—slightly more palatable. The Minister is very open and has done prodigious work in this regard, as have his officials, who are doing a very good job. They are admired by all noble Lords who have been engaged in this process.
Truth and justice are not merely two sides of the same coin; they exist in active relation to one another. They both are—and must be—indispensable elements of an alloy that can carry and sustain a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Amendment 146 and its consequential amendments delete the time-limiting element of Clause 34, thus preventing criminal investigations being discontinued precipitately. I do not wish to stray into broader territory that is more customarily the stuff of Second Reading debates, but I wish to adduce an example that shows why this is important. In August 1974, John Pat Cunningham was shot and killed by a British serviceman. The soldier in question was finally put on trial in Belfast in 2021, 47 years later.
There are other families from all communities in Northern Ireland in that position—seeking justice for the deaths of loved ones. In earlier debates on this subject we heard of the case of Malvern Moffitt, murdered by IRA terrorists around 40 years ago. That is not an uncomfortable footnote in history but a tragedy whose concentric circles continue to lap at his family. His widow has expressed her profound upset at the prospect of the Bill in its current form receiving Royal Assent. His children gave a powerful and moving television interview in response to the Committee stage in the other place last year—something that should give us pause today.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the rule 9 submission by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, dated 16 August 2022, which specifically focuses on this Bill. The submission is informed by a year’s close monitoring of the Government’s legacy proposals, engagement with the different stakeholders and, during a week-long visit, engagement with the Minister and his officials in the NIO.
I direct your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 15 of that well-written and comprehensive submission, which reads:
“In her September 2021 letter, the Commissioner already highlighted the importance of the interaction of different mechanisms in ensuring justice, truth and reconciliation. With regard to justice, it was noted throughout the visit that other mechanisms than prosecutions, such as inquests, Police Ombudsman investigations and civil proceedings have often been instrumental in uncovering information that could subsequently be used to ensure accountability. Furthermore, the various mechanisms have been able, to some extent, to cater for the different needs of victims, since these will not be the same for all. At the end of her visit, the Commissioner noted in this respect that ‘unilaterally shutting down options that many victims and families value greatly as part of their way of dealing with the past ignores their needs and wishes, and is causing many of them deep distress’”.
This is a question not merely of fairness but of compliance under our Article 2 ECHR obligations. In raising the question of these obligations, I realise that I am failing to conform with recent innovations whereby breaching these obligations is advertised as a bold innovation rather than a prohibition. In the case of Armani Da Silva v the UK, the court ruled that:
“Having regard to its fundamental character, Article 2 of the Convention contains a procedural obligation … to carry out an effective investigation into alleged breaches of its substantive limb”.
The question of effectiveness is crucial. I will quote further from that decision, as it speaks directly to what constitutes an effective investigation. If an investigation is to meet the preconditions of effectiveness, it must have the possibility of leading to punishment. The relevant passage runs:
“In order to be ‘effective’ as this expression is to be understood in the context of Article 2 of the Convention, an investigation must firstly be adequate … This means that it must be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts, a determination of whether the force used was or was not justified in the circumstances and of identifying and—if appropriate—punishing those responsible … This is not an obligation of result, but of means”.
This seems both compelling and clear. It would be useful to know with what elements of that judgment the Government wish to disagree and upon what authority such a disagreement might rest. In this context, it may be worth recalling the words of the Minister for Veterans Affairs, who, in giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2020, conceded that there had been
“a serious generational problem with the standards of investigations”
carried out into the conduct of British servicemen and that
“a lot of the investigations have not withstood rigour as regards ECHR compliance”.
He concluded those remarks by stating boldly that that
“has been a major problem”.
I regret to say that as it stands, this Bill will deepen and not mitigate that problem.
This same question of Article 2 compliance also underlies Amendments 155 and 156, together with their consequential amendments. Probing Amendment 155 would delete Clause 39(1) from the Bill. That subsection states:
“A relevant Troubles-related civil action that was brought on or after the day of the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act may not be continued on and after the day on which this section comes into force”.
Again, this seems to breach not only the demands of natural justice but our Article 2 obligations. Amendment 156 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lord Murphy seeks to defang this particular risk by deleting the words “on or after” from Clause 39(2) and substituting “three years after”. The amendment would ensure that a Troubles-related civil action can be brought up to three years after the coming into force of Clause 38.
Amendments 155A, 161A, 161B and 178A are easy to explain. Clause 52(8)(c) refers to the
“actual date of the First Reading”.
The actual date was 17 May 2022, so the formula proposed in Clause 52(8)(c) is unnecessary if the Bill is otherwise amended to refer to 17 May 2022, which is exactly what this group of amendments does.
Lastly, I turn to the role of the Secretary of State in curtailing criminal investigations. Under these provisions, as it stands, it threatens incompatibility with Section 48(5) of the Scotland Act 1998. Two committees of the Scottish Parliament examined the Bill, and the consequent legislative consent memorandum points out that the Bill makes “novel and unwelcome changes” to the functions of the Lord Advocate as the head of the systems of criminal prosecution in Scotland. In particular, the power of the ICRIR to refuse to refer appropriate cases to the Lord Advocate compromises their independence, a supposedly inviolable principle under-pinning the whole architecture of the Scottish legal system. I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear why, and in what way, he believes that the role of the Lord Advocate is not compromised as I have outlined. Passing legislation aimed at bringing harmony to one constituent part of the United Kingdom by creating constitutional problems in another seems at the very least a somewhat quixotic way to proceed.
I would be grateful if the Minster could answer these questions of compatibility. If he is not disposed to accept these amendments, could he further explain how the Government will ensure that these provisions do not breach our obligations, both in the context of my earlier points on Article 2 of the ECHR and this Bill’s compliance with the Scotland Act 1998? I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 154A. I apologise for my late arrival to the debate on this important Bill, and for the lateness of this amendment, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Godson.
At first sight, noble Lords may be a little bewildered as to where the amendment is directed. It arises out of a decision of the Supreme Court in a case concerning Gerry Adams. The decision was given on 13 May 2020.The only judgment of the court was given by Lord Kerr, who described the regime in Northern Ireland, commonly known as internment. As many noble lords will be aware, the way in which interment operated was initially by an interim custody order, or ICO, which was made when the Secretary of State considered that an individual was involved in terrorism. That person was taken into custody and had to be detained there, to be released within 28 days unless the chief constable referred the matter to a commissioner. Detention continued while the commissioner considered the matter. If satisfied that the person was involved in terrorism, the commissioner would make a detention order. If not so satisfied, the release of the person detained would be ordered.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Godson and Lord Faulks. The principal point I want to make is that this amendment is not about the justice of internment as a general principle or the justice of the internment of a particular individual. It is purely about whether an individual should receive compensation because there was found to be a glitch in the procedure in ordering the internment because the Secretary of State did not personally consider it.
As has been said, such orders were signed by Ministers acting under the authority of the Secretary of State in accordance with the very well-established Carltona principle. That was certainly something that has always been understood by the Civil Service, and the reversal of it would have quite serious consequences for government. But whether or not there was a procedural glitch, the issue in my mind is whether compensation should be paid, not for an injustice but for such an error in procedure. I submit that the Government are entitled to protect themselves from having to pay compensation from the public purse for what is not an injustice but a procedural glitch. On those grounds, I support Amendment 154A.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I want to briefly offer some words of support for that amendment. In their paper, Professor Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, the former First Parliamentary Counsel, make a compelling argument that the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment was wrong. I will not address that, because it is not important for the purposes of the amendment. What is important is that they also make a compelling argument for the deleterious practical consequences that are likely to flow from Adams because of the importance of the Carltona principle to the good and smooth running of government. That is beyond argument, and the risk here is that that principle has been in some way undermined.
Let me give an analogy. As your Lordships will be aware, a number of the most serious and sensitive criminal cases require the consent of the DPP before they may proceed. But the system has always been that the Director of Public Prosecutions designates a small number of his or her most senior prosecutors to exercise this consent function on the DPP’s behalf. Of course, if the DPP wishes to call in a particular case to consider himself or herself, that will and does happen. But if it were ever to be the case that every file requiring DPP consent had to be placed before the DPP in person, the system would swiftly grind to a halt; or, the DPP would exercise that consent allegedly personally but really and practically on the basis of advice that he or she had received elsewhere. So the present system is the more honest. The individual giving the consent, exercising the consent function, is the individual who has actually read and considered the papers. To the extent that this amendment will protect and fortify the Carltona principle, it has my full support.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I strenuously support this amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Faulks, supported by my noble friend Lord Godson, and for two specific and extremely important reasons.
The first is simply this. If your Lordships go back to the 1972 detention of terrorists order passed through the House of Commons and this House, they will find specific provision in the text of that order for 28-day and night ICOs to be signed by Ministers of State, junior Ministers or other officials. We were doing that—I had the privilege of being involved in taking it through the House of Commons at the time—not just to reinforce the eminently sensible Carltona principle but for the most practical, hard-headed considerations of the circumstances in which these matters would have to be handled.
What we were dealing with seems to have fallen out of the memory of many people. Although we said that it was not a war, the Provisional IRA said it was, and indeed there was talk from Dublin of the same thing. We were having to deal with war conditions, whether or not we accepted that a war was being waged against the United Kingdom. The practicality of that was that the Secretary of State—Mr William Whitelaw at the time, under whom I served—was having to move very quickly between Belfast and the Cabinet, handling the situation in the Houses of Parliament and a variety of other commitments as well. It was perfectly obvious that, for the smooth working of the procedures and the empowerment of the detention of terrorists order and many other pieces of legislation, he would need support of all kinds in handling these matters—in particular, in accordance with the detention of terrorists order and Carltona.
Much of the discussion since has been detached from the context and intense pressures in which we were working after the fall of Stormont and the arrival of the Whitelaw mission in Northern Ireland. Incidentally, this had the support of the whole House. The House of Commons supported it unanimously; there were maybe one or two queries but no amendments at all.
The second reason for my support for this amendment is that, while I do not wish to criticise the courts in anyway—I would not dare do so—I am absolutely baffled that legal and court procedures in a complex matter of this kind, going back in history, did not involve calling any witness of any kind to corroborate what actually happened and what went on in Stormont and in the procedures we are discussing. Ministers should have been called in those proceedings. It happens that I am the only Minister left from the Whitelaw team who is still alive, and I should have expected to be asked exactly how these things went on. What happened when one was asked on a Sunday night to sign an ICO? Who was consulted? To what extent did one talk to the Secretary of State beforehand, or to other Ministers of State or important witnesses from the police and other authorities? This was extensive but none of it was ever discussed.
It is utterly bizarre that somehow the court procedures should ignore what was specifically provided for in the original order. This seems to be almost incomprehensible. I therefore ask strongly that the Government reconsider what my noble friend Lord Faulks has put so eloquently and the point that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has rightly argued about the procedure. Was there really a procedural glitch? No one knows; it was never discussed, and yet here we are with the prospect of millions of pounds being claimed on the basis of a judgment that appears to be based on sand—on nothing.
This is a very serious matter; it is a dangerous and costly matter. It may encourage many more difficult feelings at a time when—heaven knows—the whole balance and fragility of Northern Ireland is once again in question. It would be a great mistake not to accept the validity behind this clause, even if it needs amending in certain ways, and to pass it by or cast it aside on the grounds of matters settled. This is not settled; it is unsettled and most unsatisfactory. It needs very serious determination and consideration now.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, the discussion on Amendment 154A shows the importance of getting legislation right in the first instance. I speak in support of Amendment 146 to Clause 34, to which I have put my name. This amendment and Amendment 152 will remove the provision that all existing investigations must transfer from the existing investigation body to the ICRIR. Chief officers of police have to notify the Secretary of State of all criminal investigations of Troubles-related matters. The only exception to this under the Bill arises when a prosecution is under way and the investigation is pursuant to the prosecution.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, as we return to the Bill in Committee, it is right, given the inevitable focus, often, on the actions of the security forces, to pay tribute to the Army, the UDR, the RUC—part-time and full-time members—the security services and all who worked to safeguard the people of Northern Ireland through some of the worst days in the decades of Troubles and to remember the innocent victims who were cut down by terrorism, whether it came from loyalists or republicans. It is worth putting on record, every time we debate these matters, that the overwhelming number of deaths and murders were carried out by terrorists.
In the context of the fight against terrorism, I think it is appropriate to add a personal tribute to Lord Robert Carswell, who recently passed away. He was a Member of your Lordships’ House and from 1984 to 2004 was a senior judge and Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland who valiantly upheld the principles of legal justice in Northern Ireland through some of the darkest days. People like Lord Carswell and others are often bypassed. Many who engaged in violence over the years have been elevated into personalities and lauded by world leaders, but it is people like Lord Carswell who deserve the thanks and gratitude of so many in Northern Ireland for the work they did during the Troubles.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I heard the Secretary of State, I think it was yesterday in Northern Ireland Questions in the other place, refer to amendments to the Bill that will be coming forth as “game-changers”. He was very adamant that these would be very significant amendments indeed, and it seems a shame that we should be kept waiting, having gone through the entire Committee, now into our fourth day, and be told that there will be game-changing amendments.
I hope the Minister can tell the Committee what these game-changing amendments may prefigure and are likely to do, because it seems wrong that we should be left to debate them on Report. I certainly look forward to examining them in detail, although I share the reservations of others about their likely content.
This is the fourth day of Committee. We have seen other Bills dropped; the protocol Bill has been dropped, there has been massive change to the retained EU law Bill and there is speculation that other major planks of government legislation will be dropped. Still, this Bill, which is unwanted and has no support in Northern Ireland—neither among the political parties nor in the Assembly—persists. It grinds on, unwanted and unloved. The only people who seem to be driving it forward are the Government. For the life of me, I fail to understand why they cling to this obnoxious piece of legislation.
While that is our view of the Bill overall, it is our duty to examine these matters in detail and try to mitigate it if it is going to proceed on to the statute book. I fully support Amendment 154A tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson, which is very timely; the decision taken by the Supreme Court mystified and astounded many commentators and those who follow these things closely. The Carltona principle has been embedded in British political life for many decades, and the prospect that tens of millions of pounds could be spent in compensation for some technicality, at a time when we are struggling to fund vital services in Northern Ireland, will cause outrage on all sides there. Nobody will support this. The Government should take on board this very considered amendment and I hope they will adopt it quickly.
Amendment 154, which has already been referred to, is in my name and those of my noble friends. Its purpose is to treat a public prosecution as having begun when the file is passed to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. It is entirely wrong for the Government to cast aside the significant work that has gone into a number of high-profile investigations, such as Operation Kenova, which deals with the actions of the leading informer and head of the IRA’s so-called internal security unit, Freddie Scappaticci. This investigation must be able to conclude irrespective of whether a decision to prosecute has been made by the time the Bill’s provisions come into force. However, it is not just about that investigation or others. The principle is worth defending. The prohibition of criminal enforcement action under this Bill’s provisions is immoral and contrary to the principles of natural justice. This amendment attempts to mitigate that damage.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the Committee that, due to an earlier engagement, I will unfortunately have to leave before the end of this group. If noble Lords will indulge me, I will speak briefly now. I agree with an awful lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said about the general approach to the Bill. This is the fourth day and we continue to have tremendous dissatisfaction with it, notwithstanding the generally positive approach of the Minister, who has been exemplary in his ability to listen to us and respond at every stage.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Butler, and others for their explanation of newly tabled Amendment 154A, but it is potentially quite a detailed change. We should discuss it in much more detail, perhaps on Report. It could have significant consequences, so I hope we can look at it in more detail before then. I look forward to at least reading the Minister’s response in Hansard.
These Benches strongly agree with the powerful and detailed speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. These primarily probing amendments correctly ask the Government to explain their position on the continuation of investigations. The amendments from the noble Baroness seeking to remove Clauses 39 and 40 raise some extremely important points. I look forward to reading the Minister’s response to many of the issues she raised, because they are still unresolved and we have not yet had satisfactory answers to them. As a general point, can he reassure the many victims and their families that their hopes of justice will not be undermined by those two clauses as drafted? Can he clarify the situation for those who had been given additional hope through an investigation, inquiry or inquest having started, and give us more details on the process and timescale proposed in this Bill?
The Minister knows that we are all very grateful for his active engagement on this Bill. He has shown repeatedly that he is prepared to listen and respond. However, I suggest that discussions with noble Lords such as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who has so much experience to share, about some of the realities and consequences of Clauses 39 and 40 would be very welcome—indeed, necessary—between now and Report.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Browne and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, to which I was a signatory along with my noble friend Lord Murphy on the Front Bench, because we are firmly opposed to the removal of access to inquests for victims. The standard bearer in all this should be adherence to the rights, needs and requirements of the many victims and survivors, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is clearly also saying in his amendment. Victims and survivors should have primacy.
In all the debates on this Bill, noble Lords from Northern Ireland and across the House, political parties in Northern Ireland, the Commission for Victims and Survivors and all those organisations that represent the needs of victims and survivors have clearly enunciated their opposition to it as drafted because it does not provide for the needs of victims and survivors.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I heard the Secretary of State refer yesterday to “game-changing amendments”, to which reference has been made today on the BBC Northern Ireland website. Can the Minister tell us what those game-changing amendments are that will be brought forward on Report? The only amendments should be those that reject this Bill; like all the other Bills that have been withdrawn or substantially changed, it should be withdrawn.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 154A tabled by my noble friends Lord Godson and Lord Faulks. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading.
As others have explained, the Supreme Court reached a decision which surprised many legal observers. In this respect, I commend to the Minister and his officials the Policy Exchange paper of May 2020, which explains the well-established Carltona principle, how the Supreme Court reached its decision, what it did not refer to and, in particular, what was said in the debates leading up to this Order in Council being passed—it is necessary to look at that. I am not going to go into that now; I shall be short.
For a long time, the principle has meant that officials and junior Ministers routinely act in the name of the Secretary of State, whose personal involvement in each and every decision is not required. Noble Lords who have much experience in this field—I refer in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Butler, Lord Howell and Lord Macdonald, all of whom have great experience with or as Ministers, or as the Director of Public Prosecutions—have explained the significance of the Carltona principle to our system, and agreed that the Supreme Court’s interpretation was, if I may put it this way, somewhat implausible.
It is plain that the Minister, in this case, acted in good faith and, I suggest, without negligence and in accordance with the well-established principles. Quite simply, this amendment does not overturn the acquittal, which was founded on a Supreme Court decision, but it will ensure that damages should not flow. It will also have the benefit of restoring the Carltona principle to its necessary place in jurisprudence. I commend this amendment to the House.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I make no apology for the fact that my contributions to the debates on this Bill and legislation stem from my personal experience over the years with victims and survivors, and their families. If noble Lords had a similar experience, they would live with it and continue to live with it until the end of their lives.
At this juncture in our debates, we are addressing for technical reasons—which I accept—and for reasons of jurisprudence and legality, what is, I believe, the greatest failure of this proposed legislation. It is proposed that victims and survivors will be denied the last jurisprudential opportunity to gain some answer to their doubts, worries and concerns, and above all their search for justice.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, recently referred to the death of my long-term colleague and friend, who began, as I did, to study law at Queen’s, all those years ago, and who ended up as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. For reasons that must be obvious, I personally know something of the strain that he encountered during the Troubles, and the honesty, integrity and decency of Bob Carswell needs no defence from me. I pay tribute today to a man who often sat beside me on these Benches of latter years.
I cannot speak too strongly of the feeling of so many people who have encountered grief, loss and sorrow during the Troubles when they view the proposals of this Bill, and in particular the amendments and the area that surrounds them that we are looking at currently. They are to be denied the possibility of answers to their questions, and denied the justice that they feel is not just a legal necessity but a legal obligation. They are to be denied the possibility of having their questions answered and doubts removed. Now we see what is proposed in our legislation. To say that it is adding salt to the wounds is too little; it will be devastating in its effect. We must put on record that this Committee recognises, beyond the technicalities that our legal friends are now explaining to us, the human side of what is happening and what is proposed.
Many tributes have been paid to the Minister, and I add my name to them, for I do not know how he has had the patience to listen to so many approaches. But I say to him that, on this occasion, he must recognise above all else that, in guiding us through this legislation, he is defending something that we who live and work there, and who have had our being in Northern Ireland, find extremely hard to accept. That must be said plainly. Above all else, if this Committee does not hear those voices and those claims, we are failing to do the duty that we are obliged to fulfil.
The last thing I will say at this stage is simply this. Whatever the future of this proposed legislation, whatever the future of the peace process in Northern Ireland, and whatever the future for the new generation coming up who will read in the history books what so many of us have lived through—whatever the answers to those questions are—what remains fundamental is justice in its widest human sense. For that reason, I add my support to these amendments.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I give my support to Amendment 154A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson. We are now on the fourth day of Committee, but it has been six months since this Bill was first introduced to the Lords. I kept hoping that, as time went on and on, somebody in the Government would think that this was one of the Bills that they should be retreating on and getting rid of, as they seem to be doing with so many other Bills. But here we are, and so we want to ensure that we end up with the best Bill possible.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I support the various amendments brought forward by my noble friend Lord Browne, which aim to give room for ongoing criminal investigations to conclude and to allow space for civil action to be brought for an additional three years. I very much understand the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, put forward regarding the closing off of other routes to justice under Clauses 39 and 40.
I often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I sometimes disagree with him, but today I agreed with absolutely every word he said, particularly when he opened his remarks by making reference and paying tribute to those in the security services who lost their lives, and indeed the tens of thousands of other people who lost their lives over 30 years in Northern Ireland. I also agreed with his tribute and that of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, to Lord Carswell, who I knew very well too. Our interest was not simply legal or political; we were both great lovers of classical music. He was a great expert—much more than I was—and I think that we in this House will all miss his wise words.
My noble friend Lord Browne referred to the fact that the First Reading of the Bill took place in the other place one year ago, and we are nowhere near finished. This is the fourth day in Committee—it seems a bit longer to me—over the last number of months in which we have been dealing with this, and there seems no end to it. I honestly think—and this is where the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I think most Members in the Committee would agree—that it is time to dump the Bill. There is no support for it. All my experience in Northern Ireland has been based on the fact that if there is not support across the community for something, it is doomed. I think it premature to advertise for the office of commissioner. I believe it is wrong that something as controversial as this can go ahead unless there is community support, political support and legal support, both here and, in particular, in Northern Ireland. There is still time. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to the fact that a number of Bills have been dumped. The Schools Bill was the other one that he did not mention, I think, but there are others. Now is the time to do that.
To refer particularly to the new amendment that has been introduced, Amendment 154A, I am glad that I am not the Minister answering this. I am sure that the Minister will have an answer, at least a temporary one, to this very interesting amendment. I do not want to comment on an individual case, obviously, but I do want to comment on the implications of what happened as a result of that case. I had never heard of the Carltona principle before, so I have learned something today, but I obviously operated under it when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, more significantly, when I was Minister of State for Northern Ireland, because as Minister of State I undoubtedly signed warrants on behalf of the Secretary of State at the time, understanding that everything I did was perfectly legal and right. Obviously, that has now been brought into doubt.
Very often, a Secretary of State’s name is used in tens of thousands of communications and letters for technical reasons, but this is not a technicality in Northern Ireland. This is about actually locking people up, tapping their phones or whatever it might be, so it really has to be got right—not least the issue of compensation, which could be absolutely horrendous. The Minister is not going to give us a complete answer to this today, but I hope that he will be able to assure us that by the time we get to Report, which I guess is not that long away, the Government will be taking action on this important measure.
I hope that the Minister, who has been extremely patient over the last seven or eight months with the Bill and with us, will look not just at that amendment but at the other amendments. They go to the heart of the criticism of the Bill: that the Government are wiping out any legal routes to ensure that there is some redress for the terrible things that have happened to people in Northern Ireland over the last 40 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, referred to the past seven or eight months—I assure him that, from this side of the Committee, it seems much longer. He, my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, somewhat pre-empted my opening comments on this group of amendments by referring to the sad passing of Lord Carswell. As this is my first opportunity to address your Lordships since his death, I join those who pass on their condolences to his friends and family. Lord Carswell spent many years as a very dedicated public servant, including as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, as a Law Lord and as a distinguished Member of this House. We will miss his very wise and profound contributions.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, for their references to the security forces. I intend to touch on that at slightly greater length in replying to the next group of amendments, but I concur with every word that was said.
As has become customary on the Bill, this has been a thorough debate. Before I respond directly, I would like to take a couple of moments to make an announcement in the Chamber. Last month, on 20 April, I laid in the Library of the House a paper setting out the selection process for the chief commissioner of the ICRIR. I am pleased to announce today that, following recommendations from the three Chief Justices across the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State has identified the right honourable Sir Declan Morgan KC to be appointed to the role of chief commissioner of the commission upon Royal Assent. The Secretary of State is today laying a Written Ministerial Statement providing more detail.
It is important that a chief commissioner be identified now in order to help victims, survivors and their families receive the answers they need with minimal delay, should this legislation receive Royal Assent. Sir Declan brings a wealth of experience from his previous role as former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland from 2009 to 2021. A hallmark of his distinguished career has been his commitment to addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. I am confident that he will bring the highest level of experience, expertise and integrity to this post, and that this will help build public confidence in the work of the commission.
Sir Declan will begin work early next month to identify other commissioners and design how the new commission will carry out its role. Formal appointment as chief commissioner will take place only following Royal Assent and the establishment of the commission, taking account of any further considerations and final requirements of the Act. In particular, the chief commissioner will lead the process to recruit the commissioner for investigations and provide a recommendation to the Secretary of State. The role is currently advertised and subject to a fair and open competition, with appointment on merit. I trust that noble Lords across the House will warmly welcome this appointment.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Does it not seem slightly precipitate to be engaging the services of the chief commissioner and other commissioners when the powers and duties of the commission have yet to be decided by your Lordships’ House? It seems to me that, notwithstanding the amount of time needed to establish the new offices, the Bill is not yet in a state in which the chief commissioner can approach commissioners and say to them, “This is what we’re going to do, and this is how we’re going to do it”, because the House has not decided those issues.
Lord Caine (Con)
As I just made clear in my remarks, the appointment is as chief commissioner-designate, and the formal appointment will not take place until after Royal Assent. That will take into account any further considerations that the House will have upon this legislation. It is important to enable the work of the commissioner to start now in order that, once Royal Assent is—I hope—received, the commission’s work can begin without delay.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, could the Minister indicate in more detail the functions that Sir Declan Morgan will undertake in this interim period before Royal Assent is given?
Lord Caine (Con)
As I just said, the Secretary of State is laying a Written Ministerial Statement today which should be available very shortly, and I refer the noble Baroness to it for further detail on that.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
Very briefly, could the noble Lord answer my question about who decided the salary and whether the person will be paid before Royal Assent?
Lord Caine (Con)
The salary is based on judicial pay scales, as set out by the Ministry of Justice. I cannot off the top of my head tell the noble Baroness precisely what day his remuneration will begin, but I will get back to her on that. However, it is consistent with the MoJ’s judicial pay scales.
I turn to the amendments on criminal investigations, and first to Amendments 146 and 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. Under the Bill, the only existing criminal investigations that will be allowed to continue will be those where a decision to prosecute has been reached by the time of the Act’s commencement, currently two months after Royal Assent.
As the noble Lord knows, it has long been the Government’s view that to allow too many existing processes to continue alongside the ICRIR’s establishment would dilute the commission’s credibility as the sole investigator of Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries, and the wider objectives of the legislation to encourage information recovery and—an issue on which many noble Lords have touched today—the truth of what happened. In the Government’s view, the legislation as drafted strikes the right balance between allowing existing criminal cases that have made significant progress in the prosecutorial process to continue while giving the ICRIR the space it needs to become established as the sole responsible body for these types of investigations.
The legislation does not prevent the new commission, once it is operational and subject to a request being made, resuming criminal standard investigations into deaths or serious injury which the police have been prevented from pursuing under Clause 34(1). As we have discussed many times in the past, the commissioner for investigations will have the full powers of a police constable.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
It has to be said that the powers of investigation conferred on the commissioner for investigations in the statute are not the same powers as the powers—for example, to access information, and other powers—which are held by an ordinary chief constable and his officers. The powers of investigation in the Bill are circumscribed by the role of the Secretary of State and the interventions which he can make.
Lord Caine (Con)
I disagree with the noble Baroness. The commissioner for investigations will have the powers of a police constable and will have access to far greater information and records than is currently the case. We have been over this many times before. It is written into legislation that the commission will have access to far more archive and intelligence material than has ever been made available before.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, quoted the decision of Armani Da Silva v the UK in regard to what constitutes an effective investigation. Again, we have debated this at length on previous days in Committee. To reiterate a point I made during those debates, the commission, working together with public prosecutors and making full use of the police powers to which I have just referred, will be able to institute criminal proceedings against suspected offenders in cases where conditional immunity has not been granted.
In the Government’s view, the absence of a prosecution or punishment outcome in individual cases where immunity is granted can be justified on the basis that the conferral of such immunity in a limited and conditional way is necessary to ensure the recovery of information about Troubles-related deaths and serious incidents that is extremely unlikely to come to light in any other circumstances. It is therefore consistent with the Government’s stated objective to provide more information to victims and survivors of the Troubles in a timely and efficient manner.
In response to his question about the compatibility of the Bill with the Scotland Act 1998, it has always been our expectation that the power of referral will be exercised in consultation with the relevant prosecuting authorities, including the Lord Advocate, and I commit to consider this matter further in advance of Report.
In response to Amendment 154 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn, where a decision to prosecute has already been made, the case will be allowed to continue to trial and the individual involved will not be able to apply for immunity until its conclusion. If they are convicted of an offence, they will not of course be able to apply for immunity from that offence, as we have discussed previously.
Clause 6 designates the commissioner for investigations as a person having the powers and privileges of a constable, as I referred to a few moments ago, and they have access to the functions they need to carry out robust investigations.
On the very important Amendment 154A, in the name of my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Godson, I am very aware of the issues being raised following the Supreme Court ruling in 2019—indeed, I was a special adviser in the Northern Ireland Office at the time that that ruling was made by Lord Kerr. It has been brought back into focus following a court judgment in the past few days and I am aware of its importance. I hope my noble friend will understand, as he alluded to in his comments, that, given the lateness with which the amendment appeared and important legal considerations on which it touches, I am not in a position to give him or other noble Lords a full response today. But I do take on board the very powerful points made by a number of noble Lords: the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Brockwell, Lord Macdonald and Lord Murphy of Torfaen, my noble friend, Lord Howell, who reminded the House that he was indeed a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office in 1972 with some responsibility for these matters, and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. All upheld the importance of the Carltona principle. As I say, I cannot give a definitive response today, but I do commit to discussing it further before Report and possibly returning to this when the Bill comes back on Report.
I turn to the group of amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and other noble Lords, to address some of the concerns raised over the inclusion of a number of clauses. I begin by reminding the House that, as regards civil cases, over 700 writs were issued against the state in legacy civil claims before the First Reading of the Bill a year ago on 17 May 2022.
As has been stated many times, the Government’s policy intent regarding civil claims is to reduce the burden on the Northern Ireland civil courts—which currently have a huge case load backlog to work through—while enabling the commission to establish itself as the sole investigative body looking at Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries. It is the Government’s intent that families should no longer have to go through the strained civil court system in order to receive the answers they seek.
In the Government’s view, there is a danger that these amendments in the name of the noble Lord and others would significantly dilute both of those aims, taking potential casework away from the ICRIR and putting it back into an already clogged system that on current estimates will take decades to work through. In our view, this is much less likely to provide answers for families in an efficient manner, which again sits in opposition to our stated aims.
On Amendment 156 specifically, filing claims can be done relatively quickly. This means that if a three-year grace period were to be given, it is possible that a huge number of claims would be filed, as a clear deadline would be in sight, and would remain in existence for a number of years. That would mean that the system would be hugely clogged up and have to deal with an even higher case burden than is currently the case.
Our current position will allow existing claims that were filed before the Bill’s introduction to continue to conclusion while bringing to an end new processes, to ensure that not too many concurrent cases are running once the ICRIR is established. Clause 39(7) simply allows any civil cases where a final judgment has been reached before commencement to continue to conclusion, where they would otherwise be caught by the prohibition in Clause 39(1). We believe that this is a reasonable approach to ensuring that the prohibition on civil claims does not interfere with cases where the court has handed down a final judgment when the prohibition would otherwise apply.
I appreciate that coronial inquests are a matter of huge concern to a number of noble Lords. I gave a commitment that this Government would not rush the legacy Bill through this House, and that we would prioritise steady passage and provide ample time for continued engagement. That is what we have done, in good faith. As noble Lords will be aware, the original working assumption was that the ICRIR would be fully operational by 1 May 2023 at the latest, on the assumption that Royal Assent would have been received some time before then. At that point, the intention was that those inquests which had reached an advanced stage would continue, while those which had not would move into the new commission. It will not have escaped the attention of noble Lords that 1 May 2023 has come and gone without Royal Assent, and that the establishment of the new commission has not yet happened, largely due to the extra time that we have given for thorough consideration of this legislation. However, this raises important issues that we must address. I will discuss this further with noble Lords between now and Report.
As the Bill has not yet become law, all current criminal justice processes may, for now, continue as normal. In that context, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asked me how many PSNI investigations have been initiated since the introduction of the Bill. That information rests with the PSNI, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is operationally independent from the Government, but I will seek an answer.
As Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan demonstrated his leadership and his determination to provide answers for families of victims, through the work of coroners’ courts in legacy inquests. Sir Declan’s commitment to providing effective, efficient and independent coronial investigations won the respect and trust of countless families and the wider community in Northern Ireland. I am confident that he will take forward the work of the ICRIR with the same determination and commitment. The Government believe that once the commission is established there should be one process for investigating the past that is available equally to all those—I repeat, all those—who have lost loved ones, providing parity to all families, victims and survivors, while allowing other organisations to focus on contemporary issues.
While the coronial process has proved more effective than other mechanisms in providing information, accountability and acknowledgement to some families, including in some very high-profile cases, it is undeniably a resource-intensive process that can tackle only a small number of Troubles-related cases when compared with the many families who still wait for similar outcomes. The commission seeks to provide this, and it is worth reminding noble Lords that the commission will have easier access. The noble Baroness and I disagree here, but it will have easier access to more information than coronial inquests, through the obligation of full disclosure from relevant authorities, as outlined in Clause 5. This is particularly relevant to information that is national security sensitive. The commission will also have comparable powers to compel witnesses, and only on the basis of evidence will be able to make findings public via a final report, in a manner similar to an inquest.
The Government are confident that the legislation provides the chief commissioner with all the requisite tools to fulfil the commission’s functions fully and effectively. Indeed, it is fair to say that any chief commissioner, given their senior status within the judiciary, will be very cognisant of the legal obligations on all public authorities, including the commission, to meet the requirements of the ECHR.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, will there be any process by which complainant compensation or damages can be awarded after Clause 39 comes into effect, or will anybody who was injured or whose loved one was killed have no right of action at all and no route to compensation? Is this the end of the road for any right to compensation in Northern Ireland?
Lord Caine (Con)
As the noble Baroness is aware, claims that were filed before the introduction of the Bill last year will be allowed to continue, but there will be a cut-off thereafter. As she is also aware, other avenues are available for compensation which Parliament has introduced in recent years, such as payments for those who were injured and so on in the Troubles.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his characteristic way of responding to debates such as this. Subject to a few interventions on parts of the argument that noble Lords thought he had not dealt with, he covered the debate, as he always does, very comprehensively. He is probably the most open Minister I have ever been involved with in debates in your Lordships’ House. He did it at speed, though, so this issue probably bears some consideration between now and Report. In any event, he is inviting us to do that and will be doing it himself.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. My amendments were probing in nature, but once grouped with the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, this became a comprehensive debate on issues that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, correctly described as, in the view of many, the greatest failure of this legislation. This debate is about the scale of that failure. I admire the Minister’s ability always to defend the Government’s policy intent, but we have an argument with that intent. The fundamental challenge of this debate is that others, almost universally, think that the policy intent is wrong and that the sacrifices having to be made in other areas, such as the needs of survivors and victims, should not be made. In any event, I do not propose to say anything further on this.
Before I sit down, however, I must make some reference to Amendment 154A, and I do this in a personal context. Between 2001 and 2003, I was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Office. I signed a number of warrants—thankfully, none authorising an interim custody order—some of which were on behalf of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen when he was Secretary of State. So, if the implications of the current state of the law are sufficiently far-reaching, they may reach me as well. I am not sure that they are: I got notice of this amendment very late and have had insufficient time to look at it and its implications.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will appreciate that, while, on the face of it, I was persuaded of the importance of this amendment—or at least part of it—by his introduction and the other contributions, I will keep my powder dry until Report, when I am sure it will come back. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Faulks
“Authorisation of interim custody orders under the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972
(1) Article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 is to be treated as always having had effect as authorising an interim custody order under that article in relation to a Troubles-related offence to be made by and with the authority of any Minister of the Crown whose signature was required for the making of such an order (and not just by and with the authority of the Secretary of State personally).(2) Subsection (1) does not revive any criminal conviction quashed before the coming into force of this section.(3) But a person whose conviction for any Troubles-related offence (whether or not quashed) or whose detention (whether or not as a consequence of such a conviction) depended, directly or indirectly, on the validity of such an interim custody order is not entitled, by or under any enactment or otherwise, to receive any damages or compensation in respect of that conviction or detention if the only reason for impugning its validity relates to whether the order was made by and with the authority of the Secretary of State, personally.(4) Subsection (3) applies irrespective of whether the claim for damages or compensation was made before or after the coming into force of this section.”
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I thank all those who took part in the debate for the support that has been given— wholeheartedly in some instances and with some reservations in others. I am grateful for the debate that it generated. I am also grateful to the Minister for his helpful response. I wholly understand why he was not able to give a fuller response at this stage, and I welcome his reassurance that we will visit the matter between now and Report. This is an important amendment, as I endeavoured to make clear during the course of the debate. It is important in terms of the large number of claims which may result from the decision and in establishing once more the primacy of the Carltona principle in the way the Government work.
Lord Hogan-Howe
“Amendment of the Code for Prosecutors for Troubles-related offences
In section 37 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (Code for Prosecutors), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) The code must ensure that the views, interests and well-being of victims, and of the families of deceased victims, are considered when determining whether criminal proceedings should be instituted for a Troubles-related offence.(3B) In relation to a Troubles-related offence the code must take account of—(a) the likelihood of the accused re-offending,(b) the time elapsed since the offence,(c) the volume and seriousness of the crime, and(d) the character and behaviour of the accused since offending.””
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I must make an apology because the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is unable to be in his place and I did not leap up quickly enough to speak to Amendment 147. I shall infuse into my comments on Amendment 166 some of what I would have said on Amendment 147.
My approach here is going to be brief. I am no expert on Northern Ireland. There are many people who live there and are experts. I spent two years as HMIC for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and I was head of the Met, which leads on counterterrorism investigations for the United Kingdom. That is the extent of my experience.
My interest in this Bill stems from a couple of things. First, my instinct is always that murderers and others who commit serious crime should not get away with it. However, I would subsume that interest if the people involved believe that no further action should be taken. The more this Bill has been heard in its various stages, the more I have been persuaded that no one from Northern Ireland supports this Bill and nor do many other people, which makes it rather difficult to support it in principle. My comments are really about how to mitigate some of the damages, should the Bill became law rather than whether it should become law, because it seems that it does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland or, most importantly, the families and people who were most affected by the Troubles.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his intervention on this amendment. We have debated these issues at length so I do not propose to detain the House for long at this stage, but I commit to speaking further with him and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in whose name the amendment stands.
The noble Lord has referred to Kenova. I am on record as saying that we are deeply appreciative of the work of Jon Boutcher and the way that he has gone about his business over the past number of years. As I say, I do not intend to detain the House, but I will engage with both noble Lords between now and Report.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I thank the Minister for his assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
“(2A) The designated persons have an overarching duty to ensure that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that designated persons responsible for making recommendations about the initiation and carrying out of relevant memorialisation activities are under a duty to prevent the glorification of Troubles-related offences.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, in this group we have come to memorialisation. I want to say a few words on the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends. Amendment 172 is
“intended to ensure that designated persons responsible for making recommendations about the initiation and carrying out of relevant memorialisation activities are under a duty to prevent the glorification of Troubles-related offences”.
Clause 48 says that “designated persons” carrying out the Troubles-related work programmes
“must have regard to the need to ensure that—(a) there is support from different communities in Northern Ireland for the way in which that programme is carried out, and (b) a variety of views of the Troubles is taken into account in carrying out that programme”.
This focus on “a variety of views” is problematic given that, sadly, a significant number of people in our community repeatedly not only refuse to disavow violence and terrorism but go further and eulogise and glorify acts of terrorism.
They want to put on a pedestal those who carried out acts of violence. They do this through parades, vigils, rallies and the installation of memorials and so on at sports grounds, on housing executive property and on roadsides. This is to continue what has been referred to throughout these debates as the revision of history—the rewriting of the history of the Troubles, so that those in the security forces who stood fast in the way of terrorism are denigrated to a large extent in the eyes of some. The terrorists are elevated by some to have been engaged in noble acts of warfare.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, referred to his experience. The sad reality is that we know the sordid, grubby, filthy acts of terrorism and violence that were carried out against innocent men, women and children daily in Northern Ireland, at times on the mainland as well and even on the continent of Europe in pursuit of the aims of violent men and women of terrorism.
Look at some of these daily events. Children witnessed the murder of their father or mother. Wives ran down lanes having heard the gunshots that cut down their farmer husband at the end of the lane. Consider the case of a young wife who had just given birth in hospital and who had been visited by her husband. As he left and went down into the car park, he was murdered. Then, at the funeral, they gloated over his murder. I know a young boy—now a man—who had lost his mother. His father was made to kneel down and was shot through the head in front of him; he ran down the lane to try to get help.
This is the reality of terrorism and what these people carried out, yet we have a situation where these people are eulogised and young people in Northern Ireland are shouting “Up the Ra”. We have a designate First Minister of Northern Ireland who says she wants to reach out to people but who continually goes to the eulogies of terrorists, continually defends the actions of terrorists and men of violence and puts these murderers on a pedestal. Until Sinn Féin disavows that, it will never reach out successfully to the unionist community or indeed to families on all sides of the community.
There will never truly be a peace process and a political process in Northern Ireland that is stable and enduring unless people move forward and stop eulogising violence. It is one of the main causes of community dislocation and the continued problems that we have in Northern Ireland. We are told continuously to move ahead, but these people continue to point backwards and eulogise the actions of terror. Today, in 2023, they are still doing it.
My Amendment 172 is intended to ensure that the designated persons will not have as part of their duties allowing terrorist activities to become the subject of glorification or justification—they should be under a duty to prevent this. They cannot be held to ransom by those who would rewrite history.
My Amendment 173 is intended to ensure that only innocent victims are included as victims in the memorialisation strategy under the Bill. It is critical that any Troubles-related work programme does not give credence to terrorists injured or killed by their own hand. They should not be considered victims in the same way as those whom they went out to maim and murder. The need to avoid drawing a moral equivalence between the victim and the perpetrator has been accepted as part of the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. We on these Benches and in the other place fought hard and long to ensure that that distinction was made, and Regulation 6 of the 2020 regulations made that part of the law. It is time that we saw this reflected in primary legislation. There should be a UK-wide definition of a victim that does not include the perpetrators of violence.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said and his Amendments 172 and—in particular—173; it has been a long time coming, and we need to make that definition of victim the same across the United Kingdom.
I will speak to my Amendments 174ZA and 174A. Amendment 174ZA addresses a problem with the Government’s funding body, UK Research and Innovation—UKRI—councils. Many of us who are interested in legacy are concerned about what seems the one-sided nature of much of the academic research into our past and the way that UKRI funding has been monopolised by what seems to be a single legal view. That view is radical and investigates faults only with the United Kingdom state and its security responses during the Troubles.
I cite here Queen’s University’s transitional justice department, which produced the model legacy bill referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and others. Almost alone, that department has received some £4 million in UKRI funding. It works in conjunction with the Committee on the Administration of Justice, a largely nationalist body in Belfast that encourages legacy litigation. I note with concern that the speakers’ list at the transitional justice institute’s seminars during the events at Queen’s University on the recent 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement was drawn from one outlook only.
The wording of my Amendment 174ZA stems from an Answer that I received on 8 November last year from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. He said that UKRI funding on legacy
“is allocated according to research excellence as assessed by independent peer review”.
I am aware—I am sure that many noble Lords will also be—that peer reviews can often become what you could call “chum reviews”, especially when few other academics work in the same field. One academic, Dr Cillian McGrattan, wrote that
“the UKRI record does not bode well for the government’s plan to create a multi-disciplinary history that encourages the acceptance of ‘different narratives’ that transcend and challenge ethnic taboos; that is plural rather than single-identity; that is based upon the actual historical record rather than after the event collective and communal memories; and that fosters reconciliation rather than continued division”.
This lack of balance of legacy and justice at Queen’s University makes it essential that the Bill has more safeguards about academic diversity and fair funding—hence this amendment, which dovetails with others in the group that the noble Lords, Lord Godson and Lord Bew, have endorsed.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, this part of the Bill provides for history and memorialisation. It is about creating as true and honest an account as possible—one which has integrity—of what happened during our tortured, troubled past.
This is hugely sensitive. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said. All I will add is that, given the fact that the eyes of the whole community will be on those who are attempting to deal with these matters, it is vital that there is equity and fairness for all.
I fully support Amendment 172 from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in particular. It is right that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences. We see at regular intervals events from different sections of the community, not just the republican community, which glorify individuals who contributed to atrocities and occasions that caused immense pain to so many of us, but particularly to those whose loved ones died or were permanently maimed in the attack being celebrated. Such events cause great pain; they can reignite the terrors and agony of the post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by so many as a consequence of these events. There is no justification whatever for the glorification of terrorism.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I rise to support the amendments tabled in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, but also to give a broad welcome to this group in its entirety—notwithstanding some of the major concerns that have been expressed by ourselves and others from across the Chamber about the overall contents of the Bill. From that point of view, no amendments can make the Bill itself acceptable. Nevertheless, actions that we can take to deal with the issue of memorialisation have a level of importance.
Memorialisation can be a force potentially for good, but we also need to be aware that it can also be a major force for further problems and further evil. If done correctly, memorialisation can be beneficial in helping to remember innocent victims and, one hopes, helping towards a level of reconciliation. If we get the conditions right, that can be something of benefit to society and, potentially, to some families. But there is a real danger that memorialisation can be got wrong, which is the thrust of the amendments that we have proposed. It is about trying to provide a level of consistency.
As in previous groups of amendments, we are talking about the real danger of a glorification of terrorism, which must be prevented—certainly from anybody who seeks to benefit from this legislation. It is also the case that, if memorialisation is used as a back door to glorify or justify terrorism, it would be deeply damaging to society. It is not simply a question of rubbing salt in the wounds of the innocent victims and their families—although, if there were no other consideration, that would be a reason why Amendment 172 needed to be proposed and supported completely. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, indicated, it goes beyond simply dealing with the legacy of the past; it is about the implications for the future and the present day.
We have a generation growing up who did not experience the Troubles but who are clearly susceptible to the message that there was no alternative to violence in the past and that terrorism could be justified today and into the future. That is not simply an academic concern or one that might be moot. We have seen dissident organisations sucking in those young people to be directly involved in terrorism. That is the real danger for the future. Let us send out by this legislation, or at least through these amendments that we are putting forward, a very clear and unambiguous statement: there was always an alternative to violence. That is why, throughout the entire history of the Troubles, there was never a majority in either community for violence; it was opposed by the ordinary people throughout, and it was a minority on both the loyalist and republican sides who engaged in that terrorism and the wickedness and pain that it caused. It is critical that we send out the clear message that there was no justification for terrorism and that there was always a democratic alternative.
Allied to that, we cannot be ambiguous about those who went out to perpetrate the evil of terrorism, from whatever side they came, and those who were the innocent victims. Therefore, it is right that we draw this distinction, which is in line with some changes that the Government have made in other spheres. That is why Amendment 173 is also critical.
It is also the case—and why I welcome the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Godson and Lord Bew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—that, overall, it is critical that memorialisation is approached with academic rigour and diversity, and a balanced approach that provides a fair and accurate summary of what happened. Again, if this is a one-sided process or one that in some way gives some level of light to those who would argue for violence in the past, it will do irreparable harm. Therefore, the academic approach that needs to be taken is critical.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Godson, on an overall tone in regard to the Troubles. One thing that has struck me as a former Education Minister is that, unfortunately, at times, we see the ignorance of history. We see young people who simply do not know what happened. It is therefore important that we educate people in a neutral and fair way. There is no doubt that there are contested opinions and views as regards Northern Ireland but there cannot be contested facts. That is why we need to approach this with a level of academic rigour, and that is why I welcome the amendments.
Finally, there is an iterative process to be done, particularly with victims’ families, regarding memorialisation. It may well be that, as part of that process, there is the gathering of an oral history of the stories of the Troubles. It is important that people are able to do that through organisations with a good track record of fairness and balance, and organisations which we can trust. I declare an interest as a member of the Linen Hall Library, which for many years has taken a wide range of views and worked with all parties on reflecting the troubles in a fair and historic manner. It is a role that the library and others can play. We need to make sure that that is not one-sided or biased in any way, and in particular that we draw a clear-cut distinction between, on the one side, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who simply wanted to get on with their lives and the victims, and, on the other side, the perpetrators.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, in particular those in the names of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, the noble Lord, Lord Godson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. This is an important issue. The last time we were in Committee on the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Eames, was speaking about reconciliation, and we spent some time on that. Reconciliation will come only if there is an understanding that the things that happened in the past in Northern Ireland were wrong. To do that we need a factual history, because there has been a lot of rewriting of what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past 35 or 40 years.
Just this week, Gerry Adams was reported to have spoken in a podcast to Rory Stewart about the attempted murder of Baroness Margaret Thatcher back in 1984. When he was challenged by Rory Stewart about the violence, Gerry Adams said, “We never went to war, you came to me”. That is a skewed view of what happened in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s but a predictable source of rewriting of what went on at that time. But sometimes we have unpredictable sources of rewriting. It was distressing, not just for victims of terrorism but for many of us living in Northern Ireland, to hear the current Secretary of State, in an address to Queen’s University at the 25th anniversary event that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned, refer to Martin McGuinness, a self-confessed IRA commander, as a man of courage and leadership. That was astonishing, and many victims voiced their opinion and distress at those comments. Ann Travers, a victims’ advocate whose sister was murdered by the IRA on her way home from mass, said that those comments insulted innocent victims of republican terrorists. And so it continues, this rewriting of what actually happened in Northern Ireland.
Last year, we had the putative First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, telling us that there was no alternative to the violence that happened in Northern Ireland—no alternative to terrorism: that there was no alternative to the bomb in Enniskillen in 1987, when people went to remember the dead of the World Wars; that there was no alternative to the attempted murder of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, when he visited his son in hospital; that there was no alternative to placing a bomb on the bus that I was going to school on because the man driving the bus was a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. What about the alternative to lying in a hedge and waiting for police officers coming home from their day’s work, only to murder them as they stepped out of their cars?
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 174B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Godson. I apologise to the Committee for not having been here at the beginning of the debate, but I was buried in a Secret Squirrel Intelligence and Security Committee meeting for four hours, which I have just managed to break out of.
Almost on a daily basis, for many years through the Troubles, members of the IRA and its splinter groups went out to cause death and mayhem on the streets of Northern Ireland. On a daily basis, the police and the Army went out with the aim of looking after the security and safety of the people in Northern Ireland. There is no moral equivalence whatever, yet there seems to be a surge of information that paints a different picture of what actually happened. We need a clear, objective view of the things that happened there.
It was a dreadful period, as has been said by a number of speakers. People did not need to be involved in terrorism; they could have achieved things in other ways. This needs to be highlighted and shown, but we obviously need an objective and proper history of what happened, which people can read and have easy access to. For example, towards the end of the Troubles, the Army and police had learned lots of lessons and were doing things better, and the terrorist groups had been penetrated and all sorts of things were happening to them. These things need to be reflected in the history, so that we know what went on. It is very important that we have accurate, precise, unbiased history, so that future generations can understand this. Apart from anything else, they will understand that terrorist violence does not really achieve your aims; that needs to be laid out starkly.
Lord Godson (Con)
I shall speak to Amendments 174 and 174B to 176. I thank noble Lords across the Committee for their support for these amendments, including the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Carlile of Berriew, in particular. I spoke at Second Reading about the memorialisation of the Troubles and expressed my concerns that the oral history project commissioned by the Bill will be politicised and will become another weapon in the battle to recast the Troubles from an anti-state perspective that seeks to justify the actions of terrorists and to denigrate the security forces, as noble Lords have pointed out. Any attempt at equivalence between those who upheld our civic values and law and order for those three decades and those who waged Europe’s worst terrorist campaign must be robustly guarded against.
One defence against this blatant revisionism designed to retell the Troubles as a conflict which republicans had no choice but to fight is the production of an official history based on proper and considered documentary evidence. The Government have confirmed that they are now committed to such a history, but there is still no mention of it in the Bill. No doubt, there are reasons for this: after all, legislation is not needed for an official history and there is still an official history programme for which, in theory, this could be produced. However, it needs to be said now that there are major problems in excluding an official history from the scope of the Bill. The official history programme budget remains small and is not designed for a project of this scale, nor to deliver it in time for it to realise the purposes which the Government have in mind.
The subject matter of the Troubles, as has been rightly pointed out, is vast, with official documents from many government departments in London and Belfast, as well as from the agencies—the RUC previously and the PSNI, perhaps, now—and the Army. It is a task for a team of historians, supported by researchers, requiring a level of funding well beyond the parameters and experience of the current official history programme. It would hardly dent the £250 million already set aside by the Northern Ireland Office for the legacy projects set out in the Bill, as stated in the UK government response to a question from the Committee of Ministers in Strasbourg in June of last year.
An official history also needs to be published at a price that is in reach of ordinary readers and marketed to them, not least those in Northern Ireland, who deserve to be able to read it for themselves. This does not fit into the current official history programme’s publishing model, with limited print runs and prices, in some cases, of £40 for a paperback and £130 for a hardback—prices that self-evidently exclude the vast majority of the public. All this cannot be right; it would be a serious mistake and it should be rectified.
Producing an official history of the Troubles that can play its role in addressing legacy and reconciliation is possible only by placing the requirement for production of an official history within the Bill and giving the Secretary of State responsibility for ensuring that it is completed in time to be a support to the broader memorialisation strategy. Established on this basis, it will provide a major additional—and credible—strand of that memorialisation and will add much value across the whole programme. I believe that that would also be its chief legacy.
With that in mind, I am proposing, in Amendment 174B, a new section to follow Clause 46, to ensure that a public history—this being the term recommended by Sir Joe Pilling, the former Permanent Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, in his 2009 review of the official history programme—is produced. The expression “official history” suggests that it is the Government’s view that is being put forward. Historically, that has never been the case: official histories are authored by leading historians granted access to official papers. A public history, recast as such, far better reflects what it is, and all this deserves to be in the Bill.
There are other matters of concern about the proposals for academic research set out in the Bill. A substantial role will be accorded to the UK Research and Innovation councils, which will determine the projects to be funded under it. Over the last 15 years they have financially supported the work of a small group of “transitional” academics at Queen’s University Belfast, referred to by several noble Lords. This is associated with the Committee on the Administration of Justice, a lobby group focused largely on state-perpetrated violence and abuse. This has created what Dr Cillian McGrattan of the University of Ulster, whose work has been referred to, has called
“a monopolistic capture of legacy ideas, ideology and policy within Northern Ireland”.
Not only are non-violent unionist and nationalist voices and their collective memory unwelcome, but the voices of those who were oppressed and manipulated by terrorist gangs in their own neighbourhoods on whatever side of the divide are unlikely to be sought, even though they are among the most affected communities. Were such a monopoly to be replicated in the academic research into the Troubles, as the Bill presently proposes, it would be contrary to two of the six Stormont House agreement principles: that it promote reconciliation and that it be
“balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable”.
To address these matters, I tabled Amendments 174, 175 and 176 to Part 4 of the Bill, requiring that memorialisation activity promotes a culture of anti-sectarianism, that the advisory forum is not dominated by any particular ideology or outlook and that in carrying out their duties the designated persons should have due regard to the historical records of deaths as required under Clause 24 of the Bill.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I crave your Lordships’ indulgence as a relatively new Member of the House—in fact, you can still smell the leather on my satchel. I came into the House only towards the tail end of last year, so I was not even here when this Bill came from the other place. As those who know me will be aware, I was a Minister of State for Northern Ireland between 2010 and 2012 and continue to have a passionate interest in not only what goes on there currently but what has happened in the past.
I am acutely aware of the divisions that a very one-sided approach can cause. As my noble friend the Minister will know—he was our esteemed special adviser at the time and was far more involved than I—I was a Minister of State during the publication of the Bloody Sunday report, on which David Cameron did extremely well, and the Finucane report we commissioned from Sir Desmond de Silva that followed in 2012. I gently point out that the Saville inquiry cost about £191 million by its end; we do not want to replicate that in this instance.
I support my noble friend’s eminently sensible amendments. I remember discussing all kinds of issues surrounding truth and reconciliation, such as whether to have a South African model—we went round and round in ever-decreasing circles. Critical for any public history of what went on is the co-operation of the bodies that were involved in some way, ranging from the DFA in Dublin and, critically, the Irish Government to the Security Service, Libya, the Church, Sinn Féin, former loyalist paramilitaries, perhaps the Royal Archives and Washington. We would want all these organisations to come up with any evidence that would contribute towards what we are all trying to get: an official version of the truth which everyone can subscribe to. Of course, not everybody will—there will be those who maintain their own versions of the truth, as we have heard today, but if we can get cross-party consent for such a history, we will move the dial on this.
I reiterate my support for the amendments. It was the 18th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who said:
“Falsehood has an infinity of combinations, but truth has only one mode of being”.
This public history could be just such a mode.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Godson, and to comment on Amendment 174B in particular; he has given a full exposition of the thinking that lies behind it. I would like to add one thing, and one thing only, to his exposition: the reference to the way in which the Saville inquiry created a kind of patent for this type of investigation. We definitely need a public history. I have long been an advocate of it; it is now a point in time when it is a job for a younger cadre of historian to carry out the work.
Let us stop and think what happens if we do not do that. I was a historical adviser to the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which led to the very eloquent apology given by David Cameron, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swire, referred. As a professional historian, you are often scrubbing around for documents, pleading with the Government and the Public Record Office for them. The amazing thing about the inquiry was that they were delivered to my door by trucks, and the material is still in my garage, now published by the Saville inquiry. It lays out a lot of really sensitive stuff: Cabinet minutes and discussions about Northern Ireland which were not then in the public domain—they mostly are now, but they certainly were not at the time of the inquiry —and intelligence documents about the debriefing of IRA informers and discussing the role of Martin McGuinness. These are really sensitive things which were released to me to work on. I produced an analysis which played into the statement to the inquiry by Christopher Clarke KC. In a Leverhulme lecture on contemporary British history, I was subsequently allowed to give my own take on what those documents meant.
That is why I strongly support Amendment 174B: that type of openness should be the patent for any subsequent work or research carried out. The world did not fall in; I have tried to indicate that this material was sensitive—it included discussions between the most senior military officers in the days and weeks before Bloody Sunday. This was not low-grade stuff. We did it, we published it, we took an honest decision about what it all meant—there was other evidence that Lord Saville had to consider—and we had the final conclusion, reached by David Cameron. However, if we say, “That’s it”, we will be saying that the only real public history the UK Government are interested in is—let us be clear—one of the very embarrassing moments of British history and the British state’s role in Northern Ireland, and that we are not interested in the rest of it. We will reveal stuff, and spend money and resources for that purpose, but we are not going to discuss in the round what really happened, which will inevitably lead to other occasions which are less than glorious.
None the less, it seems to me a simple proposition: if you do not support this proposal for a public history, you are saying that we need to deal only with that one particular inquiry—that is all; the rest is closed. For some reason not clear to me, it is the only time we are going to open to scholars the sensitive material which will allow—as it did—a full evaluation of the political, military and other dimensions to Bloody Sunday. It is in the interest of totality and a broader approach to history that I strongly support Amendment 174B.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Godson, and Amendment 174B, to enshrine in law the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure the production of an independent public history of the Troubles. I came as a boy, accompanying my late father, General Bilimoria, when he was a lieutenant colonel attached to the British Army at the School of Infantry in Warminster. Even as a young boy, I can remember the high security, the fear under which everyone lived, and the sad stories of people we knew and heard about on a regular basis. Fast forward to when I came to London as a student in the late 1980s, and then when I started my business: we lived under this fear, on a constant basis, and we witnessed the atrocities and tragedies that took place right until 1998 and the Good Friday agreement.
Successive Governments—of all political parties, to be fair—have sought to maintain peace during the Troubles, and at what a price. It is important that we record and acknowledge the history of those awful and terrible years, and the Government correctly regard a public history as playing an important role in addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. However, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is no mention of it in the Bill. It could in theory be managed through the Cabinet Office’s official history programme, but to my understanding that programme has been in a state of limbo in recent years. It is also insufficiently resourced to produce an official history on the Troubles—a topic that is going to be vast and require a huge amount of work from leading historians with substantial research support.
If the Government intend that the public history should support other academic research support programmes proposed by the Bill, we should note that these are to be concluded within seven years. Unless this public history is properly resourced through the Bill’s memorialisation programme, it is unlikely to be able to add meaningful value to other memorialisation activities within this timeframe.
We require an authoritative history to be produced in good time and to act as an absolute gold standard, and that this thoroughly informed history be communicated to the public, being both affordable and available to everyone who wants to read it. Additionally, it is a matter of equal concern to Ireland as well.
It is crucial that we support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Godson, for an additional clause in Part 4 after Clause 46, and I encourage the Government to accept this change.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate; there is clearly a desire to have an objective record of a dark and troubled time, but it is a hugely sensitive issue that is going to present major challenges.
I absolutely agree that any history that glorifies terrorism or violence has no validity and can have no place. As the noble Lord, Lord Swire, said, people have looked at different examples such as in South Africa, and the genocide memorial in Rwanda is shocking and stunning and creates an impact. We also have to recognise that we have talked about the Troubles as a defined period, as if they just ended and the Good Friday agreement started, but we know that the divisions have not gone away. You even see in the Republic of Ireland newly elected representatives shouting, “Up the Ra”, so we are still in very difficult times.
I hear the call for an objective history, but I wonder how easy it would be to produce one and to ensure that it reflects the balance. I am not suggesting that it should not be tried, but we should not underestimate the challenges involved. At the end of the day, what would be the purpose of this history? The only fundamental purpose seems to be to ensure that, right across all sections of the community, it leads to a cry of “Never again”.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting and thoughtful debate. For 17 years before I entered the House of Commons I taught history, and I thought that it had prepared me for the various jobs that I eventually had to do. When I became Minister of State in Northern Ireland, helping to negotiate the Good Friday agreement, I realised that it had not prepared me at all for what was up against me. Month after month, virtually every day, was occupied by a history lesson, which I was not teaching but which came from the different participants in the talks—of course, there were very different versions of what had happened over the last 30 or 40 years before then.
Teaching history had also not prepared me for the extent to which—as has been touched on a number of times in this debate—almost every single family in Northern Ireland was affected by violence in some form or another, either by people or their relatives being killed or by physical or mental injury. It struck me when I went back to Belfast a couple of weeks ago for the commemoration proceedings that, within 24 hours of getting there, I talked to two middle-aged men about their own history. In both cases, coincidentally, their fathers had been murdered. One had been murdered by the IRA, and the other had been murdered by loyalist paramilitaries. That was a coincidence; I did not seek it out. It just happened. It is the background of that communal history among people from all communities in Northern Ireland which makes this task immensely difficult. I am not saying that it should not be attempted, because I think it should be, but it will not be an easy task. It should be done by ensuring that there is as much impartiality and diversity as possible, which is a difficult combination to get together, so that it is written. The sensitivity behind this is enormous.
I make a very brief reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and what I thought was a very good speech in terms of her reference to the gay community in Northern Ireland and how it suffered in a different way. There is particular resonance in my own constituency’s history because my immediate predecessor as Member of Parliament for Pontypool was Leo Abse, who in 1967 was responsible for the legislation which decriminalised homosexuality in Great Britain. Many people never realised that it was not replicated in Northern Ireland; it took many years before that was to happen. So, I think that this should be part of the history project as well.
When the Minister winds up, I am sure he will give us some good thoughts on what we should do about an official history. He might suggest the odd historian or two—there are one or two in here who might be very good at it—but at the same time he must understand that these matters, important as they are, have to be dealt with using the utmost sensitivity.
Lord Caine (Con)
Once again, my Lords, I am very grateful to all who have contributed to the debate on these amendments. We have heard a number of very moving contributions over the last 53 minutes or so. I was going to say that a number of noble Lords were, in my case, preaching to the converted—I do not need to be converted at all, and I agree with many of the sentiments that have been expressed throughout the past number of minutes.
Part 4 of the Bill builds in large part on the commitments made in the Stormont House agreement of 2014, such as the oral history initiative and new academic research, to help promote reconciliation and a better understanding of the past. A number of noble Lords will be aware that I was involved in all 11 weeks of negotiating that agreement in 2014. It underlines the importance of this work being carried out free of political influence, which has been one of our guiding principles—in fact, it has been our overriding guiding principle throughout.
To reiterate, in approaching these issues over many years, both this Government and I have been very clear from the outset that we will never accept any attempt to rewrite history in ways that seek to denigrate the contribution of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and our Armed Forces—the overwhelming majority of whom served with distinction and honour, and to whose dedication and courage we owe an enormous debt of gratitude. As I have said many times in this House and outside it, without their service and sacrifice there would have been no peace process, as was acknowledged by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister during his recent speech at the Whitla Hall in Belfast to mark the 25th anniversary of the 1998 agreement.
Politically motivated violence in Northern Ireland, whether it was carried out by republicans or loyalists, was never justified, and as the noble Lord, Lord West, and my noble friends Lady Foster and Lord Weir made clear, there was always an alternative to violence in Northern Ireland. We will never accept any suggestion of moral equivalence between the terrorists who sought to destroy democracy and those who in many cases paid the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that the future of Northern Ireland would only ever be determined by democracy and consent.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. In light of the fact that he has, as usual, promised to go away and reflect on the amendments, including those in my name and those of my noble friends, and to have further discussions, I am very content to withdraw Amendment 172.
Royal Assent
Thursday 11th May 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 View all Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-I Marshalled list for Consideration of a Commons Reason and Amendment - (9 May 2023)
Online Safety Bill
Thursday 11th May 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 87(Rev)-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (10 May 2023)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment to make it clear that clause 14(9), which sets out circumstances which do not count as a provider “taking action” in relation to news publisher content, applies for the purposes of the whole clause.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government are committed to defending the invaluable role of our free media. We are clear that our online safety legislation must protect the vital role of the press in providing people with reliable and accurate information. That is why this Bill includes strong protections for recognised news publishers. The Bill does not impose new duties on news publishers’ content, which is exempt from the Bill’s safety duties. In addition, the Bill includes strong safeguards for news publisher content, set out in Clause 14. In order to benefit from these protections, publishers will have to meet a set of stringent criteria, set out in Clause 50.
I am aware of concerns in your Lordships’ House and another place that the definition of news publishers is too broad and that these protections could therefore create a loophole to be exploited. That is why the Government are bringing forward amendments to the definition of “recognised news publisher” to ensure that sanctioned entities cannot benefit from these protections. I will shortly explain these protections in detail but I would like to be clear that narrowing the definition any further would pose a critical risk to our commitment to self-regulation of the press. We do not want to create requirements which would in effect put Ofcom in the position of a press regulator. We believe that the criteria set out in Clause 50 are already strong, and we have taken significant care to ensure that established news publishers are captured, while limiting the opportunity for bad actors to benefit.
Government Amendments 126A and 127A propose changes to the criteria for recognised news publishers. These criteria already exclude any entity that is a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000 or the purpose of which is to support a proscribed organisation under that Act. We are clear that sanctioned news outlets such as RT, formerly Russia Today, must not benefit from these protections either. The amendments we are tabling today will therefore tighten the recognised news publisher criteria further by excluding entities that have been designated for sanctions imposed by both His Majesty’s Government and the United Nations Security Council. I hope noble Lords will accept these amendments, in order to ensure that content from publishers which pose a security threat to this country cannot benefit from protections designed to defend a free press.
In addition, the Government have also tabled amendments 50B, 50C, 50D, 127B, 127C and 283A, which are aimed at ensuring that the protections for news publishers in Clause 14 are workable and do not have unforeseen consequences for the operation of category 1 services. Clause 14 gives category 1 platforms a duty to notify recognised news publishers and offer a right of appeal before taking action against any of their content or accounts.
Clause 14 sets out the circumstances in which companies must offer news publishers an appeal. As drafted, it states that platforms must offer this before they take down news publisher content, before they restrict users’ access to such content or where they propose to “take any other action” in relation to publisher content. Platforms must also offer an appeal if they propose to take action against a registered news publisher’s account by giving them a warning, suspending or banning them from using a service or in any way restricting their ability to use a service.
These amendments provide greater clarity about what constitutes “taking action” in relation to news publisher content, and therefore when category 1 services must offer an appeal. They make it clear that a platform must offer this before they take down such content, add a warning label or take any other action against content in line with any terms of service that allow or prohibit content. This will ensure that platforms are not required to offer publishers a right of appeal every time they propose to carry out routine content curation and similar routine actions. That would be unworkable for platforms and would be likely to inhibit the effectiveness of the appeal process.
As noble Lords know, the Bill has a strong focus on user empowerment and enabling users to take control of their online experience. The Government have therefore tabled amendments to Clause 52 to ensure that providers are required only to offer publishers a right of appeal in relation to their own moderation decisions, not where a user has voluntarily chosen not to view certain types of content. For example, if a user has epilepsy and has opted not to view photo-sensitive content, platforms will not be required to offer publishers a right of appeal before restricting that content for the user in question.
In addition, to ensure that the Bill maintains strong protections for children, the amendments make it clear that platforms are not required to offer news publishers an appeal before applying warning labels to content viewed by children. The amendments also make it clear that platforms would be in breach of the legislation if they applied warning labels to content encountered by adults without first offering news publishers an appeal, but in order to ensure that the Bill maintains strong protections for children, that does not apply to warning labels on content encountered by children. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments the Government have tabled, but I ask the Minister to clarify the effect of Amendment 50E. I declare an interest as chair of the Communications and Digital Select Committee, which has discussed Amendment 50E and the labelling of content for children with the news media organisations. This is a very technical issue, but from what my noble friend was just saying, it seems that content that would qualify for labelling for child protection purposes, and which therefore does not qualify for a right of appeal before the content is so labelled, is not content that would normally be encountered by adults but might happen to appeal to children. I would like to be clear that we are not giving the platforms scope for adding labels to content that they ought not to be adding labels to. That aside, as I say, I am grateful to my noble friend for these amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, I have no major objection and support the Government’s amendments. In a sense the Minister got his retaliation in first, because we will have a much more substantial debate on the scope of Clause 14. At this point I welcome any restriction on Clause 14 in the way that the Minister has stated.
Yet to come we have the whole issue of whether an unregulated recognised news publisher, effectively unregulated by the PRP’s arrangements, should be entitled to complete freedom in terms of below-the-line content, where there is no moderation and it does not have what qualifies as independent regulation. Some debates are coming down the track and—just kicking the tyres on the Minister’s amendments—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made a fair point, which I hope the Minister will answer.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear and precise introduction of these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we will return to some of the underlying issues in future debates. It may be that this is just an aperitif to give us a chance to get our minds around these things, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said.
It is sometimes a bit difficult to understand exactly what issue is being addressed by some of these amendments. Even trying to say them got us into a bit of trouble. I think I follow the logic of where we are in the amendments that deal with the difference between adult material and children’s material, but it would benefit us all if the Minister could repeat it, perhaps a little slower this time, and we will see if we can agree that that is the way forward.
Broadly speaking, we accept the arrangements. They clarify the issues under which the takedown and appeal mechanisms will work. They are interfacing with the question of how the Bill deals with legal but harmful material, particularly for those persons who might wish not to see material and will not be warned about it under any process currently in the Bill but will have a toggle to turn to. It safeguards children who would not otherwise be covered by that. That is a fair balance to be struck.
Having said that, we will be returning to this. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made the good point that we have a rather ironic situation where a press regulation structure set up and agreed by Parliament is not in operation across the whole of the press, but we do not seem to make any accommodation for that. This is perhaps something we should return to at a later date.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want very briefly to probe something. I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but I want to just ask about the recognised news publishers. The Minister’s explanation about what these amendments are trying to do was very clear, but I have some concerns.
I want to know how this will affect how we understand what a recognised news publisher is in a world in which we have many citizen journalists, blogs and online publications. One of the democratising effects of the internet has been in opening up spaces for marginalised voices, campaign journalism and so on. I am worried that we may inadvertently put them into a category of being not recognised; maybe the Minister can just explain that.
I am also concerned that, because this is an area of some contention, this could be a recipe for all sorts of litigious disputes with platforms about content removal, what constitutes those carve-outs and what is a recognised news, journalism or publishing outlet.
I know we will come on to this, but for now I am opposed to Amendment 127 in this group—or certainly concerned that it is an attempt to coerce publishers into a post-Leveson regulatory structure by denying them the protections that the Bill will give news publishers, unless they sign up in certain ways. I see that as blackmail and bullying, which I am concerned about. Much of the national press and many publishers have refused to join that kind of regulatory regime post Leveson, as is their right; I support them in the name of press freedom. Any comments or clarifications would be helpful.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry; in my enthusiasm to get this day of Committee off to a swift start, I perhaps rattled through that rather quickly. On Amendment 50E, which my noble friend Lady Stowell asked about, I make clear that platforms will be in breach of their duties if, without applying the protection, they add warning labels to news publishers’ content that they know will be seen by adult users, regardless of whether that content particularly appeals to children.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others noted, we will return to some of the underlying principles later on, but the Government have laid these amendments to clarify category 1 platforms’ duties to protect recognised news publishers’ content. They take some publishers out of scope of the protections and make it clearer that category 1 platforms will have only to offer news publishers an appeal before taking punitive actions against their content.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked about how we define “recognised news publisher”. I am conscious that we will debate this more in later groups, but Clause 50 sets out a range of criteria that an organisation must meet to qualify as a recognised news publisher. These include the organisation’s “principal purpose” being the publication of news, it being subject to a “standards code” and its content being “created by different persons”. The protections for organisations are focused on publishers whose primary purpose is reporting on news and current affairs, recognising the importance of that in a democratic society. I am grateful to noble Lords for their support.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
What my noble friend said is absolutely fine with me, and I thank him very much for it. It might be worth letting the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, know that Amendment 127 has now been moved to the group that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to. I thought it was worth offering that comfort to the noble Baroness.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits a provision about OFCOM’s guidance under clause 171, as that provision is now to be made in clause 171 itself.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits the definition of “taking action” in relation to content, as that is now dealt with by the amendment in the Minister’s name below.
“(13A) In this section references to “taking action” in relation to content are to—(a) taking down content,(b) restricting users’ access to content, or(c) adding warning labels to content, except warning labels normally encountered only by child users,and also include references to taking any other action in relation to content on the grounds that it is content of a kind which is the subject of a relevant term of service (but not otherwise).(13B) A “relevant term of service” means a term of service which indicates to users (in whatever words) that the presence of a particular kind of content, from the time it is generated, uploaded or shared on the service, is not tolerated on the service or is tolerated but liable to result in the provider treating it in a way that makes it less likely that other users will encounter it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides a revised definition of what it means to “take action” in relation to news publisher content, to ensure that the clause only applies to actions other than those set out in subsection (13A)(a), (b) or (c) in the circumstances set out in subsection (13B).
“(8A) In determining what is proportionate for the purposes of subsection (2), the size and capacity of the provider of a service, in particular, is relevant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment indicates that the size and capacity of a provider is important in construing the reference to “proportionate systems and processes” in clause 15 (duties to protect journalistic content).
Baroness Merron
“Health disinformation and misinformation
(1) This section sets out the duties about harmful health disinformation and misinformation which apply in relation to Category 1 services.The duties(2) A duty to carry out and keep up to date a risk assessment of the risks presented by harmful health disinformation and misinformation that is present on the service.(3) A duty to develop and maintain a policy setting out the service’s approach to the treatment of harmful health disinformation and misinformation on the service. (4) A duty to explain in the policy how the service’s approach to the treatment of harmful disinformation and misinformation is designed to mitigate or manage any risks identified in the latest risk assessment.(5) A duty to summarise the policy in the terms of service, and to include provisions in the terms of service about how that content is to be treated on the service.(6) A duty to ensure that the policy, and any related terms of service, are—(a) clear and accessible, and(b) applied consistently.(7) In this section, “harmful health disinformation and misinformation” means content which contains information which—(a) is false or misleading in a material respect; and(b) presents a material risk of significant harm to the health of an appreciable number of persons in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would introduce a variety of duties on Category 1 platforms, in relation to their treatment of content which represents harmful health misinformation and disinformation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to this group which includes Amendments 52, 99 and 222 in my name. These are complemented by Amendments 223 and 224 in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bethell, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for putting their names to the amendments in this group. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Amendments 59, 107 and 264. I appreciate also the work done by the APPG on Digital Regulation and Responsibility and by Full Fact on this group, as well as on many others in our deliberations.
These amendments would ensure that platforms were required to undertake a health misinformation and disinformation risk assessment. They would also require that they have a clear policy in their terms of service on dealing with harmful, false and misleading health information, and that there are mechanisms to support and monitor this, including through the effective operation of an advisory committee which Ofcom would be required to consult. I appreciate that the Minister may wish to refer to the false communication offence in Clause 160 as a reason why these amendments are not required. In order to pre-empt this suggestion, I put it to him that the provision does not do the job, as it covers only a user sending a knowingly false communication with the intention of causing harm, which does not cover most of the online health misinformation and disinformation about which these amendments are concerned.
Why does all this matter? The stakes are high. False claims about miracle cures, unproven treatments and dangerous remedies can and do spread rapidly, leading people to make the poorest of health decisions, with dire consequences. We do not have to go far back in time to draw on the lessons of our experience. It is therefore disappointing that the Government have not demonstrated, through this Bill, that they have learned the lessons of the Covid-19 pandemic. This is of concern to many health practitioners and representatives, as well as to Members of your Lordships’ House. We all remember the absolute horror of seeing false theories being spread quickly online, threatening to undermine the life-saving vaccine rollout. In recent years, the rising anti-vaccine sentiment has certainly contributed to outbreaks of preventable diseases that had previously been eradicated. This is a step backwards.
In 2020, an estimated 5,800 people globally were admitted to hospital because of false information online relating to Covid-19, with at least 800 people believed to have died because they followed this misinformation or disinformation. In 2021, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that only 40% of women offered the vaccine against Covid-19 had accepted it, with many waiting for more evidence that it would be safe. It is shocking to recall that, in October 2021, one in five of the most critically ill Covid patients was an unvaccinated, pregnant woman.
If we look beyond Covid-19, we see misinformation and disinformation affecting many other aspects of health. I will give a few examples. There are false claims about cancer treatment—for example, lemons treat cancer better than chemotherapy; tumours are there to save your life; cannabis oil cures cancer; rubbing hydrogen peroxide on your skin will treat cancer. Just last year, the lack of publicly available information about Mpox fuelled misinformation online. There is an issue about the Government’s responsibility for ensuring that there is publicly available information about health risks. In this respect, the lack of it—the void—led to a varied interpretation and acceptance of the public health information that was available, limited though it was. UNAIDS also expressed concern that public messaging on Mpox used language and imagery that reinforced homophobic and racist stereotypes.
For children, harmful misinformation has linked the nasal flu vaccine to an increase in Strep A infections. In late 2022, nearly half of all parents falsely believed these claims, such that the uptake of the flu vaccine among two and three year-olds dropped by around 11%. It is not just that misinformation and disinformation may bombard us online and affect us; there are also opportunities for large, language-model AIs such as ChatGPT to spread misinformation.
The Government had originally promised to include protections from harmful false health content in their indicative list of harmful content that companies would have been required to address under the now removed adult safety duties, yet we find that the Bill maintains the status quo, whereby platforms are left to their own devices as to how they tackle health misinformation and disinformation, without the appropriate regulatory oversight. It is currently up to them, so they can remove it at scale or leave it completely unchecked, as we recently saw when Twitter stopped enforcing its Covid-19 misinformation policy. This threatens not just people’s health but their freedom of expression and ability to make proper informed decisions. With that in mind, I look forward to amendments relating to media literacy in the next group that the Committee will consider.
I turn to the specific amendments. The new clause proposed in Amendment 52 would place a duty on category 1 platforms to undertake a health misinformation risk assessment and set out a policy on their treatment of health misinformation content. It would also require that the policy and related terms of service are consistently applied and clear and accessible—something that we have previously debated in this Committee. It also defines what is meant by
“harmful health disinformation and misinformation”—
and, again, on that we have discussed the need for clarity and definition.
Amendment 99 would require Ofcom to consult an advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation when preparing draft codes of practice or amendments to such codes. Amendment 222 is a probing amendment and relates to the steps, if any, that Ofcom will be expected to take to avoid the advisory committee being dominated by representatives of regulated services. It is important to look at how the advisory committee is constructed, as that will be key not just to the confidence that it commands but to its effectiveness.
Amendment 223, in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight, addresses the matter of timeliness in respect of the establishment of the advisory committee, which should be within six months of the Bill being passed. Amendment 224, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight, would require the advisory committee to consider as part of its first report whether a dedicated Ofcom code of practice in this area would be effective in the public interest. This would check that we have the right building blocks in place. With that in mind, I beg to move.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to rise after the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who spoke so clearly about Amendment 52 and the group of amendments connected with health misinformation, some of which stand also in my name.
As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, we have known for a long time the negative impact of social media, with all its death scrolls, algorithms and rabbit holes on vaccine uptake. In 2018, the University of Southampton did a study of pregnant women and found that those who reported using social media to research antenatal vaccinations were 58% less likely to accept the whooping cough vaccine. Since then, things have only got worse.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 59, 107 and 264 in this group, all of which are in my name. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, I express gratitude to Full Fact for its advice and support in preparing them.
My noble friend Lord Bethell has just reminded us of the very large degree of discretion that is given to platforms by the legislation in how they respond to information that we might all agree, or might not agree, is harmful, misinformation or disinformation. We all agree that those categories exist. We might disagree about what falls into them, but we all agree that the categories exist, and the discretion given to the providers in how to handle it is large. My amendments do not deal specifically with health-related misinformation or disinformation but are broader.
The first two, Amendments 59 and 107—I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron for his support of Amendment 59—try to probe what the Government think platforms should do when harmful material, misinformation and disinformation appear on their platforms. As things stand, the Government require that the platforms should decide what content is not allowed on their platforms; then they should display this in their terms of service; and they should apply a consistent approach in how they manage content that is in breach of their terms of service. The only requirement is for consistency. I have no objection to their being required to behave consistently, but that is the principal requirement.
What Amendments 59 and 107 do—they have similar effects in different parts of the Bill; one directly on the platforms; the other in relation to codes of practice—is require them also to act proportionately. Here, it might be worth articulating briefly the fact that there are two views about platforms and how they respond, both legitimate. One is that some noble Lords may fear that platforms will not respond at all: in other words, they will leave harmful material on their site and will not properly respond.
The other fear, which is what I want to emphasise, is that platforms will be overzealous in removing material, because they will have written their terms of service, as I said on a previous day in Committee, not only for their commercial advantage but also for their legal advantage. They will have wanted to give themselves a wide latitude to remove material, or to close accounts, because that will help cover their backs legally. Of course, once they have granted themselves those powers, the fear is that they will use them overzealously, even in cases where that would be an overreaction. These two amendments seek to oblige the platforms to respond proportionately, to consider alternative approaches to cancellation and removal of accounts and to be obliged to look at those as well.
There are alternative approaches that they could consider. Some companies already set out to promote good information, if you like, and indeed we saw that in the Covid-19 pandemic. My noble friend Lord Bethell said that they did so, and they did so voluntarily. This amendment would not explicitly but implicitly encourage that sort of behaviour as a first resort, rather than cancellation, blocking and removal of material as a first resort. They would still have the powers to cancel, block and remove; it is a question of priority and proportionality.
There are also labels that providers can put on material that they think is dubious, saying, “Be careful before you read this”, or before you retweet it; “This is dubious material”. Those practices should also be encouraged. These amendments are intended to do that, but they are intended, first and foremost, to probe what the Government’s attitude is to this, whether they believe they have any role in giving guidance on this point and how they are going to do so, whether through legislation or in some other way, because many of us would like to know.
Amendment 264, supported by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, deals with quite a different matter, although it falls under the general category of misinformation and disinformation: the role the Government take directly in seeking to correct misinformation and disinformation on the internet. We know that No. 10 has a unit with this explicit purpose and that during the Covid pandemic it deployed military resources to assist it in doing so. Nothing in this amendment would prevent that continuing; nothing in it is intended to create scare stories in people’s minds about an overweening Government manipulating us. It is intended to bring transparency to that process.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have given notice in this group that I believe Clause 139 should not stand part of the Bill. I want to remove the idea of Ofcom having any kind of advisory committee on misinformation and disinformation, at least as it has been understood. I welcome the fact that the Government have in general steered clear of putting disinformation and misinformation into the Bill, because the whole narrative around it has become politicised and even weaponised, often to delegitimise opinions that do not fit into a narrow set of official opinions or simply to shout abuse at opponents. We all want the truth—if only it was as simple as hiring fact-checkers or setting up a committee.
I am particularly opposed to Amendment 52 from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. They have both spoken very eloquently of their concerns, focusing on harmful health misinformation and disinformation. I oppose it because it precisely illustrates my point about the danger of these terms being used as propaganda.
There was an interesting and important investigative report brought out in January this year by Big Brother Watch entitled Inside Whitehall’s Ministry of Truth—How Secretive “Anti-Misinformation” Teams Conducted Mass Political Monitoring. It was rather a dramatic title. We now know that the DCMS had a counter-disinformation unit that had a special relationship with social media companies, and it used to recommend that content was removed. Interestingly, in relation to other groups we have discussed, it used third-party contractors to trawl through Twitter looking for perceived terms of service violations as a reason for content to be removed. This information warfare tactic, as we might call it, was used to target politicians and high-profile journalists who raised doubts or asked awkward questions about the official pandemic response. Dissenting views were reported to No.10 and then often denounced as misinformation, with Ministers pushing social media platforms to remove posts and promote Government-sponsored lines.
It has been revealed that a similar fake news unit was in the Cabinet Office. It got Whitehall departments to attack newspapers for publishing articles that analysed Covid-19 modelling, not because it was accurate—it was not accurate in many instances—but because it feared that any scepticism would affect compliance with the rules. David Davis MP appeared in an internal report on vaccine hesitancy, and his crime was arguing against vaccine passports as discriminatory, which was a valid civil liberties opposition but was characterised as health misinformation. A similar approach was taken to vaccine mandates, which led to tens of thousands of front-line care workers being sacked even though, by the time this happened, the facts were known: the vaccine was absolutely invaluable in protecting individual health, but it did not stop transmission, so there was no need for vaccine mandates to be implemented. The fact that this was not discussed is a real example of misinformation, but we did not have it in the public sphere.
Professor Carl Heneghan’s Spectator article that questioned whether the rule of six was an arbitrary number was also flagged across Whitehall as misinformation, but we now know that the rule of six was arbitrary. Anyone who has read the former Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s WhatsApp messages, which were leaked to the Telegraph and which many of us read with interest, will know that many things posed as “the science” and factual were driven by politics more than anything else. Covid policies were not all based on fact, yet it was others who were accused of misinformation.
Beyond health, the Twitter files leaked by Elon Musk, when he became its new owner, show the dangers of using the terms misinformation and disinformation to pressure big tech platforms into becoming tools of political censorship. In the run-up to the 2020 election, Joe Biden’s presidential campaign team routinely flagged tweets and accounts it wanted to be censored, and we have all seen the screengrab of email exchanges between executives as evidence of that. Twitter suppressed the New York Post’s infamous Hunter Biden laptop exposé on the spurious grounds that it was “planted Russian misinformation”. The Post was even locked out of its own account. It took 18 months for the Washington Post and the New York Times to get hold of, and investigate, Hunter Biden’s emails, and both determined that the New York Post’s original report was indeed legitimate and factually accurate, but it was suppressed as misinformation when it might have made some political difference in an election.
We might say that all is fair in love and war and elections but, to make us think about what we mean by “misinformation” and why it is not so simple, was the Labour Party attack ad that claimed Rishi Sunak did not believe that paedophiles should go to jail fair comment or disinformation, and who decides? I know that Tobias Ellwood MP called for a cross-party inquiry on the issue, calling on social media platforms to do more to combat “malicious political campaigns”. I am not saying that I have a view one way or another on this, but my question is: in that instance, who gets to label information as “malicious” or “fake” or “misinformation”? Who gets the final say? Is it a black and white issue? How can we avoid it becoming partisan?
Yesterday, at the Second Reading of the Illegal Migration Bill, I listened very carefully to the many contributions. Huge numbers of noble Lords continually claimed that all those in the small boats crossing the channel were fleeing war and persecution—fleeing for their lives. Factually that was inaccurate, according to detailed statistics and evidence, yet no one called those contributors “peddlers of misinformation”, because those speaking are considered to be compassionate and on the righteous side of the angels—at least in the case of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—and, as defined by this House, they were seen to be saying the truth, regardless of the evidence. My point is that it was a political argument, yet here we are focusing on this notion that the public are being duped by misinformation.
What about those who tell children that there are 140 genders to choose from, or that biological sex is immutable? I would say that is dangerous misinformation or disinformation; others would say that me saying that is bigoted. There is at least an argument to be had, but it illustrates that the labelling process will always be contentious, and therefore I have to ask: who is qualified to decide?
A number of amendments in this group put forward a variety of “experts” who should be, for example, on the advisory committee—those who should decide and those who should not—and I want to look at this notion of expertise in truth. For example, in the report by the Communications and Digital Committee in relation to an incident where Facebook marked as “false” a post on Covid by a professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, the committee asked Facebook about the qualifications of those who made that judgment—of the fact-checkers. It was told that they were
“certified by the International Fact-Checking Network”.
Now, you know, who are they? The professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University might have a bit more expertise here, and I do not want a Gradgrind version of truth in relation to facts, and so on.
If it were easy to determine the truth, we would be able to wipe out centuries of philosophy, but if we are going to have a committee determining the truth, could we also have some experts in civil liberties—maybe the Free Speech Union, Big Brother Watch, and the Index on Censorship—on a committee to ensure that we do not take down accurate information under the auspices of “misinformation”? Are private tech companies, or professional fact-checkers, or specially selected experts, best placed to judge the reliability of all sorts of information and of the truth, which I would say requires judgement, analysis and competing perspectives?
Too promiscuous a use of the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” can also cause problems, and often whole swathes of opinion are lumped together. Those who raised civil liberties objections to lockdown where denounced “Covidiots”, conspiracy theorists peddling misinformation and Covid deniers, on a par with those who suggested that the virus was linked to everything from 5G masts to a conscious “plandemic”.
Those who now raise queries about suppressing any reference to vaccine harms, or who are concerned that people who have suffered proven vaccine-related harms are not being shown due support, are often lumped in with those who claim the vaccine was a crime against humanity. All are accused of misinformation, with no nuance and no attempt at distinguishing very different perspectives. Therefore, with such wide-ranging views labelled as “misinformation” as a means of censorship, those good intentions can backfire—and I do believe that there are good intentions behind many of these amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendments 52 and 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, respectively signed by the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 222 in her name. I entirely agree with what both the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said. The noble Lord in particular gave us a huge amount of very well-evidenced information on the damage done during the Covid pandemic—and continuing to be done—by disinformation and misinformation. I will not repeat what they said about the damage done by the spread of conspiracy theories and anti-vaccination falsehoods and the kind of malicious bots, often driven by state actors, that have caused such damage.
I want to come from a different angle. I think we were—until time prevented it, unfortunately—going to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which would have been a valuable contribution to this debate. Her expert medical perspective would have been very useful. I think that she and I were the only two Members in the Committee who took part in the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. I think it was before the time of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—he is shaking his head; I apologise. He took part in that as well. I also want to make reference to discussions and debates I had with him over changes to regulations on medical testing.
The additional point I want to make about disinformation and misinformation—this applies in particular to Amendment 222 about the independence of the advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation—is that we are now seeing in our medical system a huge rise in the number of private actors. These are companies seeking to encourage consumers or patients to take tests outside the NHS system and to get involved in a whole set of private provision. We are seeing a huge amount of advertising of foreign medical provision, given the pressures that our NHS is under. In the UK we have had traditionally, and still have, rules that place severe restrictions on the direct advertising of medicines and medical devices to patients— unlike, for example, the United States, where it is very much open slather, with some disastrous and very visible impacts.
We need to think about the fact that the internet, for better or for worse, is now a part of our medical system. If people feel ill, the first place they go—before they call the NHS, visit their pharmacist or whatever—is very often the internet, through these providers. We need to think about this in the round and as part of the medical system. We need to think about how our entire medical ecology is working, and that is why I believe we need amendments like these.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness makes two incredibly important points. We are seeking to give people greater agency on their own health and the internet has been an enormous bonus in doing that, but of course that environment needs to be curated extremely well. We are also seeking to make use of health tech—non-traditional clinical interventions, some of which do not pierce the skin and therefore fall outside the normal conversation with GPs—and giving people the power to make decisions about the use of these new technologies for themselves. That is why curation of the health information environment is so important. Does the noble Baroness have any reflections on that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. He has made me think of the fact that a particular area where this may be of grave concern is cosmetic procedures, which I think we debated during the passage of the Health and Care Act. These things are all interrelated, and it is important that we see them in an interrelated way as part of what is now the health system.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in this group. I want to make the point that misinformation and disinformation was probably the issue we struggled with the most in the pre-legislative committee. We recognised the extraordinary harm it did, but also—as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—that there is no one great truth. However, algorithmic spread and the drip, drip, drip of material that is not based on any search criteria or expression of an opinion but simply gives you more of the same, particularly the most shocking, moves very marginal views into the mainstream.
I am concerned that our debates over the last five days have concentrated so much on content, and that the freedom we seek does not take enough account of the way in which companies currently exercise control over the information we see. Correlations such as “Men who like barbecues are also susceptible to conspiracy theories” are then exploited to spread toxic theories that end in real-world harm or political tricks that show, for example, the Democrats as a paedophile group. Only last week I saw a series of pictures, presented as “evidence”, of President Biden caught in a compromising situation that gave truth to that lie. As Maria Ressa, the Nobel Peace Prize winner for her contribution to the freedom of expression, said in her acceptance speech:
“Tech sucked up our personal experiences and data, organized it with artificial intelligence, manipulated us with it, and created behavior at a scale that brought out the worst in humanity”.
That is the background to this set of amendments that we must take seriously.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, Amendment 52 will ensure that platforms undertake a health misinformation risk assessment and provide a clear policy on dealing with harmful, false and misleading information. I put it to the Committee that, without this requirement, we will keep the status quo in which clicks are king, not health information.
It is a particular pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on his Amendments 59 and 107. Like him, I am instinctively against taking material down. There are content-neutral ways of marking or questioning material, offering alternatives and signposting to diverse sources—not only true but diverse. These can break this toxic drip feed for long enough for people to think before they share, post and make personal decisions about the health information that they are receiving.
I am not incredibly thrilled by a committee for every occasion, but since the Bill is silent on the issue of misinformation and disinformation—which clearly will be supercharged by the rise of large language data models—it would be good to give a formal role to this advisory committee, so that it can make a meaningful and formal contribution to Ofcom as it develops not only this code of conduct but all codes of conduct.
Likewise, I am very supportive of Amendment 222, which seeks independence for the chair of the advisory body. I have seen at first hand how a combination of regulatory capture and a very litigious sector with deep pockets slows down progress and transparency. While the independence of the chair should be a given, our collective lived experience would suggest otherwise. This amendment would make that requirement clear.
Finally, and in a way most importantly, Amendment 224 would allow Ofcom to consider after the effect whether the code of conduct is necessary. This strikes a balance between adding to its current workload, which we are trying not to do, and tying one hand behind its back in the future. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister why we would not give Ofcom this option as a reasonable piece of future-proofing, given that this issue will be ever more important as AI creates layers of misinformation and disinformation at scale.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 52, tabled by my noble friend Lady Merron. This is an important issue which must be addressed in the Bill if we are to make real progress in making the internet a safer space, not just for children but for vulnerable adults.
We have the opportunity to learn lessons from the pandemic, where misinformation had a devastating impact, spreading rapidly online like the virus and threatening to undermine the vaccine rollout. If the Government had kept their earlier promise to include protection from harmful false health content in their indicative list of harmful content that companies would have been required to address under the now removed adult safety duties, these amendments would not be necessary.
It is naive to think that platforms will behave responsibly. Currently, they are left to their own devices in how they tackle health misinformation, without appropriate regulatory oversight. They can remove it at scale or leave it completely unchecked, as illustrated by Twitter’s decision to stop enforcing its Covid-19 misinformation policies, as other noble Lords have pointed out.
It is not a question of maintaining free speech, as some might argue. It was the most vulnerable groups who suffered from the spread of misinformation online—pregnant women and the BAME community, who had higher illness rates. Studies have shown that, proportionately, more of them died, not just because they were front-line workers but because of rumours spread in the community which resulted in vaccine hesitancy, with devastating consequences. As other noble Lords have pointed out, in 2021 the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that only 42% of women who had been offered the vaccine accepted it, and in October that year one in five of the most critically ill Covid patients were unvaccinated, pregnant women. That is a heartbreaking statistic.
Unfortunately, it is not just vaccine fears that are spread on the internet. Other harmful theories can affect patients with cancer, mental health issues and sexual health issues, and, most worryingly, can affect children’s health. Rumours and misinformation play on the minds of the most vulnerable. The Government have a duty to protect people, and by accepting this amendment they would go some way to addressing this.
Platforms must undertake a health misinformation risk assessment and have a clear policy on dealing with harmful, false and misleading health information in their terms of service. They have the money and the expertise to do this, and Parliament must insist. As my noble friend Lady Merron said, I do not think that the Minister can say that the false communications offence in Clause 160 will address the problem, as it covers only a user sending a knowingly false communication with the intention of causing harm. The charity Full Fact has stated that this offence will exclude most health misinformation that it monitors online.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I absolutely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said right at the beginning of her speech. This was one of the most difficult areas that the Joint Committee had to look at. I am not saying that anything that we said was particularly original. We tried to say that this issue could be partly addressed by greater media literacy, which, no doubt, we will be talking about later today; we talked about transparency of system design, and about better enforcement of service terms and conditions. But things have moved on. Clearly, many of us think that the way that the current Bill is drafted is inadequate. However, the Government did move towards proposing a committee to review misinformation and disinformation. That is welcome, but I believe that these amendments are taking the thinking and actions a step forward.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this debate has demonstrated the diversity of opinion regarding misinformation and disinformation—as the noble Lord said, the Joint Committee gave a lot of thought to this issue—as well as the difficulty of finding the truth of very complex issues while not shutting down legitimate debate. It is therefore important that we legislate in a way that takes a balanced approach to tackling this, keeping people safe online while protecting freedom of expression.
The Government take misinformation and disinformation very seriously. From Covid-19 to Russia’s use of disinformation as a tool in its illegal invasion of Ukraine, it is a pervasive threat, and I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Bethell and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care during the pandemic to counter the cynical and exploitative forces that sought to undermine the heroic effort to get people vaccinated and to escape from the clutches of Covid-19.
We recognise that misinformation and disinformation come in many forms, and the Bill reflects this. Its focus is rightly on tackling the most egregious, illegal forms of misinformation and disinformation, such as content which amounts to the foreign interference offence or which is harmful to children—for instance, that which intersects with named categories of primary priority or priority content.
That is not the only way in which the Bill seeks to tackle it, however. The new terms of service duties for category 1 services will hold companies to account over how they say they treat misinformation and disinformation on their services. However, the Government are not in the business of telling companies what legal content they can and cannot allow online, and the Bill should not and will not prevent adults accessing legal content. In addition, the Bill will establish an advisory committee on misinformation and disinformation to provide advice to Ofcom on how they should be tackled online. Ofcom will be given the tools to understand how effectively misinformation and disinformation are being addressed by platforms through transparency reports and information-gathering powers.
Amendment 52 from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, seeks to introduce a new duty on platforms in relation to health misinformation and disinformation for adult users, while Amendments 59 and 107 from my noble friend Lord Moylan aim to introduce new proportionality duties for platforms tackling misinformation and disinformation. The Bill already addresses the most egregious types of misinformation and disinformation in a proportionate way that respects freedom of expression by focusing on misinformation and disinformation that are illegal or harmful to children.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I am curious as to what the Bill says about misinformation and disinformation in relation to children. My understanding of primary priority and priority harms is that they concern issues such as self-harm and pornography, but do they say anything specific about misinformation of the kind we have been discussing and whether children will be protected from it?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry—I am not sure I follow the noble Baroness’s question.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Twice so far in his reply, the Minister has said that this measure will protect children from misinformation and disinformation. I was just curious because I have not seen any sight of that, either in discussions or in the Bill. I was making a distinction regarding harmful content that we know the shape of—for example, pornography and self-harm, which are not, in themselves, misinformation or disinformation of the kind we are discussing now. It is news to me that children are going to be protected from this, and I am delighted, but I was just checking.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, that is what the measure does—for instance, where it intersects with the named categories of primary priority or priority content in the Bill, although that is not the only way the Bill does it. This will be covered by non-designated content that is harmful to children. As we have said, we will bring forward amendments on Report—which is perhaps why the noble Baroness has not seen them in the material in front of us—regarding material harms to children, and they will provide further detail and clarity.
Returning to the advisory committee that the Bill sets up and the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and my noble friend Lord Moylan, all regulated service providers will be forced to take action against illegal misinformation and disinformation in scope of the Bill. That includes the new false communication offences in the Bill that will capture communications where the sender knows the information to be false but sends it intending to cause harm—for example, hoax cures for a virus such as Covid-19. The noble Baroness is right to say that that is a slightly different approach from the one taken in her amendment, but we think it an appropriate and proportionate response to tackling damaging and illegal misinformation and disinformation. If a platform is likely to be accessed by children, it will have to protect them from encountering misinformation and disinformation content that meets the Bill’s threshold for content that is harmful to children. Again, that is an appropriate and proportionate response.
Turning to the points made by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, services will also need to have particular regard to freedom of expression when complying with their safety duties. Ofcom will be required to set out steps that providers can take when complying with their safety duties in the codes of practice, including what is proportionate for different providers and how freedom of expression can be protected.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The Minister mentioned “acute” examples of misinformation and used the example of the pandemic. I tried to illustrate that perhaps, with hindsight, what were seen as acute examples of misinformation turned out to be rather more accurate than we were led to believe at the time. So my concern is that there is already an atmosphere of scepticism about official opinion, which is not the same as misinformation, as it is sometimes presented. I used the American example of the Hunter Biden laptop so we could take a step away.
Lord Moylan (Con)
This might be an appropriate moment for me to say—on the back of that—that, although my noble friend explained current government practice, he has not addressed my point on why there should not be an annual report to Parliament that describes what government has done on these various fronts. If the Government regularly meet newspaper publishers to discuss the quality of information in their newspapers, I for one would have entire confidence that the Government were doing so in the public interest, but I would still quite like—I think the Government would agree on this—a report on what was happening, making an exception for national security. That would still be a good thing to do. Will my noble friend explain why we cannot be told?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
While I am happy to elaborate on the work of the counter-disinformation unit in the way I just have, the Government cannot share operational details about its work, as that would give malign actors insight into the scope and scale of our capabilities. As my noble friend notes, this is not in the public interest. Moreover, reporting representations made to platforms by the unit would also be unnecessary as this would overlook both the existing processes that govern engagements with external parties and the new protections that are introduced through the Bill.
In the first intervention, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gave a number of examples, some of which are debatable, contestable facts. Companies may well choose to keep them on their platforms within their terms of service. We have also seen deliberate misinformation and disinformation during the pandemic, including from foreign actors promoting more harmful disinformation. It is right that we take action against this.
I hope that I have given noble Lords some reassurance on the points raised about the amendments in this group. I invite them not to press the amendments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords across the Committee for their consideration and for their contributions in this important area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, both said, this was an area of struggle for the Joint Committee. The debate today shows exactly why that is so, but it is a struggle worth having.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, talked about there being a gap in the Bill as it stands. The amendments include the introduction of risk assessments and transparency and, fundamentally, explaining things in a way that people can actually understand. These are all tried and tested methods and can serve only to improve the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and consideration of the amendments. I want to take us back to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. She explained it beautifully—partly in response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. This is about tackling a system of amplification of misinformation and disinformation that moves the most marginal of views into the mainstream. It deals with restricting the damage that, as I said earlier, can produce the most dire circumstances. Amplification is the consideration that these amendments seek to tackle.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his comments, as well as for his amendments. I am sure the noble Lord has reflected that some of the previous amendments he brought before the House somewhat put the proverbial cat among the Committee pigeons. On this occasion, I think the noble Lord has nicely aligned the cats and the pigeons. He has managed to rally us all—with the exception of the Minister—behind these amendments.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right to emphasise amplification. May I put into the mix the very important role of the commercialisation of health misinformation? The more you look at the issue of health misinformation, the more you realise that its adverse element is to do with making money out of people’s fears. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there should be a really healthy discussion about the efficacy, safety and value for money of modern medicines. That debate is worth having. The Minister rightly pointed out some recent health scandals that should have been chased down much more. The commercialisation of people’s fears bears further scrutiny and is currently a gap in the Bill.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on that point. It is absolutely right to talk about the danger of commercialisation and how it is such a driver of misinformation and disinformation; I thank him for drawing that to the Committee’s attention. I also thank my noble friend Lady Healy for her remarks, and her reflection that these amendments are not a question of restricting free speech and debate; they are actually about supporting free speech and debate but in a safe and managed way.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
“Duty to inform users about accuracy of content on a service
(1) This section sets out a duty to make available information to allow users to establish the reliability and accuracy of content which applies in relation to Category 1 services.(2) A duty, where a service provides access to both journalistic and other forms of content, to make available to users such information that may be necessary to allow users to establish the reliability and accuracy of content encountered on the service.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe what steps, if any, a carrier of journalistic content is expected to take to improve users’ media literacy skills.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I move this amendment in my name as part of a group of amendments on media literacy. I am grateful to Full Fact, among others, for some assistance around these issues, and to Lord Puttnam. He has retired from this House, of course, but it was my pleasure to serve on the committee that he chaired on democracy and digital technology. He remains in touch and is watching from his glorious retirement in the Republic of Ireland—and he is pressing that we should address issues around media literacy in particular.
The Committee has been discussing the triple shield. We are all aware of the magic of threes—the holy trinity. Three is certainly a magic number, but we also heard about the three-legged stool. There is more stability in four, and I put it to your Lordships that, having thought about “illegal” as the first leg, “terms of service” as the second and “user empowerment tools” as the third, we should now have, as a fourth leg underpinning a better and safer environment for the online world, “better media literacy”, so that users have confidence and competence online as a result.
To use the user empowerment tools effectively, we need to be able to understand the business models of the platforms, and how we are paying for their services with our data and our attention; how platforms use our data; our data rights as individuals; and the threat of scams, catfishing, phishing and fraud, which we will discuss shortly. Then there is the national cyber threat. I was really struck, when we were on that committee that Lord Puttnam chaired, by hearing how nations such as Finland and the Baltic states regard media literacy as a national mission to protect them particularly from the threat of cyberwarfare from Russia.
We have heard about misinformation and disinformation. There are issues of emerging technologies that we all need to be more literate about. I remember, some six or seven years ago, my wife was in a supermarket queue with her then four year-old daughter who turned to her and asked what an algorithm was. Could any of us then confidently be able to reply and give a good answer? I know that some would be happy to do so, but we equally need to be able to answer what machine learning is, what large-language models are, or what neural networks are in order to understand the emerging world of artificial intelligence.
Ofcom already has a duty under the Communications Act 2002. Incidentally, Lord Puttnam chaired the Joint Committee on that Act. It is worth asking ourselves: how is it going for Ofcom in the exercise of that duty? We can recall, I am sure, the comments last Tuesday in this Committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who said:
“I took the Communications Act 2003 through for Her Majesty’s Opposition, and we were doing our absolute best to future-proof the legislation. There was no mention of the internet in that piece of legislation”.—[Official Report, 9/5/23; col. 1709.]
There is no doubt in my mind that, as a result of all the changes that have taken place in the last 20 years, the duty in that Act needs updating, and that is what we are seeking to do.
It is also possible to look at the outcomes. What is the state of media literacy in the nation at the moment? I was lucky enough this weekend to share a platform at a conference with a young woman, Monica. She lives in Greenwich, goes to Alleyn’s School, is articulate and is studying computer science at A-level. When asked about the content of the computer science curriculum, which is often prayed in aid in terms of the digital and media literacy of our young people, she reminded the audience that she still has to learn about floppy disks because the curriculum struggles to keep up to date. She is not learning about artificial intelligence in school because of that very problem. The only way in which she could do so, and she did, was through an extended project qualification last year.
We then see Ofcom’s own reporting on levels of media literacy in adults. Among 16 to 24 year-olds, which would cover Monica, for example, according to the most recent report out earlier this year or at the end of last, only two-thirds are confident and able to recognise scam ads, compared to 76% of the population in England. Young people are less confident in recognising search-engine advertising than the majority: only 42% of young people are confident around differentiating between organic and advertising content on search. Of course, young people are better at thinking about the truthfulness of “factual” information online. For adults generally, the report showed that only 45% of us are confident and able to recognise search-engine advertising, and a quarter of us struggle to identify scam emails and factful truthfulness online. You are less media literate and therefore more vulnerable if you are from the poorer parts of the population. If you are older, you are still yet more vulnerable to scam emails, although above average on questioning online truth and spotting ads in search engines. Finally, in 2022, Ofcom also found that 61% of social media users who say they are confident in judging whether online content is true or false actually lack the skills to be able to do so. A lot of us are kidding ourselves in terms of how safe we are and how much we know about the online world.
So, much more is to be done. Hence, Amendment 52A probes what the duty on platforms should be to improve media literacy and thereby establish the reliability and accuracy of journalistic content. Amendment 91 in my name requires social media and search services to put in place measures to improve media literacy and thereby explain things like the business model that currently is too often skated over by the media literacy content provided by platforms to schools and others. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has Amendment 91A, which is similar in intent, and I look forward to hearing his comments on that.
Amendment 98 in my name would require a code of practice from Ofcom in support of these duties and Amendment 186 would ensure that Ofcom has sufficient funds for its media literacy duties. Amendment 188 would update the Communications Act to reflect the online world that we are addressing in this Bill. I look forward to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in respect of her Amendment 236, which, she may argue, does a more comprehensive job than my amendment.
Finally, my Amendment 189 in this group states that Ofsted would have to collaborate with Ofcom in pursuance of its duties, so that Ofcom could have further influence into the quality of provision in schools. Even this afternoon, I was exchanging messages with an educator in Cornwall called Giles Hill, who said to me that it is truly dreadful for schools having to mop up problems caused by this unregulated mess.
This may not be the perfect package in respect of media literacy and the need to get this right and prop up the three-legged stool, but there is no doubt from Second Reading and other comments through the Bill’s passage that this is an area where the Bill needs to be amended to raise the priority and the impact of media literacy among both service providers and the regulator. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s proceedings. As it is my first contribution on this Bill, I declare my technology and financial services interests, as set out in the register. I also apologise for not being able to take part in the Second Reading deliberations.
It is a particular pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Knight; I congratulate him on all the work that he has done in this area. Like other Members, I also say how delighted I was to be part of Lord Puttnam’s Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee. It is great to know that he is watching—hopefully on wide-movie screen from Skibbereen—because the contribution that he has made to this area over decades is beyond parallel. To that end, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he has had a chance to remind himself of the recommendations in our 2020 report. Although it is coming up to three years old, so much of what is in that report is completely pertinent today, as it was on the date of publication.
I am in the happy position to support all the amendments in this group; they all have similar intent. I have been following the debate up to this point and have been in the Chamber for a number of previous sessions. Critically important issues have been raised in every group of amendments but, in so many ways, this group is perhaps particularly critical, because this is one of the groups that enables individuals, particularly young people, to have the tools that they—and we—need in their hands to enable them to grip this stuff, in all its positive and, indeed, all its less-positive elements.
My Amendment 91A covers much of the same ground as Amendment 91 from the noble Lord, Lord Knight. It is critical that, when we talk about media literacy, we go into some detail around the subsets of data literacy, data privacy, digital literacy and, as I will come on to in a moment, financial literacy. We need to ensure that every person has an understanding of how this online world works, how it is currently constructed and how there is no inevitability about that whatever. People need to understand how the algorithms are set up. As was mentioned on a previous group, it is not necessarily that much of a problem if somebody is spouting bile in the corner; it is not ideal, but it is not necessarily a huge problem. The problem in this world is the programmability, the focus, the targeting and the weaponising of algorithms to amplify such content for monetary return. Nothing is inevitable; it is all utterly determined by the models currently in play.
It is critical for young people, and all people, to understand how data is used and deployed. In that media literacy, perhaps the greatest understanding of all is that it is not “the data” but “our data”. It is for us, through media literacy, to determine how our data is deployed, for what purpose, to what intent and in what circumstances, rather than, all too often, it being sold on, and so on.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, for once, I am not entirely hostile to all these amendments—hurrah. In fact, I would rather have media literacy and education than regulation; that seems to me the solution to so much of what we have been discussing. But guess what? I have a few anxieties and I shall just raise them so that those who have put forward the arguments can come back to me.
We usually associate media literacy with schools and young people in education. Noble Lords will be delighted to know that I once taught media literacy: that might explain where we are now. It was not a particularly enlightening course for anybody, but it was part of the communications A-level at the time. I am worried about mandating schools how to teach media literacy. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, will know, I worry about adding more to their overcrowded curriculum than they already have on their plate, but I note that the amendments actually expand the notion of being taught literacy to adults, away from just children. I suppose I just have some anxiety about Ofcom becoming the nation’s teacher, presenting users of digital services as though they are hapless and helpless. In other words, I am concerned about an overly paternalistic approach—that we should not be patronising.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, keeps reminding us that content should not be our focus, and that it should be systems. In fact, in practically every discussion we have had, content has been the focus, because that is what will be removed, or not, by how we deal with the systems. That is one of the things that we are struggling with.
Literacy in the systems would certainly be very helpful for everybody. I have an idea—it is not an amendment—that we should send the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, on a UK tour so that he can explain it to us all; he is not here for this compliment, but every time he spoke in the first week of Committee, I think those of us who were struggling understood what he meant, as he explained complicated and technical matters in a way that was very clear. That is my constructive idea.
Amendment 52A from the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, focuses on content, with its
“duty to make available information to allow users to establish the reliability and accuracy of content”.
That takes us back to the difficulties we were struggling with on how misinformation and disinformation will be settled and whether it is even feasible. I do not know whether any noble Lords have been following the “mask wars” that are going on. There are bodies of scientists on both sides on the efficacy of mask wearing—wielding scientific papers at dawn, as it were. These are well-informed, proper scientists who completely disagree on whether it was effective during lockdown. I say that because establishing reliability and accuracy is not that straightforward.
I like the idea of making available
“to users such information that may be necessary to allow users to establish the reliability and accuracy of content encountered on the service”.
I keep thinking that we need adults and young people to say that there is not one truth, such as “the science”, and to be equipped and given the tools to search around and compare and contrast different versions. I am involved in Debating Matters for 16 to 18 year-olds, which has topic guides that say, “Here is an argument, with four really good articles for it and four really good articles against, and here’s a load of background”. Then 16 to 18 year-olds will at least think that there is not just one answer. I feel that is the way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that I was preaching a counsel of despair; I like to think of myself as a person who has faith in the capacity and potential of people to overcome problems. I had a slight concern when reading the literature associated with online and digital literacy—not so much with the amendments—that it always says that we must teach people about the harms of the online world. I worry that this will reinforce a disempowering idea of feeling vulnerable and everything being negative. One of the amendments talks about a duty to promote users’ “safe use” of the service. I encourage a more positive outlook, incorporating into this literacy an approach that makes people aware that they can overcome and transcend insults and be robust and savvy enough to deal with algorithms—that they are not always victims but can take control over the choices they make. I would give them lessons on resilience, and possibly just get them all to read John Locke on toleration.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 236, 237 and 238 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for supporting me. Like others, I thank Full Fact for its excellent briefings. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for introducing this group of amendments, as it saves me having to make the case for why media literacy is a very important aspect of this work. It is the other side of regulation; they very much go hand in hand. If we do not take steps to promote media literacy, we could fall into a downward spiral of further and further regulation, so it is extremely important.
It is a sad fact that levels of media literacy are very low. Research from Ofcom has found that one-third of internet users are unaware of the potential for inaccurate and biased information. Further, 40% of UK adult internet users do not have the skills to critically assess information they see online, and only 2% of children have skills to tell fact from fiction online. It will not be paternalistic, but a regulator should be proactively involved in developing media literacy programmes. Through the complaints it receives and from the work that it does, the regulator can identify and monitor where the gaps are in media literacy.
To date, the response to this problem has been for social media platforms to remove content deemed harmful. This is often done using technology that picks up on certain words and phrases. The result has been content being removed that should not have been. Examples of this include organisations such as Mumsnet having social media posts on sexual health issues taken down because the posts use certain words or phrases. At one stage, Facebook’s policy was to delete or censor posts expressing opinions that deviated from the norm, without defining what “norm” actually meant. The unintended consequences of the Bill could undermine free speech. Rather than censoring free speech through removing harmful content, we should give a lot more attention to media literacy.
During the Bill’s pre-legislative scrutiny, the Joint Committee recommended that the Government include provisions to ensure media literacy initiatives are of a high standard. The draft version of the Bill included Clause 103, which strengthened the media literacy provisions in the Communications Act 2003, as has already been mentioned. Regrettably, the Government later withdrew the enhanced media literacy clause, so the aim of my amendments is to reintroduce strong media literacy provisions. Doing so will both clarify and strengthen media literacy obligations on online media providers and Ofcom.
Amendment 236 would place a duty on Ofcom to take steps to improve the media literacy of the public in relation to regulated services. As part of this duty, Ofcom must try to reach audiences who are less engaged and harder to reach through traditional media literacy services. It must also address gaps in the current availability of media literacy provisions for vulnerable users. Many of the existing media literacy services are targeted at children but we need to include vulnerable adults too. The amendment would place a duty on Ofcom to promote availability and increase the effectiveness of media literacy initiatives in relation to regulated services. It seeks to ensure that providers of regulated services take appropriate measures to improve users’ media literacy through Ofcom’s online safety function. This proposed new clause makes provision for Ofcom to prepare guidance about media literacy matters, and such guidance must be published and kept under review.
Amendment 237 would place a duty on Ofcom to prepare a strategy on how it intends to undertake the duty to promote media literacy. This strategy should set out the steps Ofcom proposes to take to achieve its media literacy duties and identify organisations, or types of organisations, that Ofcom will work with to undertake these duties. It must also explain why Ofcom believes the proposed steps will be effective in how it will assess progress. This amendment would also place a duty on Ofcom to have regard to the need to allocate adequate resources for implementing this strategy. It would require Ofcom’s media strategy to be published within six months of this provision coming into force, and to be revised within three years; in both cases this should be subject to consultation.
Amendment 238 would place a duty on Ofcom to report annually on the delivery of its media literacy strategy. This reporting must include steps taken in accordance with the strategy and assess the extent to which those steps have had an effect. This amendment goes further than the existing provisions in the Communications Act 2003, which do not include duties on Ofcom to produce a strategy or to measure progress; nor do they place a duty on Ofcom to reach hard-to-reach audiences who are the most vulnerable in our society to disinformation and misinformation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and I join her in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for introducing this group very clearly.
In taking part in this debate, I declare a joint interest with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in that I was for a number of years a judge in the Debating Matters events to which she referred. Indeed, the noble Baroness was responsible for me ending up in Birmingham jail, during the time that such a debate was conducted with the inmates of Birmingham jail. We have a common interest there.
I want to pick up a couple of additional points. Before I joined your Lordships’ Committee today I was involved in the final stages of the Committee debate on the economic crime Bill, where the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, provided a powerful argument—probably unintentionally—for the amendments we are debating here now. We were talking, as we have at great length in the economic crime Bill, about the issue of fraud. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, highlighted, in the context of online harms fraud is a huge aspect of people’s lives today and one that has been under-covered in this Committee, although it has very much been picked up in the economic crime Bill Committee. As we were talking about online fraud, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, said that consumers have to be “appropriately savvy”. I think that is a description of the need for education and critical thinking online, equipping people with the tools to be, as he said, appropriately savvy when facing the risks of fraud and scams, and all the other risks that people face online.
I have attached my name to two amendments here: Amendment 91, which concerns the providers of category 1 and 2A services having a duty, and Amendment 236, which concerns an Ofcom duty. This joins together two aspects. The providers are making money out of the services they provide, which gives them a duty to make some contribution to combatting the potential harms that their services present to people. Ofcom as a regulator obviously has a role. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Knight, who said that the education system also has a role, and there is some reference in here to Ofsted having a role.
What we need is a cross-society, cross-systems approach. This is where I also make the point that we need to think outside the scope of the Bill—it is part of the whole package—about how the education system works, because media literacy is not a stand-alone thing that you can separate out from the issues of critical thinking more broadly. We need to think about our education system, which is far too often, for schools in particular, where we get pupils to learn and regurgitate a whole set of facts and then reward them for that. We need to think about how our education system prepares children for the modern online world.
There is a great deal we can learn from the example—often cited but worth referring to—of Finland, which by various tests has been ranked as the country most resistant to fake news. A very clearly built-in idea of questioning, scrutiny and challenge is being encouraged among pupils, starting from the age of seven. That is something we need to transform our education system to achieve. However, of course, many people using the internet now are not part of our education system, so this needs to be across our society. A focus on the responsibilities of Ofcom and the providers has to be in the Bill.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, over the last decade, I have been in scores of schools, run dozens of workshops and spoken to literally thousands of children and young people. A lot of what I pass off as my own wisdom in this Chamber is, indeed, their wisdom. I have a couple of points, and I speak really from the perspective of children under 18 with regard to these amendments, which I fully support.
Media literacy—or digital literacy, as it is sometimes called—is not the same as e-safety. E-safety regimes concentrate on the behaviour of users. Very often, children say that what they learn in those lessons is focused on adult anxieties about predators and bullies, and when something goes wrong, they feel that they are to blame. It puts the responsibility on children. This response, which I have heard hundreds of times, normally comes up after a workshop in which we have discussed reward loops, privacy, algorithmic bias, profiling or—my own favourite—a game which reveals what is buried in terms and conditions; for example, that a company has a right to record the sound of a device or share their data with more than a thousand other companies. When young people understand the pressures that they are under and which are designed into the system, they feel much better about themselves and rather less enamoured of the services they are using. It is my experience that they then go on to make better choices for themselves.
Secondly, we have outsourced much of digital literacy to companies such as Google and Meta. They too concentrate on user behaviour, rather than looking at their own extractive policies focused on engagement and time spent. With many schools strapped for cash and expertise, this teaching is widespread. However, when I went to a Google-run assembly, children aged nine were being taught about features available only on services for those aged over 13—and nowhere was there a mention of age limits and why they are important. It cannot be right that the companies are grooming children towards their services without taking full responsibility for literacy, if that is the literacy that children are being given in school.
Thirdly, as the Government’s own 2021 media literacy strategy set out, good media literacy is one line of defence from harm. It could make a crucial difference in people making informed and safe decisions online and engaging in a more positive online debate, at the same time as understanding that online actions have consequences offline.
However, while digital literacy and, in particular, critical thinking are fundamental to a contemporary education and should be available throughout school and far beyond, they must not be used as a way of putting responsibility on the user for the company’s design decisions. I am specifically concerned that in the risk-assessment process, digital literacy is one of the ways that a company can say it has mitigated a potential risk or harm. I should like to hear from the Minister that that is an additional responsibility and not instead of responsibility.
Finally, over all these years I have always asked at the end of the session what the young people care about the most. The second most important thing is that the system should be less addictive—it should have less addiction built into it. Again, I point the Committee in the direction of the safety-by-design amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell that try to get to the crux of that. They are not very exciting amendments in this debate but they get to the heart of it. However, the thing the young people most often say is, “Could you do something to get my parents to put down their phones?” I therefore ask the Minister whether he can slip something into the Bill, and indeed ask the noble Lord, Lord Grade, whether that could emerge somewhere in the guidance. That is what young people want.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight and others in this group.
We cannot entirely contain harmful, misleading and dangerous content on the internet, no matter how much we strengthen the Bill. Therefore, it is imperative that we put a new duty on category 1 and category 2A services to require them to put in place measures to promote the media literacy of users so that they can use the service safely.
I know that Ofcom takes the issue of media literacy seriously, but it is regrettable that the Government have dropped their proposal for a new media literacy duty for Ofcom. So far, I see no evidence that the platforms take media literacy seriously, so they need to be made to understand that they have corporate social responsibilities towards their clients.
Good media literacy is the first line of defence from bad information and the kind of misinformation we have discussed in earlier groups. Schools are trying to prepare their pupils to understand that the internet can peddle falsehoods as well as useful facts, but they need support, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, just said. We all need to increase our media literacy, especially with the increasing use of artificial intelligence, as it can make the difference between decisions based on sound evidence and decisions based on poorly informed opinions that can harm health and well-being, social cohesion and democracy.
In 2022, Ofcom found that a third of internet users are unaware of the potential for inaccurate or biased information online, and 61% of social media users who say they are confident in judging whether online content is true or false actually lack the skills to do so, as my noble friend Lord Knight, has pointed out.
Amendment 91 would mean that platforms have to instigate measures to give users an awareness and understanding of the nature and characteristics of the content that may be on the service, its potential impact and how platforms operate. That is a sensible and practical request that is not beyond the ability of companies to provide, and it will be to everyone’s benefit.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I indicate my support in principle for what these amendments are trying to achieve.
I speak with a background that goes back nearly 40 years, being involved in health education initiatives, particularly in primary schools. For 24 years—not very good corporate governance—I was the chair of what is now the largest supplier of health education into primary schools in the United Kingdom, reaching about 500,000 children every year.
The principle of preventive health is not a million miles away from what we are talking about today. I take the point that was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that piling more and more duties on Ofcom in a well-intentioned way may not have the effect that we want. What we are really looking for and talking about is a joined-up strategy—a challenge for any Government—between the Department for Education, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and probably the Department of Health and Social Care, because health education, as it has developed over the last 40 or 50 years, has a lot to teach us about how we think about creating effective preventive education.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading about the relationship between online safety and protecting people’s mental health, a theme that runs throughout the Bill. I have not followed the progress in Committee as diligently as I wish, but this group of amendments has caught the eye of the Mental Health Foundation, which has expressed support. It identified Amendment 188, but I think it is the general principle that it supports. The Mental Health Foundation understands the importance of education, because it asked young people what they thought should be done. It sponsored a crucial inquiry through its organisation YoungMinds, which produced a report earlier this year, Putting a Stop to the Endless Scroll.
One of the three major recommendations that emerged from that report, from the feelings of young people themselves, was the need for better education. It found that young people were frustrated at being presented with outdated information about keeping their details safe. They felt that they needed something far more advanced, more relevant to the online world as it is happening at the moment, on how to avoid the risks from such things as image-editing apps. They needed information on more sophisticated risks that they face, essentially what they described as design risks, where the website is designed to drag you in and make you addicted to these algorithms.
The Bill as a whole is designed to protect children and young people from harm, but it must also, as previous speakers have made clear, provide young people themselves with tools so that they can exercise their own judgment to protect themselves and ensure that they do not fall foul, set on that well-worn path between being engaged on a website and ending up with problems with their mental health. Eating is the classic example: you click on a website about a recipe and, step by step, you get dragged into material designed to harm your health through its effect on your diet.
I very much welcome this group of amendments, what it is trying to achieve and the role that it will have by educating young people to protect themselves, recognising the nature of the internet as it is now, so that they do not run the risks of affecting their mental health.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has probably been the most constructive and inspiring debate that we have had on the Bill. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for introducing this debate. His passion for this kind of media literacy education absolutely shines through. I thank him for kicking off in such an interesting and constructive way. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Storey is not here to contribute as well, with his educational background. He likewise has a passion for media literacy education and would otherwise have wanted to contribute to the debate today.
I am delighted that I have found some common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The idea of sending my noble friend Lord Allan on tour has great attractions. I am not sure that he would find it quite so attractive. I am looking forward to him coming back before sending him off around the country. I agree that he has made a very constructive contribution. I agree with much of what the noble Baroness said, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, had the same instinct: this is a way of better preserving freedom of speech. If we can have those critical thinking skills so that people can protect themselves from misinformation, disinformation and some of the harms online, we can have greater confidence that people are able to protect themselves against these harms at whatever age they may be.
I was very pleased to hear the references to Lord Puttnam, because I think that the Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee report was ground-breaking in the way it described the need for digital media literacy. This is about equipping not just young people but everybody with the critical thinking skills needed to differentiate fact from fiction—particularly, as we have talked through in Committee, on the way that digital platforms operate through their systems, algorithms and data.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked about the breadth and depth needed for media and digital literacy education; he had it absolutely right about people being appropriately savvy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, echoed what he said in that respect.
I think we have some excellent amendments here. If we can distil them into a single amendment in time for Report or a discussion with the Minister, I think we will find ourselves going forward constructively. There are many aspects of this. For instance, the DCMS Select Committee recommended that digital literacy becomes the fourth pillar of education, which seems to me a pretty important aspect alongside reading, writing and maths. That is the kind of age that we are in. I have quoted Parent Zone before. It acknowledges the usefulness of user empowerment tools and so on, but again it stressed the need for media literacy. What kind of media literacy? The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was extremely interesting when she said that what is important is not just user behaviour but making the right choices—that sort of critical thinking. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, provided an analogy with preventive health that was very important.
Our Joint Committee used a rather different phrase. It talked about a “whole of government” approach. When we look at all the different aspects, we see that it is something not just for Ofcom—I entirely agree with that—but that should involve a much broader range of stakeholders in government. We know that, out there, there are organisations such as the Good Things Foundation and CILIP, the library association, and I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is not in her place to remind us about Doteveryone, an organisation that many of us admire a great deal for the work it carries out.
I think the “appropriately savvy” expression very much applies to the fraud prevention aspect, and it will be interesting when we come to the next group to talk about that as well. The Government have pointed to the DCMS online media strategy, but the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is absolutely right to ask what its outcome has been, what its results have been, and what resources are being devoted towards it. We are often pointed to that by the Government, here in Committee and at Oral Questions whenever we ask how the media literacy strategy is going, so we need to kick the tyres on that as well as on the kind of priority and resources being devoted to media literacy.
As ever, I shall refer to the Government’s response to the Joint Committee, which I found rather extraordinary. The Government responded to the committee’s recommendation about minimum standards; there is an amendment today about minimum standards. They said:
“Ofcom has recently published a new approach to online media literacy … Clause 103 of the draft Bill”—
the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, referred to the fact that in the draft Bill there was originally a new duty on Ofcom—
“did not grant Ofcom any additional powers. As such, it is … unnecessary regulation. It has therefore been removed”.
It did add to Ofcom’s duties. Will the Minister say whether he thinks all the amendments here today would constitute unnecessary regulation? As he can see, there is considerable appetite around the Committee for the kind of media literacy duty across the board that we have talked about today. He might make up for some of the disappointment that many of us feel about the Government’s having got rid of that clause by responding to that question.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good debate. I am glad that a number of noble Lords mentioned Lord Puttnam and the committee that he chaired for your Lordships’ House on democracy and digital technologies. I responded to the debate that we had on that; sadly, it was after he had already retired from your Lordships’ House, but he participated from the steps of the Throne. I am mindful of that report and the lessons learned in it in the context of the debate that we have had today.
We recognise the intent behind the amendments in this group to strengthen the UK’s approach to media literacy in so far as it relates to services that will be regulated by the Bill. Ofcom has a broad duty to promote media literacy under the Communications Act 2003. That is an important responsibility for Ofcom, and it is right that the regulator is able to adapt its approach to support people in meeting the evolving challenges of the digital age.
Amendments 52A and 91 from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and Amendment 91A from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, seek to introduce duties on in-scope services, requiring them to put in place measures that promote users’ media literacy, while Amendment 98 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would require Ofcom to issue a code of practice in relation to the new duty proposed in his Amendment 91. While we agree that the industry has a role to play in promoting media literacy, the Government believe that these amendments could lead to unintended, negative consequences.
I shall address the role of the industry and media literacy, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, dwelt on in her remarks. We welcome the programmes that it runs in partnership with online safety experts such as Parent Zone and Internet Matters and hope they continue to thrive, with the added benefit of Ofcom’s recently published evaluation toolkit. However, we believe that platforms can go further to empower and educate their users. That is why media literacy has been included in the Bill’s risk assessment duties, meaning that regulated services will have to consider measures to promote media literacy to their users as part of the risk assessment process. Additionally, through work delivered under its existing media literacy duty, Ofcom is developing a set of best-practice design principles for platform-based media literacy measures. That work will build an evidence base of the most effective measures that platforms can take to build their users’ media literacy.
In response to the noble Baroness’s question, I say: no, platforms will not be able to avoid putting in place protections for children by using media literacy campaigns. Ofcom would be able to use its enforcement powers if a platform was not achieving appropriate safety outcomes. There are a range of ways in which platforms can mitigate risks, of which media literacy is but one, and Ofcom would expect platforms to consider them all in their risk assessments.
Let me say a bit about the unintended consequences we fear might arise from these amendments. First, the resource demands to create a code of practice and then to regulate firms’ compliance with this type of broad duty will place an undue burden on the regulator. It is also unclear how the proposed duties in Amendments 52A, 91 and 91A would interact with Ofcom’s existing media literacy duty. There is a risk, we fear, that these parallel duties could be discharged in conflicting ways. Amendment 91A is exposed to broad interpretation by platforms and could enable them to fulfil the duty in a way that lacked real impact on users’ media literacy.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes proposes a duty to promote awareness of financial deception and fraud. The Government are already taking significant action to protect people from online fraud, including through their new fraud strategy and other provisions in this Bill. I know that my noble friends Lord Camrose, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lady Penn met noble Lords to talk about that earlier this week. We believe that measures such as prompts for users before they complete financial transactions sit more logically with financial service providers than with services in scope of this Bill.
Amendment 52A proposes a duty on carriers of journalistic content to promote media literacy to their users. We do not want to risk requiring platforms to act as de facto press regulators, assessing the quality of news publishers’ content. That would not be compatible with our commitment to press freedom. Under its existing media literacy duty, Ofcom is delivering positive work to support people to discern high-quality information online. It is also collaborating with the biggest platforms to design best practice principles for platform-based media literacy measures. It intends to publish these principles this year and will encourage platforms to adopt them.
It is right that Ofcom is given time to understand the benefits of these approaches. The Secretary of State’s post-implementation review will allow the Government and Parliament to establish the effectiveness of Ofcom’s current approach and to reconsider the role of platforms in enhancing users’ media literacy, if appropriate. In the meantime, the Bill introduces new transparency-reporting and information-gathering powers to enhance Ofcom’s visibility of platforms delivery and evaluation of media literacy activities. We would not want to see amendments that would inadvertently dissuade platforms from delivering these activities in favour of less costly and less effective measures.
My noble friend Lord Holmes asked about the Online Media Literacy Strategy, published in July 2021, which set out the Government’s vision for improving media literacy in the country. Alongside the strategy, we have committed to publishing annual action plans each financial year until 2024-25, setting out how we meet the ambition of the strategy. In April 2022 we published the Year 2 Action Plan, which included extending the reach of media literacy education to those who are currently disengaged, in consultation with the media literacy task force—a body of 17 cross-sector experts—expanding our grant funding programme to provide nearly £2.5 million across two years for organisations delivering innovative media literacy activities, and commissioning research to improve our understanding of the challenges faced by the sector. We intend to publish the research later this year, for the benefit of civil society organisations, technology platforms and policymakers.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, in his Amendment 186, would stipulate that Ofcom must levy fees on regulated firms sufficient to fund the work of third parties involved in supporting it to meet its existing media literacy duties. The Bill already allows Ofcom to levy fees sufficient to fund the annual costs of exercising its online safety functions. This includes its existing media literacy duty as far as it relates to services regulated by this Bill. As such, the Bill already ensures that these media literacy activities, including those that Ofcom chooses to deliver through third parties, can be funded through fees levied on industry.
I turn to Amendments 188, 235, 236, 237 and 238. The Government recognise the intent behind these amendments, which is to help improve the media literacy of the general public. Ofcom already has a statutory duty to promote media literacy with regard to the publication of anything by means of electronic media, including services in scope of the Bill. These amendments propose rather prescriptive objectives, either as part of a new duty for Ofcom or through updating its existing duty. They reflect current challenges in the sector but run the risk of becoming obsolete over time, preventing Ofcom from adapting its work in response to emerging issues.
Ofcom has demonstrated flexibility in its existing duty through its renewed Approach to Online Media Literacy, launched in 2021. This presented an expanded media literacy programme, enabling it to achieve almost all the objectives specified in this group. The Government note the progress that Ofcom has already achieved under its renewed approach in the annual plan it produced last month. The Online Safety Bill strengthens Ofcom’s functions relating to media literacy, which is included in Ofcom’s new transparency-reporting and information-gathering powers, which will give it enhanced oversight of industry activity by enabling it to require regulated services to share or publish information about the work that that they are doing on media literacy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, asked about the view expressed by the Joint Committee on minimum standards for media literacy training. We agree with the intention behind that, but, because of the broad and varied nature of media literacy, we do not believe that introducing minimum standards is the most effective way of achieving that outcome. Instead, we are focusing efforts on improving the evaluation practices of media literacy initiatives to identify which ones are most effective and to encourage their delivery. Ofcom has undertaken extensive work to produce a comprehensive toolkit to support practitioners to deliver robust evaluations of their programmes. This was published in February this year and has been met with praise from practitioners, including those who received grant funding from the Government’s non-legislative media literacy work programme. The post-implementation review of Ofcom’s online safety regime, which covers its existing media literacy duty in so far as it relates to regulated services, will provide a reasonable point at which to establish the effectiveness of Ofcom’s new work programme, after giving it time to take effect.
Noble Lords talked about the national curriculum and media literacy in schools. Media literacy is indeed a crucial skill for everyone in the digital age. Key media literacy skills are already taught through a number of compulsory subjects in the national curriculum. Digital literacy is included in the computing national curriculum in England, which equips pupils with the knowledge, understanding and skills to use information and communication technology creatively and purposefully. I can reassure noble Lords that people such as Monica are being taught not about historic things like floppy disks but about emerging and present challenges; the computing curriculum ensures that pupils are taught how to design program systems and accomplish goals such as collecting, analysing, evaluating and presenting data.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Does the Minister know how many children are on computing courses?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not know, but I shall find out from the Department for Education and write. But those who are on them benefit from a curriculum that includes topics such as programming and algorithms, the responsible and safe use of technology, and other foundational knowledge that may support future study in fields such as artificial intelligence and data science.
This is not the only subject in which media literacy and critical thinking are taught. In citizenship education, pupils are taught about critical thinking and the proper functioning of a democracy. They learn to distinguish fact from opinion, as well as exploring freedom of speech and the role and responsibility of the media in informing and shaping public opinion. As Minister for Arts and Heritage, I will say a bit about subjects such as history, English and other arts subjects, in which pupils learn to ask questions about information, think critically and weigh up arguments, all of which are important skills for media literacy, as well as more broadly.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for their contributions to a good debate. I was particularly happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, describe it as “inspiring”. There were some great speeches.
I could go on at some length about the educational element to this, but I will constrain myself. In the last year, 1.4% of secondary school pupils in this country did computer science at GCSE. It is a constant source of frustration that computer science is prayed in aid by the Department for Education as a line for Ministers to take in the algorithm they are given to use. However, I understand that the Minister has just to deliver the message.
The noble Baroness was worried about adding to the curriculum. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I favour a wider-scale reform of the education system to make it much more fit for purpose, but I will not go on.
I was the Minister responsible for the Education and Inspections Act 2006. I would be interested in further updates as to how it is going. For example, does Ofcom ever go with Ofsted into schools and look properly at media literacy delivery? That is what I am trying to tease out with the amendment.
The comments in the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, were significant. She pointed out the weaknesses in the strategy and the difference between the duty as set out in the 2003 Act and the duties we now need, and the pressing case for these duties to be updated as we take this Bill through this House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, had some misgivings about adding adults, which I think were perfectly answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in respect of her plea on behalf of young people to help educate parents and give them better media literacy, particularly around the overuse of phones. We have a digital code of conduct in our own house to do with no phones being allowed at mealtimes or in bedrooms by any of us. All of that plays to the mental health issues referred to by my noble friend Lord Davies, and the preventive health aspect referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Russell.
As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for the thorough and comprehensive way in which he answered all the amendments. However, ultimately, the media literacy levels of adults and children in this country are simply not good enough. The existing duties that he refers to, and the way in which he referred to them in his speaking notes, suggest a certain amount of complacency about that. The duties are not working and need to be updated; we need clarity as to who owns the problem of that lack of media literacy, and we are not getting that. This is our opportunity to address that and to set out clearly what the responsibilities are of the companies and the regulator, and how the two work together so that we address the problem. I urge the Minister to work with those of us concerned about this and come forward with an amendment that he is happy with at Report, so that we can update this duty. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment for now.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“(3A) Content that constitutes a fraudulent advertisement within the meaning of section 33.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Morgan, would extend the current provisions on transparency reporting, user reporting and user complaints to fraudulent advertisements.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 53 to 55, and Amendments 86, 87, 162 to 173, and 175 to 181 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I declare my relevant interests in this group of amendments as a non-executive director of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and Santander UK, and chair of the Association of British Insurers—although, as we have heard, fraud is prevalent across all sectors, so we are all interested in these issues.
This debate follows on well from that on the last group of amendments, as we were just hearing. Fraud is now being discussed so widely in this House and in Parliament that there are three Bills before your Lordships’ House at the moment in which fraud is a very real issue. I am sure that there are others, but there are three major Bills—this one, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, and the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
These amendments seek to fill a noticeable gap in the Bill concerning fraudulent advertisements—a gap that can be easily remedied. The Minister has done a very good job so far with all groups that we have debated, batting away amendments, but I hope that he might just say, “Yes, I see the point of the amendment that you are putting forward, and I shall go away and think about it”. I will see what attitude and response we get at the end of the debate.
I had the great privilege, as I said yesterday when asking a question, of chairing this House’s 2022 inquiry into the Fraud Act 2006 and digital fraud. As we have heard, fraud is currently the fastest growing crime and is being facilitated by online platforms. Coincidentally, just today, UK Finance, the trade body for the UK banking industry, has published its fraud figures for 2022. It has conducted analysis on more than 59,000 authorised push payment fraud cases to show the sources of fraud. Authorised push payment is where the customer—the victim, unfortunately—transfers money to the fraudster and authorises that transfer but has often, or usually, been socially engineered into doing so. UK Finance is now asking where those frauds originate from, and its analysis shows that 78% of APP fraud cases originated online and accounted for 36% of losses, and 18% of fraud cases originated via telecommunications and accounted for 44% of losses.
I will leave to one side the fact that the Bill does not touch on emails and telecoms, and I shall focus today on fraudulent advertisements and fraud. I should say that I welcome the fact the Government changed the legislation from the draft Bill when the Bill was presented to the House of Commons so that fraudulent advertisements and fraud were caught more in the Bill than had originally been anticipated.
As we have heard, victims of fraud suffer not just financially but emotionally and mentally, with bouts of anxiety and depression. They report feeling “embarrassed or depressed” about being scammed. Many lose a significant amount of money in a way that severely impacts their lives and, in the worst cases, people have been known to take their own lives. In case of things such as romance scams or investment scams, people’s trust is severely undermined in any communication that they subsequently receive. I thank all of those victims of fraud who gave evidence to our inquiry and have done so to other inquiries in this House and in the House of Commons.
Fraud is a pretty broad term, as we set out in the report, and we should be clear that this Bill covers fraud facilitated by user-generated content or via search results and fraudulent advertisements on the largest social media and search services. My noble friend the Minister spoke about the meeting held earlier this week between Members of this House and Ministers, and officials produced a helpful briefing note that makes it clear that the Bill covers such fraud. However, as I said, emails, SMS and MMS messages, and internet service providers—web hosting services—are not covered by the Bill. There remains very much a gap that victims, sadly, can fall through.
The point of the amendments in the group, and the reason I hope that the Minister can at least say yes to some of them, is that they are pushing in the direction that the Government want to go too. At the moment, the Bill appears to exclude fraudulent advertisements from several key duties that apply to other priority illegal content, thereby leaving consumers with less protection. In particular, the duties or lack of them around transparency reporting, user reporting and complaints in relation to fraudulent advertisements is concerning. It does not make any sense. That is why I hope that the Minister can explain the drafting. It could be argued that fraudulent advertising is already included in transparency reporting as defined in the Bill, but that is limited to a description of platforms’ actions and does not include obligations to provide information on the incidence of fraudulent advertisements or other key details, as is required for other types of illegal content.
Transparency reporting, as I suspect we will hear from a number of noble Lords, is essential for the regulator to see how prevalent fraudulent advertisements are on a platform’s service and whether that platform is successfully mitigating the advertisements. It remains essential, too, that users can easily report fraudulent content when they come across it and for there to be a procedure that allows users to complain if platforms are failing in their duty to keep users safe.
I should point my noble friend to the Government’s fraud strategy published last week. Paragraph 86 states:
“We want to make it as simple as possible for users to report fraud they see online. This includes scam adverts, false celebrity endorsements and fake user profiles. In discussion with government, many of the largest tech companies have committed to making this process as seamless and consistent as possible. This means, regardless of what social media platform or internet site you are on, you should be able to find the ‘report’ button within a single click, and then able to select ‘report fraud or scams’.”
The Government are saying that they want user reporting to be as simple as possible. These amendments suggest ways in which we can make user reporting as simple as possible as regards fraudulent advertisers.
The amendments address the gap in the Bill’s current drafting by inserting fraudulent advertising alongside other illegal content duties for social media reporting in Clause 16, complaints in Clause 17 and the equivalent clauses for search engines in Clauses 26 and 27. The amendments add fraudulent advertising alongside other illegal content into the description of the transparency reporting requirements in Schedule 8. Without these amendments, the regulator will struggle to understand the extent of the problem of fraudulent advertisements and platforms will probably fail to prevent this harmful content being posted.
This will, I hope, be a short debate, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I also have a pair of amendments in this group. I am patron of a charity called JobsAware, which specialises in dealing with fraudulent job advertisements. It is an excellent example of collaboration between government and industry in dealing with a problem such as this. Going forward, though, they will be much more effective if there is a decent flow of information and if this Bill provides the mechanism for that. I would be very grateful if my noble friend would agree to a meeting, between Committee and Report, to discuss how that might best be achieved within the construct of this Bill.
It is not just the authorities who are able to deter these sort of things from happening. If there is knowledge spread through reputable networks about who is doing these things, it becomes much easier for other people to stop them happening. At the moment, the experience in using the internet must bear some similarity to walking down a Victorian street in London with your purse open. It really is all our responsibility to try to do something about this, since we now live so much of our life online. I very much look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I had the great privilege of serving as a member of this House’s Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee under the excellent chairing of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. She has already told us of the ghastly effects that fraud has on individuals and indeed its adverse effects on businesses. We heard really dramatic statistics, such as when Action Fraud told us that 80% of fraud is cyber enabled.
Many of us here will have been victims of fraud—I have been a victim—or know people who have been victims of fraud. I was therefore very pleased when the Government introduced the fraudulent advertising provisions into the Bill, which will go some way to reducing the prevalence of online fraud. It seems to me that it requires special attention, which is what these amendments should do.
We heard in our inquiry about the problems that category 1 companies had in taking down fraudulent advertisements quickly. Philip Milton, the public policy manager at Meta, told us that it takes between 24 and 48 hours to review possibly harmful content after it has been flagged to the company. He recognised that, due to the deceptive nature of fraudulent advertising, Meta’s systems do not always recognise that advertising is fraudulent and, therefore, take-down rates would be variable. That is one of the most sophisticated tech platforms—if it has difficulties, just imagine the difficulty that other companies have in both recognising and taking down fraudulent advertising.
Again and again, the Bill recognises the difficulties that platforms have in systematising the protections provided in the Bill. Fraud has an ever-changing nature and is massively increasing—particularly so for fraudulent advertising. It is absolutely essential that the highest possible levels of transparency are placed upon the tech companies to report their response to fraudulent advertising. Both Ofcom and users need to be assured that not only do the companies have the most effective reporting systems but, just as importantly, they have the most effective transparency to check how well they are performing.
To do this, the obligations on platforms must go beyond the transparency reporting requirements in the Bill. These amendments would ensure that they include obligations to provide information on incidence of fraud advertising, in line with other types of priority illegal content. These increased obligations are part of checking the effectiveness of the Bill when it comes to being implemented.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, told us on the fifth day of Committee, when taking about the risk-assessment amendments she had tabled:
“They are about ensuring transparency to give all users confidence”.—[Official Report, 9/5/23; col. 1755.]
Across the Bill, noble Lords have repeatedly stated that there needs to be a range of ways to judge how effectively the protections provided are working. I suggest to noble Lords that these amendments are important attempts to help make the Bill more accountable and provide the data to future-proof the harms it is trying to deal with. As we said in the committee report:
“Without sufficient futureproofing, technology will most likely continue to create new opportunities for fraudsters to target victims”.
I ask the Minister to at least look at some of these amendments favourably.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I shall say very briefly in support of these amendments that in 2017, the 5Rights Foundation, of which I am the chair, published the Digital Childhood report, which in a way was the thing that put the organisation on the map. The report looked at the evolving capacity of children through childhood, what technology they were using, what happened to them and what the impact was. We are about to release the report again, in an updated version, and one of the things that is most striking is the introduction of fraud into children’s lives. At the point at which they are evolving into autonomous people, when they want to buy presents for their friends and parents on their own, they are experiencing what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, expressed as embarrassment, loss of trust and a sense of deserting confidence—I think that is probably the phrase. So I just want to put on the record that this is a problem for children also.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, made a very simple proposition. I am very grateful to her for introducing this so clearly and comprehensively. Of course, it is all about the way that platforms will identify illegal, fraudulent advertising and attempt to align it with other user-to-user content in terms of transparency, reporting, user reporting and user complaints. It is a very straightforward proposition.
First of all, however, we should thank the Government for acceding to what the Joint Committee suggested, which was that fraudulent advertising should be brought within the scope of the Bill. But, as ever, we want more. That is what it is all about and it is a very straightforward proposition which I very much hope the Minister will accede to.
We have heard from around the Committee about the growing problem and I will be very interested to read the report that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was talking about, in terms of the introduction of fraud into children’s lives—that is really important. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned some of the statistics from Clean Up the Internet, Action Fraud and so on, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. And, of course, it is now digital. Some 80% of fraud, as he said, is cyber-enabled, and 23% of all reported frauds are initiated on social media—so this is bang in the area of the Bill.
It has been very interesting to see how some of the trade organisations, the ABI and others, have talked about the impact of fraud, including digital fraud. The ABI said:
“Consumers’ confidence is being eroded by the ongoing proliferation of online financial scams, including those predicated on impersonation of financial service providers and facilitated through online advertising. Both the insurance and long-term savings sectors are impacted by financial scams perpetrated via online paid-for advertisements, which can deprive vulnerable consumers of their life savings and leave deep emotional scars”.
So, this is very much a cross-industry concern and very visible to the insurance industry and no doubt to other sectors as well.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on her chairing of the fraud committee and on the way it came to its conclusions and scrutinised the Bill. Paragraphs 559, 560 and 561 all set out where the Bill needs to be aligned to the other content that it covers. As she described, there are two areas where the Bill can be improved. If they are not cured, they will substantially undermine its ability to tackle online fraud effectively.
This has the backing of Which? As the Minister will notice, it is very much a cross-industry and consumer body set of amendments, supporting transparency reporting and making sure that those platforms with more fraudulent advertising make proportionately larger changes to their systems. That is why there is transparency reporting for all illegal harms that platforms are obliged to prevent. There is no reason why advertising should be exempt. On user reporting and complaints, it is currently unclear whether this applies only to illegal user-generated content and unpaid search content or if it also applies to illegal fraudulent advertisements. At the very least, I hope the Minister will clarify that today.
Elsewhere, the Bill requires platforms to allow users to complain if the platform fails to comply with its duties to protect users from illegal content and with regard to the content-reporting process. I very much hope the Minister will accede to including that as well.
Some very simple requests are being made in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will take them on board.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
It is the simple requests that always seem to evade the easy solutions. I will not go back over the very good introductory speech from the noble Baroness, which said it all; the figures are appalling and the range of fraud-inspired criminality is extraordinary. It plays back to a point we have been hammering today: if this Bill is about anything, it is the way the internet amplifies that which would be unpleasant anyway but will now reach epidemic proportions.
I wonder whether that is the clue to the problem the noble Baroness was commenting on—I think more in hope than in having any way to resolve it. It is great news that three Bills are doing all the stuff we want. We have talked a bit about three-legged stools; this is another one that might crash over. If we are not careful, it will slip through the cracks. I am mixing my metaphors again.
If the Minister would not mind a bit of advice, it seems to me that this Bill could do certain things and do them well. It should not hold back and wait for the others to catch up or do things differently. The noble Baroness made the point about the extraordinarily difficult to understand gap, in that what is happening to priority illegal content elsewhere in the Bill does not apply to this, even though it is clearly illegal activity. I understand that there is a logical line that it is not quite the same thing—that the Bill is primarily about certain restricted types of activity on social media and not the generality of fraud—but surely the scale of the problem and our difficulty in cracking down on it, by whatever routes and whatever size of stool we choose, suggest that we should do what we can in this Bill and do it hard, deeply and properly.
Secondly, we have amendments later in Committee on the role of the regulators and the possibility recommended by the Communications and Digital Committee that we should seek statutory backing for regulation in this area. Here is a classic example of more than two regulators working to achieve the same end that will probably bump into each other on the way. There is no doubt that the FCA has primary responsibility in this area, but the reality is that the damage is being done by the amplification effect within the social media companies.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friends for their amendments in this group, and for the useful debate that we have had. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes and the members of her committee who have looked at fraud, and for the work of the Joint Committee which scrutinised the Bill, in earlier form, for its recommendations on strengthening the way it tackles fraud online. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, following those recommendations, the Government have brought in new measures to strengthen the Bill’s provisions to tackle fraudulent activity on in-scope services. I am glad he was somewhat satisfied by that.
All in-scope services will be required to take proactive action to tackle fraud facilitated through user-generated content. In addition, the largest and most popular platforms have a stand-alone duty to prevent fraudulent paid-for advertising appearing on their services. This represents a major step forward in ensuring that internet users are protected from scams, which have serious financial and psychological impacts, as noble Lords noted in our debate. Fully addressing the challenges of paid-for advertising is a wider task than is possible through the Bill alone. Advertising involves a broad range of actors not covered by the current legislative framework, such as advertising intermediaries. I am sympathetic to these concerns and the Government are taking action in this area. Through the online advertising programme, we will deliver a holistic review of the regulatory framework in relation to online advertising. The Government consulted on this work last year and aim to publish a response erelong. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others noted, there are a number of Bills which look at this work. Earlier this week, there was a meeting hosted by my noble friends Lord Camrose, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lady Penn to try to avoid the cracks opening up between the Bills. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan for attending; I hope it was a useful discussion.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friend. The existing duties on user reporting and user complaints have been designed for user-generated content and search content and are not easily applicable to paid-for advertising. The duties on reporting and complaints mechanisms require platforms to take action in relation to individual complaints, but many in-scope services do not have control over the paid-for advertising on their services. These amendments are therefore difficult to operate for many in-scope services and would create a substantial burden for small businesses. I assure her and other noble Lords that the larger services, which have strong levers over paid-for advertising, will have to ensure that they have processes in place to enable users to report fraudulent advertising.
In reference to transparency reporting, let me assure my noble friend and others that Ofcom can already require information about how companies comply with their fraudulent advertising duties through transparency reports. In addition, Ofcom will also have the power to gather any information it requires for the purpose of exercising its online safety functions. These powers are extensive and will allow Ofcom to assess compliance with the fraudulent advertising duties.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, asked about the difficulty of identifying fraudulent advertising. Clauses 170 and 171 give guidance and a duty on Ofcom about providers making a judgment about content, including fraudulent advertising. There will also be a code of practice on fraudulent advertising to provide further guidance on mechanisms to deal with this important issue.
My noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendments 94 and 95 aim to require services to report information relating to fraudulent advertising to UK authorities. I am confident that the Bill’s duties will reduce the prevalence of online fraud, reducing the need for post hoc reporting in this way. If fraud does appear online, there are adequate systems in place for internet users to report this to the police.
People can report a scam to Action Fraud, the national reporting service for fraud and cybercrime. Reports submitted to Action Fraud are considered by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau and can assist a police investigation. Additionally, the Advertising Standards Authority has a reporting service for reporting online scam adverts, and those reports are automatically shared with the National Cyber Security Centre.
The online advertising programme, which I mentioned earlier, builds on the Bill’s fraudulent advertising duty and looks at the wider online advertising system. That programme is considering measures to increase accountability and transparency across the supply chain, including proposals for all parties to enhance record keeping and information sharing.
My noble friend Lord Lucas was keen to meet to speak further. I will pass that request to my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who I think would be the better person to talk to in relation to this on behalf of the Home Office—but I am sure that one of us will be very happy to talk with him.
I look forward to discussing this issue in more detail with my noble friend Lady Morgan and others between now and Report, but I hope that this provides sufficient reassurance on the work that the Government are doing in this Bill and in other ways. I invite my noble friends not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for replying to my amendments and for his offer of a meeting, which I will certainly accept when issued.
The Government are missing some opportunities here. I do not know whether he has tried reporting something to Action Fraud, but if you have not lost money you cannot do it; you need to have been gulled and lost money for any of the government systems to take you seriously. While you can report something to the other ones, they do not tell you what they have done. There is no feedback or mechanism for encouraging and rewarding you for reporting—it is a deficient system.
When it comes to job adverts, by and large they go through job boards. There is a collection of people out there who are not direct internet providers who have leverage, and a flow of data to them can make a huge difference; there may also be other areas. It is that flow of data that enables job scams to be piled down on, and that is what the Bill needs to improve. Although the industry as a whole is willing, there just is not the impetus at the moment to make prevention nearly as good as it should be.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister very much indeed for his response. Although this has been a short debate, it is a good example of us all just trying to get the Bill to work as well as possible—in this case to protect consumers, but there will be other examples as well.
My noble friend said that the larger services in particular are the ones that are going to have to deal with fraudulent advertisements, so I think the issue about the burdens of user reporting do not apply. I remind him of the paragraph I read out from the Fraud Strategy, where the Government themselves say that they want to make the reporting of fraud online as easy as possible. I will read the record of what he said very carefully, but it might be helpful after that to have a further conversation or perhaps for him to write to reassure those outside this Committee who are looking for confirmation about how transparency reporting, user reporting and complaints will actually apply in relation to fraudulent advertisements, so that this can work as well as possible.
On that basis, I will withdraw my amendment for today, but I think we would all be grateful for further discussion and clarification so that this part of the Bill works as well as possible to protect people from any kind of fraudulent advertisement.